Why I support the KJV Bible

[Rhema]

God promised to preserve His word and of course He intended to use humans to do it.

Which humans?

Your premise seems to be based on the absurd notion, "My translation is right while everybody else's is wrong."

And yet... regardless of the Greek sources used, the Koine Dialect of Greek was unknown to Cambridge and Oxford in 1611.

“One man is to be given the credit for the discovery of the Koine – a German pastor named Adolf Deissmann. Even though one or two perceptive scholars had noted the true character of NT Greek as early as the middle of the nineteenth century, their statements made no impression on general opinion. Deissmann, on a visit to a friend in Marburg, found a volume of Greek papyri from Egypt, and leafing through this publication, he was struck by the similarity to the Greek of the NT. He followed up this observation with continued study, and his publications of his findings finally led to general acceptance of the position that the peculiarities of the Greek NT were, for the most part, to be explained by reference to the nonliterary Greek, the popular colloquial language of the period. He first published his results in two volumes of Bible Studies (1895, 1897) and later on in the justly popular Life from the Ancient East (1908).”​

- The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, pg. 486.​

Rhema

Kind of makes you wonder why some Christians fight so fiercely for the KJV if the translators didn’t quite have a handle on the language in which it was written, regardless of the changes in English over the past 400 years.

I would encourage you to buy these books:

The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament

The Parallel New Testament is both a parallel and an in…

www.goodreads.com

The Cambridge Greek Lexicon | Higher Education from Cambridge University Press

Discover The Cambridge Greek Lexicon, 1st Edition, Faculty of Classics, University of Cambridge on Higher Education from Cambridge

www.cambridge.org

You'll then be able to make an informed comment about the issue at hand.

 

[Rhema]

I support the word of God today and have found the KJV to be the most accurate.

Can you read Greek?

If not, then your "findings" are not worth very much, sir.

Rhema

 

[Rhema]

It was not the archaic language of the KJV that was the primary motivation for Westcott to write a new Greek text, but money, desiring to sell his own perverted Greek text based on the corrupted Sinaiticus text, as well as his aversion to the Textus Receptus.

I find that accusation rather fascinating, in that the "Textus Receptus" was composed by a guy named Erasmus and published only as a supportive appendix to his new Latin translation, which he expected to replace the "inferior" Vulgate. One might say the TR was rushed to publication, having many errors, in order for Erasmus to sell his own perverted Latin text.

Indeed the end portion of the book of Revelation in the TR was missing, so Erasmus "back translated" the Latin into his own Greek rendition, and published that. (Did you know this?)

Might I also recommend this book:

The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions

The Bible has been translated more than any other piece…

www.goodreads.com

The Bible has been translated more than any other piece of literature and is currently available in over two thousand languages, with several languages having numerous versions. Outlined here is the development of biblical translation, including a careful analysis of more than fifty versions of the Bible.​

In addition, we have thousands more Greek manuscripts and fragments of the NT today than were available to either Erasmus or the KJV translation team.

I find it odd that you would think God somehow mandated Erasmus (a Roman Catholic) to be the sole "preserver" of the Greek Text when we now have older and much more reliable manuscripts than he had.

Kindly,
Rhema

 

[marke]

As you can see, not even the King James Version which you hold so high completely matches the Greek text.

I honor the Textus Receptus Greek, not later rewrites.

 

[marke]

So in other words, all you have are your personal preferences.

Fine. But you don't have any valid reason for it.

I'd rather have a reason for my beliefs.

Everyone has his own beliefs and makes his own choices. Having personal beliefs does not mean those beliefs are unjustified. I am not alone in my beliefs. This is taken from the Trinitarian Bible Society Constitution:



III. This Society shall circulate the HOLY SCRIPTURES, as comprised in the Canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, WITHOUT NOTE OR COMMENT, to the exclusion of the Apocrypha; the copies in the English language shall be those of the Authorised Version. In promoting and editing new translations, and selecting versions in Foreign languages, the competency of the translators employed, and the faithfulness, textual basis and Christian character of the versions, shall be ascertained by the Committee, before the circulation of such versions is in any way aided by this Society. The aim shall be to produce or select versions whose textual basis is as close as possible to the Hebrew Masoretic and the Greek Received texts underlying both the English Authorised Version and translations of comparable standing made from these texts into other European languages at the time of the Protestant Reformation.

​

 

[marke]

Versions such as the NKJV (which like the KJV, is a "formal equivalence" translation) has notes for when things are added or removed, and indicates when words are added using italics. You know that, right?

The NKJV did not use italics every time it added words to the translation that were not included in the original text. The NKJV did, however, add confusing marginal notes making reference to variant readings in flawed texts, giving the reader the impression that flawed texts and readings are to be considered as authoritative as the readings in the Received Text. That cannot be, however, since we must accept the fact that wordings or readings are either inspired by God or not. God does not offer contradictory versions for readers to choose from.

The marginal notes in the NKJV are not inspired by God. However, the subheadings found in the KJV are also not in the original, but I favor KJV subheadings over NKJV marginal notes. I love, for example, that the subheadings in every chapter in the KJV Book of Song of Solomon have the name of Christ included. The NKJV omits the name of Christ in its version.

 

[marke]

Would the prophet Jeremiah suffice?

How can you say, "We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us," when, in fact, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie?
(Jeremiah 8:8 NRSV)
Oh... right....

How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.​

(Jeremiah 8:8 KJV)
Rhema
(You might wish to check the Hebrew sources.)

Here is the context fond in that verse in Jeremiah 8:


5 Why then is this people of Jerusalem slidden back by a perpetual backsliding? they hold fast deceit, they refuse to return.

6 I hearkened and heard, but they spake not aright: no man repented him of his wickedness, saying, What have I done? every one turned to his course, as the horse rusheth into the battle.

7 Yea, the stork in the heaven knoweth her appointed times; and the turtle and the crane and the swallow observe the time of their coming; but my people know not the judgment of the Lord.

8 How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.

9 The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the Lord; and what wisdom is in them?

God is not excusing their ignorance and rebellion as if His word is flawed. What God is saying is that those rebels may as well have never been given the written word as they so wickedly reject it.

 

[marke]

Can you read Greek?

If not, then your "findings" are not worth very much, sir.

Rhema

I can read commentaries, concordances, and interlinears, but wisdom comes from God, not education, so nobody is benefitted from education if they do not seek and obtain wisdom from God.

 

[marke]

I find that accusation rather fascinating, in that the "Textus Receptus" was composed by a guy named Erasmus and published only as a supportive appendix to his new Latin translation, which he expected to replace the "inferior" Vulgate. One might say the TR was rushed to publication, having many errors, in order for Erasmus to sell his own perverted Latin text.

Indeed the end portion of the book of Revelation in the TR was missing, so Erasmus "back translated" the Latin into his own Greek rendition, and published that. (Did you know this?)

Might I also recommend this book:

The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions

The Bible has been translated more than any other piece…

www.goodreads.com

The Bible has been translated more than any other piece of literature and is currently available in over two thousand languages, with several languages having numerous versions. Outlined here is the development of biblical translation, including a careful analysis of more than fifty versions of the Bible.​

In addition, we have thousands more Greek manuscripts and fragments of the NT today than were available to either Erasmus or the KJV translation team.

I find it odd that you would think God somehow mandated Erasmus (a Roman Catholic) to be the sole "preserver" of the Greek Text when we now have older and much more reliable manuscripts than he had.

Kindly,
Rhema

You draw wrong conclusions from my statements which cause you to rest content with a shallow understanding of the entirety of the facts underlying the KJV translation.

 

[marke]

In addition, we have thousands more Greek manuscripts and fragments of the NT today than were available to either Erasmus or the KJV translation team.

I find it odd that you would think God somehow mandated Erasmus (a Roman Catholic) to be the sole "preserver" of the Greek Text when we now have older and much more reliable manuscripts than he had.

Kindly,
Rhema

Respectable Bible translators never accepted all extant manuscripts as having equal weight, value, or accuracy in any translation of the Bible.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I honor the Textus Receptus Greek, not later rewrites.

So what?

Everyone has his own beliefs and makes his own choices. Having personal beliefs does not mean those beliefs are unjustified. I am not alone in my beliefs. This is taken from the Trinitarian Bible Society Constitution:



III. This Society shall circulate the HOLY SCRIPTURES, as comprised in the Canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, WITHOUT NOTE OR COMMENT, to the exclusion of the Apocrypha; the copies in the English language shall be those of the Authorised Version. In promoting and editing new translations, and selecting versions in Foreign languages, the competency of the translators employed, and the faithfulness, textual basis and Christian character of the versions, shall be ascertained by the Committee, before the circulation of such versions is in any way aided by this Society. The aim shall be to produce or select versions whose textual basis is as close as possible to the Hebrew Masoretic and the Greek Received texts underlying both the English Authorised Version and translations of comparable standing made from these texts into other European languages at the time of the Protestant Reformation.

​

Sounds like a bunch of laws made up by a control frea who can't stand the idea of someone using any Bible that isn't the one they prefer.

The NKJV did not use italics every time it added words to the translation that were not included in the original text.

Care to provide an example of this? Or are you just going to leave it at the level of bald-faced claim.

The NKJV did, however, add confusing marginal notes making reference to variant readings in flawed texts,

Just because they're confusing to you doesn't make them confusing to everyone else.

And you still haven't answered the question: FLAWED HOW?

giving the reader the impression that flawed texts

Flawed how?

and readings are to be considered as authoritative as the readings in the Received Text.

No, marke, it doesn't. not oncne ever have I or anyone else ever read any note that gives the textual variant attention ever thought that the tetual variants are to be considered as authoritative as the version I or they were reading. Not once, ever. If you think that, that's your personal bias against such texts rearing its head.

On the contrary, how many people would eeven know that textual variants even existed were it not for the notes in versions like the NKJV? The study of tetual variants alone is a very time-consuming task, and people who do so don't have much time for anything else.

That cannot be, however, since we must accept the fact that wordings or readings are either inspired by God or not. God does not offer contradictory versions for readers to choose from.

I'd love to see you give an example of Greek texts that contradict each other in some meaningful way.

But you own't, because there aren't any. The only way in which such textual differences exist doesn't affect the overarching plot of the Bible.

The marginal notes in the NKJV are not inspired by God.

No one said they were. So what's your point?

However, the subheadings found in the KJV are also not in the original, but I favor KJV subheadings over NKJV marginal notes. I love, for example, that the subheadings in every chapter in the KJV Book of Song of Solomon have the name of Christ included.

Good for you. No one cares, because it's completely irrelevant to the topic, and just your opinion.

The NKJV omits the name of Christ in its version.

Of the subheadings?

So what? They're not inspired anyways, so who cares?

Again, you're simply spouting your personal preference as if that should convince anyone of your position.

 

[Clete]

I should explain that detailing the evidence on which I am persuaded to believe the manuscripts Westcott and Hort used in their revision of the Greek text were some of the most corrupted manuscripts in history would require hundreds or thousands of facts and months of discussion. Let me just say there are thousands of differences between the Greek text used to translate the KJV and the Greek text used today by most modern versions.

No it wouldn't.

Give me one good example of the sort of corruption you're talking about.

 

[marke]

No it wouldn't.

Give me one good example of the sort of corruption you're talking about.

Westcott's revised Greek text that has influenced so many modern versions does not contain the last 12 verses of Mark's gospel. I consider that mistake to be unacceptable.

For amateur Bible scholars, the NKJV provides notes in Mark 16:9 to help them settle on exactly what God said as opposed to what He might have said:

1. Mark 16:9 Vv. 9–20 are bracketed in NU as not in the original text. They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other mss. of Mark contain them.

 

[marke]

So what?
Sounds like a bunch of laws made up by a control frea who can't stand the idea of someone using any Bible that isn't the one they prefer.

Christians on every point do tend to offer reasons for their choices.

Care to provide an example of this? Or are you just going to leave it at the level of bald-faced claim.

I did read this:

https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.tbsbibles.org/resource/collection/D4DCAF37-AEB6-4CEC-880F-FD229A90560F/What-Todays-Christian-Needs-to-

Know-about-the-NKJV.pdf

Additions Without Italics As mentioned earlier, occasionally a word or words will need to be added to a translation of the Scriptures in order to provide the reader with the clarity necessary to make the passage understandable. This is common in all translations. The translators of the AV, however, also saw the need for showing the reader where such words were added. Thus, they sought to place added words in italic type. The NKJV translators followed this tradition in the main, but on numerous occasions failed to do so without explanation. In addition to those instances in which pronouns were changed to nouns mentioned above are the following examples: ‘at the mouth’ is added in Mark 9.18. ‘aroused’ is added in Romans 7.5. ‘commandments’ is added in Romans 13.9. ‘with indignation’ is added in 2 Corinthians 11.29.

 

[marke]

Just because they're confusing to you doesn't make them confusing to everyone else.

And you still haven't answered the question: FLAWED HOW?
Flawed how?

I'll share the above post with you as well.

Westcott's revised Greek text that has influenced so many modern versions does not contain the last 12 verses of Mark's gospel. I consider that mistake to be unacceptable.

For amateur Bible scholars, the NKJV provides notes in Mark 16:9 to help them settle on exactly what God said as opposed to what He might have said:

1. Mark 16:9 Vv. 9–20 are bracketed in NU as not in the original text. They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other mss. of Mark contain them.

 

[marke]

No, marke, it doesn't. not oncne ever have I or anyone else ever read any note that gives the textual variant attention ever thought that the tetual variants are to be considered as authoritative as the version I or they were reading. Not once, ever. If you think that, that's your personal bias against such texts rearing its head.

On the contrary, how many people would eeven know that textual variants even existed were it not for the notes in versions like the NKJV? The study of tetual variants alone is a very time-consuming task, and people who do so don't have much time for anything else.

In its marginal notes, the NKJV provides multiple examples of manuscript variations. The problem with that is the reader is given no clue as to what God really did say and what God really did not say.

 

[marke]

I'd love to see you give an example of Greek texts that contradict each other in some meaningful way.

But you own't, because there aren't any. The only way in which such textual differences exist doesn't affect the overarching plot of the Bible.

Jesus focused on jots and tittles, claiming not one will fail till all be fulfilled. I do not agree that the Bible is just a book of general ideas God communicates to men in various forms and words that all mean the same thing.

 

[marke]

Good for you. No one cares, because it's completely irrelevant to the topic, and just your opinion.

You suggest nobody but I appreciate the fact that the KJV translators included the name of Christ in every chapter heading in the book of the Song of Solomon, as well as in numerous other chapters in the Bible. Other translations do not do that. If other people like their version and if they claim there are no essential differences between versions then let them choose theirs and I will choose the KJV.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'll share the above post with you as well.

Westcott's revised Greek text that has influenced so many modern versions does not contain the last 12 verses of Mark's gospel. I consider that mistake to be unacceptable.

For amateur Bible scholars, the NKJV provides notes in Mark 16:9 to help them settle on exactly what God said as opposed to what He might have said:

1. Mark 16:9 Vv. 9–20 are bracketed in NU as not in the original text. They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other mss. of Mark contain them.

Wait, are you saying that Mark 16:9-20 should or should not be included in the Bible?

If "should," then what's your problem? Even the NKJV keeps it.

In its marginal notes, the NKJV provides multiple examples of manuscript variations.

Yes, and?

The problem with that is the reader is given no clue as to what God really did say and what God really did not say.

Yeah, he is, marke. It's called "God's word" for a reason, Marke.

Again, we come back to the question (which you still have not answered) of whether such differences in the texts of the have any effect on the overarching story of the Bible.

I assert that no, the differences are so minor as to be inconsequential to the plot of the Bible, even considering Mark 16:9-20 (as Jesus' appearance after His resurrection is recorded by other Gospel authors besides Mark).

Again, I ask you to provide an example of Greek texts that contradict each other in some meaningful way, which you did not do.

Jesus focused on jots and tittles, claiming not one will fail till all be fulfilled.

He was talking about the Law, specifically, not the Bible. His comment has nothing to do with this topic.

I do not agree that the Bible is just a book of general ideas God communicates to men in various forms and words that all mean the same thing.

I never said it was just a book of general ideas.

In fact, I've stated, rather explicitly, that it's NOT just a collection of ideas, but it tells a STORY, it has a PLOT, and that fact makes the Bible not just a collection of books, but a ROBUST library of principles that has, for the most part, withstood the test of time, despite the lack of access to the original texts.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You suggest nobody but I appreciate the fact that the KJV translators included the name of Christ in every chapter heading in the book of the Song of Solomon, as well as in numerous other chapters in the Bible. Other translations do not do that. If other people like their version and if they claim there are no essential differences between versions then let them choose theirs and I will choose the KJV.

A matter of opinion.