King james bible only

[Qnts2]

 

 

The problem continues to be, these translators chose to use the manuscripts that leave out part of the text in the TR.

Did you ever consider that they're not "leaving things out", but are instead refusing to include the known scribal "additions" that are found in the TR?

I brought this up before, but you seem to have ignored it...... so I'll say it better.

If we have 1500 different Greek mss that include 1 John 5:7, dating from the 2nd century to the 17th century, and only 5 of those 1500 mss have the extra words that are in the KJV, what most likely happened?

Do you seriously believe that 1495 scribes who copied 1495 mss throughout the centuries decided to "leave things out" - and that only 5 of those 1500 scribes decided to put "all the words" in their copy?

And what is your answer when you add in the fact that all 5 of the mss which include those extra words come from the 14th century or later?

And what is your answer when you add the fact that we have 4 different mss (10th, 12th, 14th, and 15th century) that contain those extra words, but have them as a marginal note, and not a part of the scriptural text itself?

Are you beginning to see how those words came to be? They were not in the original by John. They were not in ANY ms from the 2nd century all the way up to the 10th century....... where they were first added as a MARGINAL NOTE by a certain scribe. Then, 3 other times, a scribe included those words - also as a MARGINAL NOTE. Then, sometime in the 14th century, the scribe who produced ms known as 629 took that MARGINAL NOTE and added it into the actual text for the first time.

Yet you somehow believe, based solely on the fact that those words are in the KJV, that those words were original, and for some reason, 4 scribes took them from the text and placed them as marginal notes, and 1495 scribes refused to include them at all. But then, in the 14th century, one scribe secretly came up with John's original, and included those words back into the text where they belong.

Do you seriously not see how irrational that thinking is? And for what? Because you have a man-made desire to insist that one particular man-made translation of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures is the only "perfect" one?

 

I asked you specifically about Mark chapter 16.  I didn't ask you about single verses you claim were inserted by scribes.  If you can't answer my question about Mark chapter 16, I really don't feel any need to respond to what you just wrote about other passages.  Even so, just so you will know that I am not ducking questions like you are, no I don't find this irrational.  In the first place, do you expect me to believe you are in possession of 1500 Greek manuscripts that don't include 1 John 5:7, and only 5 that do?  The problem with this comment of yours is I have no way to verify it.  In addition to that, it could occur rather easily.  You could have 5 originals that include it, and then someone made a mistake and left it out and all the rest of the copies came from the one that left it out.  This isn't even a difficult question.  Apparently, my question to you about Mark chapter 16 was a little bit harder. 

 

BTW, I do need to clarify something.  You said I have a man-made desire to believe the KJV is the only perfect translation.  In order for there to be a perfect translation, there can only be one, because if two disagree on anything, one of them ceases to be perfect.  That is why those who defend new translations can't have full faith and trust in any Bible available today. 

 

I know I keep adding to this post, but it is only so I won't keep adding post on top of post.  What is the scripture in question, 1 John 5:7?

 

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:  and these three are one.

 

As I was reading that verse, the Pentecostal in me wanted to shout.  I believe every jot and tittle found in that verse is the inerrant Word of almighty God, and there is no way any devil in hell, in the air space, or on earth will convince me it was added by a scribe. 

 

 

1 John 5:7 was a comment in the margins, and also appeared in non-biblical writings of the period. It is believed to be a saying used in the early church which was someone added as margin comment, and was later included in the text. While true, and a good description of the Trinitarian concept, it is likely not in the original text. Unfortunately, inclusion in modern bibles adds a layer of difficulty in discussing the Trinity with non-trinitarians. A trinitarian will often use it as proof and a knowledgable non-trinitarian will use it to caste doubt on the trinitarian argument, as it was likely a scribal addition. Truthfully, the concept of the trinity is in scripture, so using this questioned passage is not needed to show the Trinity.

 

Mark 16 verses 9 on, are generally agreed upon as not original. Early manuscripts do not contain them, as the writing style is different from the rest of the book of Mark. In the second century, there are manuscripts with nothing past verse 8 and other with just 1 more verse which is different then the current ending. Some scholars say that ending at verse 8 is too abrupt, and it is possible that the actual ending was lost so unknown people (person), added what was a logical ending based on other scripture verses from the book of Acts etc. Early church historical Christians fail to mention verses beyond verse 8. Of course, this is a different issue from a scribal error. If the original ending was lost, and a replacement written, not by Mark as it is not his style, but by someone else, what is written does not have the same grave effect as the scribal addition of 1 John 5:7, and is historically accurate if not part of the original.    

[Persuaded]

 

How can they translate the same passage differently in different places?  If it is in different places, it is not the same passage.  It could be telling a different account of the same thing, but it is not the same passage.  Do you have any specific examples we could consider?

Will try to remember to look up passages another time. Having a bad day so was hoping there might be some people in chat but alas with time difference there is not. The NT quotes scripture from the OT several times especially in the gospels. In many cases there is no real difference in meaning but the words should be identical and they are not. One example where this occours is when Jesus is reading scripture in the temple.

 

This isn't a KJV issue; it's because the people of the NT quote from the LXX and not the Hebrew text. Jesus and the apostles spoke greek and quoted from the greek translation of the OT.

And, there is often insight to be gained by studying those differences!

 

Example:

[Heb 1:6 NKJV] But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: "Let all the angels of God worship Him."

...which is quoting from...

[Psa 97:7 NKJV] Let all be put to shame who serve carved images, Who boast of idols. Worship Him, all [you] gods.

 

Which gives the insight that elohiym *in some contexts* can mean "angels", which has been disputed by some interpreters. (this probably isn't practical knowledge for us, I admit!)

[Guest shiloh357]

@ Shiloh.  Yes, you do have to prove what you say is true. 

 

Why don't you try and actually refute what I say if you claim what I say isn't true?   Judging from how you react when I have provided evidence in the past, you simiply brush off the evidence claiming that they can't prove what they say either.  If those scholars provided their evidence, you would reject it, as well.   There is no amount of evidence I could provide you that you would ever accept as valid.  That is why searching high and low to prove anything to you would be a waste of time.

 

Not only can't you prove that there is a historical record that states the things you claim, but I have cited a book that contradicts it.  Does it prove anything it says?  No, but neither can you prove anything you claim, so I don't think Les Garrett has to.

 

The evidence i have provided prior is more than just simply claims like what Garrett made.   You brushed it aside as nothing.  So the claims are not equally in weight.

 

I would also point out that there have been numerous television documentaries about the origins of the Bible that don't go along with either of us, but cast complete doubt as to whether or not it is the Word of God.  Do they need to prove their claims, since they claim historical records validate them?  Not according to you.

 

Those documentaries  make revisionist claims that are easily debunked.  They don't HAVE anything to prove because their claims are pulled out of thin air and can be easily debunked by anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of Church history.  It's not the same thing.

 

 

 

  History has been revised, so I don't trust any of the claims you made without proof. I am denying what you said with one piece of evidence, a book by Les Garrett, and you are making claims you can't prove.  The burden of proof is on you, regardless how many times you claim otherwise.  I won't accept anything you said without absolute proof.

 

I have learned just from the evidence I have presented, which is completely checkable, that if the evidence isn't to your liking, if it doesn't lead where you want to go, then no amount of evidence would ever be enough.  You summarily brush it aside without even engaging it.

 

Not only that but absolute proof would never be attainable.   What you are doing is setting the bar high enough that no one could ever reach it and pretending that they can't prove anything simply because you set the standard of proof high enough that no one could reach it.  It insulates you from having to engage inconvenient evidence.

[mikeboll64]

I asked you specifically about Mark chapter 16.

 

1 John 5:7 was a comment in the margins, and also appeared in non-biblical writings of the period. It is believed to be a saying used in the early church which was someone added as margin comment, and was later included in the text. While true, and a good description of the Trinitarian concept, it is likely not in the original text. Unfortunately, inclusion in modern bibles adds a layer of difficulty in discussing the Trinity with non-trinitarians. A trinitarian will often use it as proof and a knowledgable non-trinitarian will use it to caste doubt on the trinitarian argument, as it was likely a scribal addition. Truthfully, the concept of the trinity is in scripture, so using this questioned passage is not needed to show the Trinity.

 

Mark 16 verses 9 on, are generally agreed upon as not original. Early manuscripts do not contain them, as the writing style is different from the rest of the book of Mark. In the second century, there are manuscripts with nothing past verse 8 and other with just 1 more verse which is different then the current ending. Some scholars say that ending at verse 8 is too abrupt, and it is possible that the actual ending was lost so unknown people (person), added what was a logical ending based on other scripture verses from the book of Acts etc. Early church historical Christians fail to mention verses beyond verse 8. Of course, this is a different issue from a scribal error. If the original ending was lost, and a replacement written, not by Mark as it is not his style, but by someone else, what is written does not have the same grave effect as the scribal addition of 1 John 5:7, and is historically accurate if not part of the original.

I wasn't aware that Butero ever asked ME any question about Mark 16.... but you have answered it well enough, Qnts2.

You guys can also read footnote #9 here for more info about it: http://classic.net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Mar&chapter=16#n9

A similar thing happened with John 7:53-8:11, and you can read footnote #139 here for info on that one: http://classic.net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Joh&chapter=7#n139

Btw, the event described in John 7:53-8:11 is one of my all time favorites. But as much as I want that event to be in John's original gospel, I have to face the facts of the matter.

[mikeboll64]

I have learned just from the evidence I have presented, which is completely checkable, that if the evidence isn't to your liking, if it doesn't lead where you want to go, then no amount of evidence would ever be enough.  You summarily brush it aside without even engaging it.

 

Not only that but absolute proof would never be attainable.   What you are doing is setting the bar high enough that no one could ever reach it and pretending that they can't prove anything simply because you set the standard of proof high enough that no one could reach it.  It insulates you from having to engage inconvenient evidence.

Well said.

[coheir]

http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/mcelroy-nkjv.html

http://av1611.com/kjbp/

This is the online bible I use, here is what they say.

[OneLight]

After 15 pages, there is no real discussion going on, just back and forth finger pointing and denial of evidence others provide.  In other words, this thread, like the timeless discussion on this subject, is going nowhere.  Time for a rest.

[Omegaman 3.0]

Ya know, I just think I will toss something in here for entertainment value.

 

People argue the pros and cons of this issue in this thread and in others, and it is rare that much is accomplished. People have their beleifs and it seems as though many are not concerned so much with being right or wrong, as long as they do not have to conceed being wrong and change their mind or even soften their positions. Must be a pride things, not a quest for knowledge and understanding - just my thought and observation.

 

However, i am not here to enter the debate, as I said, I have something for amusement.

Some people point out, that the Bible should be in a language you understand, not an archaic version of our modern language. Well, what if you went back to earlier English, not this modern 1611 stuff?

 

Here is a section of Luke 23, from English in about the year 1000:

 

18 a hrymde eall folc æt-gædere cƿæ; Nim isne  forgyf us barrabban 19 se ƿæs for sumere tƿyrædnesse  man-slyhte on cƿer tern asend; 20 Eft spæc pilatus to him  ƿolde for-lætan æne hælend; 21 Ða hrymdon hig  cƿædon ahoð hine ahoð hine; 22 Ða cƿæð he to him iddan siðe. hƿæt dyde es yfeles. ne mette ic nan ing yfeles on issum men he si deaes scyldig. ic hine reage forlæte; 23 And hig astodon mycelre stëfne bædon he ƿære ahangen; hyra stëfna sƿiðredon. 25 he for-gef him æne e ƿæs for man-slyhte  sumere sace on cƿer terne. one hi bædon  æne hælend he sealde to hyra ƿillan; 26 And a hig hine læddon hi gefengon sumne cyreniscne simonem. se com of an tune  a rode him on-setton  he hi bære æfter am hælende. 27 him fylide mycel ƿered folces  ƿifa a hine heofun ƿeopun; 28 a cƿæ se hælend beƿend eala dohtra hierusalem. nelle ge ofer me ƿepan. ac ƿepað ofer eoƿ sylfe. ofer eoƿer bearn. 29 forðam a dagas cumað on am hig cƿeað. eadige synt a untymyndan in-no as e ne cendun a breost e ne sictun. 30 onne agynnað hig cƿeðan to am muntum feallað ofer üs. to beorgum ofer-ƿreoð üs. 31 foram gif hig on grënum treoƿe as ing doð hƿæt doð hig on am drigean; 32 And mid him ƿæron gelædde tƿegen manfulle hig ƿæron ofslegene; 33 And syððan hig comon on a stoƿe e is genemned caluarie  is heafod-pannan stöƿ. ar hig hine hengon  anne sceaan on his sƿiðran healfe  oðerne on his ƿynstran; 34 Ða cƿæð se hælend. fæder. forgyf him foram hig nyton hƿæt hig doð; Soðlice hig dældon hys reaf ƿurpun hlötu. 35 folc stod geanbidiende. a ealdras hine tældon mid him cƿædon; Ore he ge-hælde gehæle hine sylfne gif he sïg godes gecorena; 36 And a cempan hine bymredon  him eced brohton 37  us cƿædon; Gif u si iudea cining ge- do e halne; 38 Ða ƿæs his ofer-geƿrit ofer hine aƿrïten. greciscum stafum  ebreiscum. is is iudea cining; 39 Án of am  sceaum e mid him hangode hine gremede  cƿæ; Gif u crist eart gehæl e sylfne unc; 40 Ða  sƿarude se oer  hine reade cƿæ; Ne u god ne ondrætst  ðu eart on ære ylcan genyðerunge. 41 ƿyt ƿitodlice be uncer ærdæ- dum on-foð; Soðlice es naht yfeles ne dyde 42 he cƿæ to am hælende; Drihten. gemun u me onne u cymst on in rïce; 43 Ða cƿæ se hælend to him; To-dæg u bist mid me on paradiso; 44 a ƿæs nean seo syxte tïd. ystro ƿæron ofer ealle eoran oð a nigoan tïde. 45  sunne ƿæs ays- trod æs temples ƿahryft ƿearð toslyten on middan; 46 Ða cƿæð se hælend clypiende mycelre stëfne; Fæder ic bebeode minne gast on inre handa.  us cƿeende he for-ferde; 47 a se hundred-man geseah ar geƿor-den ƿæs. he god ƿuldrode cƿæð; Solice es man ƿæs riht-ƿis.

 

I hope you found that passage edifying, I just goes to show that we do not need English brought up to date.