ghtan

And your point is...?

Amen to that! NASB is an interesting choice though. Certainly not the most popular modern translation. Why do you like it? Apart from it being more accurate than the KJV, that is.

At no time did I say the canon was still open. It was closed much earlier in the 4th century and not the 16th century, so how you can use that to support the KJV is beyond me. 1 John 5:7 is proof that the KJV is not perfect. No surprise that you do not accept the facts. But my hope is that others who follow this thread will, especially new believers looking to buy their first bibles. I hope they will not be misled by you to think they must use the KJV because the modern translations are corrupted. Instead, if they use one of the modern bibles - I recommend the NIV and NLT - they will grow faster in their faith for the simple reason that they will find those bibles much easier to understand than the KJV.

I think you are scraping the bottom of the barrel. When was the nt canon closed? The person regularly credited with it was Athanasius in the 4th century. He listed the accepted books of the nt but who knows what texts he was using. It certainly was not the TR. He was from Alexandria and more likely than not he was using the Alexandrian texts which you distrust! I already said a 16th century mss was conveniently produced to pressure Erasmus to add the verse. Either you honestly did not read that or you are pretending not to have.

LOL! Are you saying the devil is trying to confuse christians by getting some modern translations to add the words "The Lord is faithful to all his promises and loving toward all he has made"? I think his war strategist must be a double agent. Erasmus introduced 1 John 5:7 into the 3rd edition of his Greek NT in 1522. Subsequent English translations would have used Erasmus' Greek NT as their base text. The Geneva Bible came out in 1560, so it is no surprise that it included this error. Later translations like the KJV followed suit. It is telling that Erasmus did NOT have 1 John 5:7 in his earlier editions. Why not? Because he knew that it did not belong in the original text. But he was pressured to add it into his 3rd edition. I have nothing against using the KJV. As I said previously, I use it some of the time. But for you to claim it is perfect is simply to blind yourself to its shortcomings.

I believe I gave you my opinion on this confusion thing. It applies to the KJV-only people. The vast majority - prob 99% - are not particular about which translation they use; so they are not confused. If Satan's plot is to cause confusion, he is achieving it only with that small minority. Previously you kept claiming that modern translations remove verses from the KJV. Now you say they are adding verses. Which is it? Make up your mind! Which verse has the modern translations added and from which base text? I really suspect you are making all this up because you know your case is indefensible. There is no clearer example of adding verses than the TR/KJV adding 1 John 5:7. You know you have no answer to that charge and so all you could say - and I quote - is that you reject it. But the facts are: (i) the oldest mss do not have that verse; (ii) none of the early church fathers quoted it when defending the Trinity; and perhaps most damning of all is (iii) EVEN THE MAJORITY OF BYZANTINE TEXTS - which you trust - DO NOT HAVE IT. There is no way the KJV can explain away this glaring mistake. Thus the KJV cannot be perfect. 1 John 5:7 is there in the TR/KJV because Erasmus was pressured by the church to add it. He initially refused to do so because the verse was not in any of the mss he was using. But in his folly he agreed to put it in if a mss could be found that actually had it. And the church conveniently found a 16th century (!) mss that had the verse, so Erasmus was forced to include it against his better judgment. And the KJV is perpetuating this error.

I don’t know what differences you are referring to, but it does not surprise me that there might be some. Contrary to what you say, the modern translations do not all start with the same critical text. And even those using the same text might not prefer the same variant readings within the text. Therefore there are bound to be differences. No mystery in it. Conversely, those differences prove there is no devil-inspired conspiracy against the KJV. If there were, the modern translations would be more consistent so as to put up a united front against the KJV. I was surprised you brought up those differences, because I think they dent your case rather than help it. That said, what IS common among the modern translations is that they do NOT start with the TR as their base text and therefore they cannot be accused of REMOVING verses from the TR/KJV. The latter gives the impression of ulterior motive or a hidden agenda when in fact there is none.

They really have no business removing anything from God's Word, not one jot or one tittle. Unless there was already an account of those things in Mark and Luke, I don't expect to find them there. I do expect to find what used to be there still there. Anyway, thanks for your contribution to this debate. I know you weren't here to fight for the right side, but you still confirmed that the verses were removed where I said they were. My other issue with the NIV is that abomination they created called the TNIV that intentionally altered the text to create a gender neutral Bible. Now that we have gotten past that, the next time someone asks if you are saved, you can tell them no but you are being saved. It is false to say that the translators of the modern versions removed those verses from the text. Unlike the KJV translators, the modern ones did not start their work by using the TR as their base text. This was because older, and thus better, manuscripts had been found since the TR was compiled in the 16th century. So they started, as it were, with a clean sheet. Those 'missing' verses just weren't in those older mss and so they did not make it into the modern translations. The implication is that those missing verses were actually not in the originals but were added later by copyists. It is easy to see how later copyists might have added those verses - they were trying to harmonise the texts with the other gospels. It is far harder to explain why any copyist would remove those verses if they were already in the text. Therefore, the modern translations are actually preserving what is closer to the originals.

Rest assured, it never crossed my mind to try to 'convert' you. As you well know, I do not believe there is only one correct translation; so there is nothing for me to try to convert you to. I just wanted to see if you did have any good argument to support your faith in KJV-only.

He did not fail at all. We have had people at WB posting that they don't think this verse belongs or that verse belongs to back up some false doctrine of theirs. I remember one guy thought John 1:1 didn't belong because he didn't believe in the deity of Christ. He believed Jesus was the Son of God but not God, so he simply decided John 1:1 wasn't really scripture. That is the kind of stuff we are getting because of modern translations removing part of the text. Most if not all modern translations have John 1:1. So that guy's problem was not caused by modern translations. Are you trying to blame all heresy on modern translations? That would be clutching at straw. Instead, I daresay many more people read the bible now because of modern translations than if we only have the KJV. Reason is simple: the modern translations make the bible easier to understand and thus more enjoyable to read. Now, the devil certainly wouldn't want people to read their bibles. So if he did trick bible translators to come up with modern translations, he has shot himself in the foot! I think he is smarter than that. I believe others reading this thread know that the reasons you have given so far are unconvincing to say the least. Only you think the credibility of the word is destroyed by modern translations. I use the NIV but I also use the KJV sometimes; I am not confused for I still hold the bible, not any particular translation, as the word of God. And I believe that is true also of others who use modern translations. So if the devil is successful in causing confusion, it must be with people like you.

So now you think the devil got the bible translators to remove those verses so that we would not trust our bibles? If that were his plan, he has failed miserably. I don't think those who like the modern versions distrust their bibles. If they did, they would not be reading them! Face it; you cannot find good reasons for the devil to trick bible translators to remove those verses. So your conspiracy theory has no motive. Which means there is likely no conspiracy.

Even the verse you are holding to doesn't teach that. At the time not every demon was cast out that way. I know you do not have a legitimate answer, I just ask that question to show the pure nonsense that is Kjv onlyism. Nothing wrong with reading the kjv only, but creating division and sectarianism over it without any scriptural backing or real explanation is unacceptable. Butero, you mean the devil deceived the translators of the modern bible versions to conspire against the KJV and remove all those 'missing' verses just so that christians would not think of fasting in order to cast out his demons? Amazing!

Actually you are wrong. The Stuggart manuscripts which are the bulk of the TR do NOT have Mark 15:28...... Is it not amazing how KJV ONly like to distort this and that to edify the KJV to that equal of God himself. Many churches have split. Many lives have been ruined by KJV Only. It is a disease. Don't bother, ccfromsc. He will just shift the goal posts again until only the TR qualifies. Maybe he will eventually say that any mss without Mark 15:28 is not a complete work and therefore disqualified. Of course the absurdity is that if one of the original books of the NT is found, i.e. the autographs, he will still disqualify it because it is not a complete NT. Btw, what version do you like? I use the NIV most of the time for study purposes but I like the NLT for devotional reading especially for the Psalms. Its predecessor, the Living Bible, was my first bible and I grew up enjoying it.

I find it amazing that you would invite others to enter a debate when the only argument you keep presenting about those missing verses is that they are in the KJV and that the latter must be correct. I doubt your invitation would interest anyone; it certainly does not interest me. Btw, I checked the Codex Beza and sure enough it does NOT have Mark 15:28. So your claim - that all mss other than the Alexandrian ones reflect the missing verses - is patently false. You really should not make such bold claims. You may mislead those who are less well informed. As for 1 John 5:7, even the Scofield Reference Bible, which is based on the KJV, admits that the verse is an insertion. Evidently, there are those who like the KJV but with the good sense to know that it is not perfect. Those like me who like other translations do not claim our preferred translations are perfect; so we cannot be accused of worshiping them. Thanks for the conversation anyway.

Responding to what I highlighted above. Don't know how to do multiple quotes. Is it true that all other mss include the missing verses except the Egyptian and Alexandrian ones? I find that hard to believe. Take the case of Mark 15:28. Unless I am reading it wrong, Nestle Aland says it is also missing in the Beza Codex, which is a Western text. If that is correct, then what you claim is plainly wrong. I am not suggesting that ALL those missing verses are due to scribal additions but that SOME of them are likely to be. The onus is on you to prove that NONE of them are, otherwise the KJV is not perfect. Can you do that? The clearest case is that of 1 John 5:7. It is no use you simply rejecting what is likely a scribal addition. You must explain why the early church fathers did not quote it against those who oppose the doctrine of the Trinity when it would have been the best scriptural proof text in favour of it. The obvious implication is that the verse did not exist in the text of 1 John at that time; it was added later. And the KJV continues to propagate that error...

Ha! Ha! If you believe that, you'd believe anything. Wouldn't it be far more simple for the devil to mislead the translator of one bible version that many christians worship? It seems to be working...

Why do nearly all translators start with the Alexandrian and Egyptian mss (highlighted above)? Were all of them too ignorant to know any better? Or is there a conspiracy going on? Logic dictates that they, being experts in their field, start with those mss because they all recognise that those are the better mss. And it stands to reason. Since those mss are older, they are likely to have accumulated fewer copying errors and scribal additions than later mss. I believe I am right in saying that the mss that KJV is based on are more than 500 years later than those Alexandrian and Egyptian mss. Imagine how many more copying errors and scribal additions would have accumulated in those years. And perhaps the clearest of these is 1 John 5:7.

Sounds like a good reason to prefer the shorter reading, doesn't it? And they do use other criteria too. If the church fathers never mentioned 1 John 5:7, doesn't that imply those words were added by a later scribe? Can certainly understand why he would do so. But doesn't that mean the KJV - which includes 1 John 5:7 - reflects a reading that is not original?

I think it too simplistic to say that modern translators believe shorter is better. We should give them more credit than that. Btw, please provide some examples of the early church fathers citing scripture that are now missing in the NIV. I'd be interested. Thanks.

Don't do that. The NIV is a good translation, especially if this is your first bible. Those "missing" verses are usually found in the NIV as footnotes; hence they are not really missing. Why don't you check whether those verses are also missing in the other recognised translations e.g. ESV, NASB, NRSV, NLT, etc.? I think you will find they too have them as footnotes or within brackets, i.e. they agree with the NIV. Then ask yourself whether it is more likely that all those versions are wrong and only KJV right. Logic dictates that it is the converse.

OK, understand what you are saying now though I think he who confirms the covenant more naturally refers back at the ruler of v 26 since the latter does the same sort of destructive things as described later in v 27.

Thanks again. It is always interesting to see how others look at things even though we may not agree. Personally, I think Rev 13 tells us how the AC will gain acceptance and popularity - he will operate in the miraculous. It is simple and it works all the time. People even Christians are easily taken in by signs and wonders, and the devil knows it.

Thanks Esther, but I'm still confused. What is this covenant that already exists?

Hi LD, I don't understand what you are trying to get at. Do you mean you think the covenant is broken at the end, and not the midst, of the seven years? Do you see this as fulfilled in AD70 or is it an end day prophecy? (I read it as MM does but I think it refers to AD70.)

Ah, I take it that means you have no other scriptural support. My conscience feels quite clear then. Thanks.