Why I support the KJV Bible

[marke]

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.

Should Mark 16:9-20 be included in the English Bible? It is included in the KJV so I say yes. The NKJV is unclear on the issue since it includes the verses but then says those verses were not in the original manuscripts of the Bible. So the NKJV leaves the question of the verses' legitimacy unanswered.

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

So, are the last 12 verses of Mark God's word or unauthorized additions to God's word?

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).

I do not think taking away or adding words to God's word is inconsequential.

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

I did read this and I have never seen any scholarly rebuttal of the evidence, leading me to believe the facts are irrefutable.

https://christianitybeliefs.org/end...he,with the ‘ Majority Text’ in 13,000 places.


As copies of manuscripts have been collected over the years, they have formed two groups.
True Path – The ‘Majority Text’ makes up 95% of 5,300+ existing manuscripts that are in agreement and form the basis for the Textus Receptus which is also called the ‘Received Text’ or ‘Byzantine Text’.

The Textus Receptus is the text which the King James translators used.

Corrupt Path – The ‘Minority Text’ consists of only 5% of existing manuscripts. The main texts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, contradict each other over 3,000 times in the gospels alone, and they disagree with the ‘Majority Text’ in 13,000 places.

Amazingly, modern Bible versions like the NIV and ESV are based on these ‘Minority Text’ manuscripts.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Should Mark 16:9-20 be included in the English Bible? It is included in the KJV so I say yes.

This is called "begging the question." It's a logical fallacy for a reason.

The NKJV is unclear on the issue since it includes the verses

No, it's not unclear. In fact, it's far more clear than any other Bible translation, simply because it has that footnote which gives an explanation on why it's included.

but then says those verses were not in the original manuscripts of the Bible.

Wrong.

What it says is that the verses:

"are bracketed in NU..." (the "Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament" and the "United Bible Society's third edition") "... as not in the original text. They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other mss...." (mss = manuscripts) "... of Mark contain them."

Did you miss the part where it says "nearly all other manuscripts of Mark contain them" and "they are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus"?

It's saying that the NU doesn't consider them to be scripture, "because they weren't in the original text." It does NOT say that the verses weren't in the original text.

"Nearly all other mss. of Mark contain them,"...

In other words: The Majority Text.

So the NKJV leaves the question of the verses' legitimacy unanswered.

Yet it includes the verses as if they were supposed to be there... I wonder why...

So, are the last 12 verses of Mark God's word or unauthorized additions to God's word?

Yes, they are scripture. But not because they're in my Bible or yours, but because they were scripture when they were written, and some texts (essentially copies of the originals) contained them.

I do not think taking away or adding words to God's word is inconsequential.

How about if parts of scripture are lost to time or perhaps if the material was damaged that the scripture was written on, causing a loss of information?

I did read this and I have never seen any scholarly rebuttal of the evidence, leading me to believe the facts are irrefutable.

https://christianitybeliefs.org/end...he,with the ‘ Majority Text’ in 13,000 places.


As copies of manuscripts have been collected over the years, they have formed two groups.
True Path – The ‘Majority Text’ makes up 95% of 5,300+ existing manuscripts that are in agreement and form the basis for the Textus Receptus which is also called the ‘Received Text’ or ‘Byzantine Text’.

The Textus Receptus is the text which the King James translators used.

Corrupt Path – The ‘Minority Text’ consists of only 5% of existing manuscripts. The main texts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, contradict each other over 3,000 times in the gospels alone, and they disagree with the ‘Majority Text’ in 13,000 places.

Amazingly, modern Bible versions like the NIV and ESV are based on these ‘Minority Text’ manuscripts.

I don't disagree with what is being said, Marke.

I'm simply trying to get you to provide (which you STILL have not done) an example of Greek texts that contradict each other in some meaningful way.

You keep offering examples that DO NOT contradict each other in a meaningful way, because those examples do not affect the overarching plot of the Bible, only minor details. In other words, THEY DON'T CHANGE THE STORY!

 

[marke]

This is called "begging the question." It's a logical fallacy for a reason.
No, it's not unclear. In fact, it's far more clear than any other Bible translation, simply because it has that footnote which gives an explanation on why it's included.

I don't want footnotes in my Bible explaining why the original manuscripts do not say what my Bible says.

Wrong.

What it says is that the verses:

"are bracketed in NU..." (the "Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament" and the "United Bible Society's third edition") "... as not in the original text. They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other mss...." (mss = manuscripts) "... of Mark contain them."

Did you miss the part where it says "nearly all other manuscripts of Mark contain them" and "they are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus"?

It's saying that the NU doesn't consider them to be scripture, "because they weren't in the original text." It does NOT say that the verses weren't in the original text.

"Nearly all other mss. of Mark contain them,"...

In other words: The Majority Text.

For those who like to sort through conflicting manuscripts in determining what God intended to say, they are welcome to help themselves. I believe the KJV is all I need.

Yet it includes the verses as if they were supposed to be there... I wonder why...

Several NKJV translators also worked on one or more other modern translations and they were no doubt under constraints to satisfy their fellow translators, the mixed mob of Bible readers, and the marketers whose job it was to sell Bibles.

Yes, they are scripture. But not because they're in my Bible or yours, but because they were scripture when they were written, and some texts (essentially copies of the originals) contained them.

I don't believe all the verses Westcott came up with in his new Greek text were in the original autographs.

How about if parts of scripture are lost to time or perhaps if the material was damaged that the scripture was written on, causing a loss of information?

I don't believe God allowed His word to get lost.

I don't disagree with what is being said, Marke.
I'm simply trying to get you to provide (which you STILL have not done) an example of Greek texts that contradict each other in some meaningful way.

You keep offering examples that DO NOT contradict each other in a meaningful way, because those examples do not affect the overarching plot of the Bible, only minor details. In other words, THEY DON'T CHANGE THE STORY!

I don't read Greek but I do read Greek experts who explain convincingly that the Alexandrian texts are so different from the Textus Receptus as to be reasonably taken for different versions of the Bible entirely.

 

[Clete]

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.

What are you talking about?

The King James and the New King James have the exact same number of verses in Mark 16.

As does the ASV, ESV, the RSV and at least the online version of the NIV, as well as every other version I've checked!

Golly! It sure seems like the word's gotten out in spite of Satan doing his best to eliminate a whopping twelve whole verses from the very tail end of one out of the four gospels! Those damn demons just can't keep a secret, I guess.

 

[Rhema]

This is taken from the Trinitarian Bible Society Constitution:



III. ... ; the copies in the English language shall be those of the Authorised Version.

I find this fascinating in that there is no "Authorized Version."

Neither King James, the Anglican Church, nor the translation committees ever used the word "Authorized." Instead, this was placed on the cover at the sole discretion of the printer in order to sell more of his books, than KJV bibles printed by other print shops.

It's a bit of "sleight of hand" that infers the King or the Church (or even God) authorized this translation, when instead it was the print shop who was "authorized" to print and publish that translation.

Edit: As I cannot find my source for this assertion, I retract the statement pending further research. But I stand by my assertion that the use of the word "authorized" IS sleight of hand, in that King Henry VIII did indeed authorize the Great Bible (LINK), but King James did not authorize his version.

Rhema

 

[JudgeRightly]

I don't want footnotes in my Bible explaining why the original manuscripts do not say what my Bible says.

For those who like to sort through conflicting manuscripts in determining what God intended to say, they are welcome to help themselves. I believe the KJV is all I need.

Opinion.

Several NKJV translators also worked on one or more other modern translations and they were no doubt under constraints to satisfy their fellow translators, the mixed mob of Bible readers, and the marketers whose job it was to sell Bibles.

If you think the same doesn't apply to the KJV, you're naive.

I don't believe all the verses Westcott came up with in his new Greek text were in the original autographs.

So what?

I don't believe God allowed His word to get lost.

Why Don’t We Possess Any of the Original Manuscripts of the Books of the Bible? by Don Stewart

Don Stewart :: Why Don’t We Possess Any of the Original Manuscripts of the Books of the Bible?

www.blueletterbible.org

I don't read Greek

As if that wasn't obvious...

but I do read Greek experts who explain convincingly that the Alexandrian texts are so different from the Textus Receptus as to be reasonably taken for different versions of the Bible entirely.

And I have "experts" who explain convincingly that the Bible is consistent enough to show that it has not been tampered with in any significant way.

Has the Bible been corrupted, altered, edited, revised, or tampered with? | GotQuestions.org

Has the Bible been corrupted, altered, edited, revised, or tampered with? Can we trust the reliability of the Bibles we have today?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[Rhema]

the faithfulness, textual basis and Christian character of the versions

So their versions are selected based on the bias of the organization's interpretation and belief system.

(That seems about right....)

Rhema

 

[marke]

What are you talking about?

The King James and the New King James have the exact same number of verses in Mark 16.

As does the ASV, ESV, the RSV and at least the online version of the NIV, as well as every other version I've checked!

Golly! It sure seems like the word's gotten out in spite of Satan doing his best to eliminate a whopping twelve whole verses from the very tail end of one out of the four gospels! Those damn demons just can't keep a secret, I guess.

The last 12 verses of Mark that you claimed Satan tried to eliminate were said in the NKJV margin to not have been in the original manuscripts.

 

[Rhema]

marginal notes making reference to variant readings in flawed texts

How do you know they're "flawed"?

It just seems to be an apriori decision of yours that the text you accept isn't flawed, hence the other ones must be. Given the factual history of the TR, by mere comparison the TR is known to be flawed.

God does not offer contradictory versions for readers to choose from.

Then why do contradictory versions exist? (Yes, I know... Satan, Satan, Satan...) But how do you know that Satan didn't create the TR? And why couldn't your all powerful God prevent Satan from making anything flawed? And why are there multiple editions of the TR? Couldn't God have guided the hand of Erasmus to get it right the first time?

Given that the Protestant Rite "received" their text from a Catholic.... shouldn't this give you pause? As a matter of fact the entire canon of the New Testament used by the Protestant Rite was received from the Catholic Rite. Remember, Luther always considered himself to be Catholic... a true and pure Catholic. He never tried to replace the Catholic church, but rather intended to REFORM it. (And remember, there are other Christian canons....)

I also find it fascinatingly curious that Protestants don't realize that King James was Catholic. He was Catholic in doctrine, as was the Church of England, aka the Anglican Church (also known here in America as the Episcopalian Church); obviously not "Catholic" in terms of governance.

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

Then neither were the marginal notes that were inserted into the actual text of the KJV. (You can't have it both ways.)

Rhema

Have you taken the time to compare the Masoretic texts with the Dead Sea Scrolls? They are different.

 

[Rhema]

God is not excusing their ignorance and rebellion as if His word is flawed.

I would encourage you to read the text again. God's Word is never flawed, but scribes (copyists) and translators deal duplicitously with the original texts. How can you deny such a fact? Or do you think that God will excuse your own ignorance?

The Perspicuity card trumps the Context card, btw. I find when people shout "CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT" what really happens is that they warp the text into their own special interpretation.

Rhema

 

[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.

So it is not wise to seek education?

Fascinating.

Compare the interlinear here, with the KJV, contained in the same book.

The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament

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

www.goodreads.com

But you won't. Your mind is made up.

Rhema

 

[marke]

What are you talking about?

The King James and the New King James have the exact same number of verses in Mark 16.

As does the ASV, ESV, the RSV and at least the online version of the NIV, as well as every other version I've checked!

Golly! It sure seems like the word's gotten out in spite of Satan doing his best to eliminate a whopping twelve whole verses from the very tail end of one out of the four gospels! Those damn demons just can't keep a secret, I guess.

But the book of Acts chapter 8 in the NIV does not have the same number of verses as does the KJV. I don't want a Bible version that simply takes verses out of the Bible whenever they feel like it.

 

[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.

Do tell...

What "entirety" of the facts might I be missing?

(And what conclusions might be wrong?)

I await your correction.

Rhema

 

[marke]

I find this fascinating in that there is no "Authorized Version."

Neither King James, the Anglican Church, nor the translation committees ever used the word "Authorized." Instead, this was placed on the cover at the sole discretion of the printer in order to sell more of his books, than KJV bibles printed by other print shops.

It's a bit of "sleight of hand" that infers the King or the Church (or even God) authorized this translation, when instead it was the print shop who was "authorized" to print and publish that translation.

Rhema

I don't know how you came into possession of those opinions, but I do find this explanation informative and persuasive:

WHY IS THE KING JAMES VERSION CALLED THE "AUTHORIZED VERSION" - SafeGuardYourSoul

WHY IS THE KING JAMES VERSION CALLED THE “AUTHORIZED VERSION”

Excerpt from “Answers To Your Bible Version Questions”

© 2001 by David W. Daniels

Question: Why is the King James Bible called the “Authorized Version”? How did King James Authorize it?

Answer: Despite stories to the contrary, King James, in no uncertain terms, clearly authorized the translation of the Bible that now bears his name.

[NOTE: THIS IS A DRASTICALLY SHORTENED ACCOUNT OF THE BIRTH OF GOD’S PRESERVED WORDS IN ENGLISH. LONGER ACCOUNTS ARE AVAILABLE, AS IN FINAL AUTHORITY: A CHRISTIAN’S GUIDE TO THE KING JAMES BIBLE, BY WILLIAM P. GRADY.]​

Sanctioning the Authorized Version


When Elizabeth died on April 1, 1603, she had seen 130 editions of the New Testament and the Bible published during her 45 years as Queen of England. James VI of Scotland, son of Mary, “Queen of Scots,” became James I of England.

Four days later, on his way to London, a delegation of Puritan ministers met James, asking him to hear their grievances against the Church of England. James consented, and on January of 1604, four Puritans came to express their troubles at Hampton Court, in front of King James and over 50 Anglican (Church of England) officials. One by one each request was rejected, until the Puritan group’s leader, John Rainolds said these famous words:

“MAY YOUR MAJESTY BE PLEASED TO DIRECT THAT THE BIBLE BE NOW TRANSLATED, [SINCE] SUCH VERSIONS AS ARE EXTANT [ARE] NOT ANSWERING TO THE ORIGINAL.”​

At first, Bishop Bancroft of London was dead-set against it, saying, “If every man’s humor might be followed, there would be no end to translating.” But the King made it clear he liked the idea. Not too long later Bancroft wrote this to a friend:

I MOVE YOU IN HIS MAJESTY’S NAME THAT, … NO TIME MAY BE OVERSTEPPED BY YOU FOR THE BETTER FURTHERANCE OF THIS HOLY WORK…. YOU WILL SCARCELY CONCEIVE HOW EARNEST HIS MAJESTY IS TO HAVE THIS WORK BEGUN!​

When this Bible was translated, the title page was printed basically as you find it today in Cambridge Bibles:

THE
HOLY BIBLE
CONTAINING THE
OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS
TRANSLATED OUT OF THE ORIGINAL TONGUES:
AND WITH THE FORMER TRANSLATIONS
DILIGENTLY COMPARED AND REVISED
BY HIS MAJESTY’S SPECIAL COMMAND​

APPOINTED TO BE READ IN CHURCHES

The King James Bible was “Authorized” to be translated as God’s Word for the English-speaking people of the world. God bless you as you study His authorized and preserved words in English, the King James Bible.

 

[Rhema]

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

Respectable Bible translators consider the TR to be flawed.

So how many respectable Bible translators do you personally know? Or are your posts all hot air and unsubstantiated opinion?

Someone who has received wisdom from God would not reject historical and linguistic facts.

But I understand. You have entwined your faith with the KJV, and so must reject any and all facts that would cast doubt on this Catholic translation. It would seem, then, that your faith is not in God, but rather with a specific translation. And that's a recipe for disaster.

Rhema

 

[marke]

Why Don’t We Possess Any of the Original Manuscripts of the Books of the Bible? by Don Stewart

Don Stewart :: Why Don’t We Possess Any of the Original Manuscripts of the Books of the Bible?

www.blueletterbible.org

The originals are no longer with us. That means the opponents of the KJV cannot prove the Alexandrian texts are superior to the Textus Receptus.

 

[marke]

Has the Bible been corrupted, altered, edited, revised, or tampered with? | GotQuestions.org

Has the Bible been corrupted, altered, edited, revised, or tampered with? Can we trust the reliability of the Bibles we have today?

www.gotquestions.org

I take that as a glowing commendation of the KJV in that the translated word of God has not been corrupted since the original autographs were written.

 

[marke]

So the versions are selected based on the bias of the organization's interpretation and belief system.

(That seems about right....)

Rhema

I do think the personal biases and individual theological beliefs of Bible translators have contributed to the corruption of tainted translations. For example, ancient Christians were divided over the issue of infant baptism. Does it matter to God whether babies are baptized as infants without first expressing faith in Jesus? Yes. When the Ethiopian eunuch expressed a desire to be baptized, Philip told him he could if he believed in Jesus.

Acts 8:37
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

There are good reasons for believing Westcott and hundreds of other modern translators had Roman Catholic leanings and the Roman Catholic Church practices infant baptism. I believe that the reason the NIV translators brazenly omitted verse 37 in Acts 8 is that the translators did not want their translation to undermine infant baptism.

 

[marke]

So it is not wise to seek education?

Fascinating.

Compare the interlinear here, with the KJV, contained in the same book.

The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament

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

www.goodreads.com

But you won't. Your mind is made up.

Rhema

Who would you recommend to teach students the Greek language, someone who shares KJVO beliefs or someone who believes the Bible is full of errors?

 

[marke]

Respectable Bible translators consider the TR to be flawed.

You follow your translators and I will follow mine.

So how many respectable Bible translators do you personally know? Or are your posts all hot air and unsubstantiated opinion?

John Burgon wrote his book The Revision Revised in 1883, critiquing Westcott's 1881 Revised Version. Westcott and his horde of Bible translation critics despised Burgon for his opposition, but not one supporter of the 1881 Revised Version ever proved Burgon wrong, and that includes up and to today.