Why The KJV Bible Is One Of The Best Bible Translation

[warrior12]

All videos should be in the appropriate section on the forum.  so therefore i  am removing it. 

[Ezra]

10 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

By that logic, if 2000 years from now, future textual critics, found 5000 copies of the Message Bible, andt 30 copies of the KJV, you would side with the Message Bible as the one you would trust.

Purely hypothetical, therefore not applicable. Take the example of witnesses in a court of law instead. Say 95 witnesses testify that X was present at the crime scene with a smoking gun and 5 witnesses say it was Y. Whose testimony is valid?

All these manuscripts are from different regions and from different times, and yet they all represent one Traditional Text (minor inconsequential variations do occur).

Along come a handful of imposters, known to have been influenced by heretics, and challenge the readings of the majority.  Normally no one in their right mind would give them a glance. But there was a conspiracy to reject the true text and replace it with the corrupted text. And so we have the great Bible version deception.

[Omegaman 3.0]

1 hour ago, Ezra said:

Purely hypothetical, therefore not applicable. Take the example of witnesses in a court of law instead. Say 95 witnesses testify that X was present at the crime scene with a smoking gun and 5 witnesses say it was Y. Whose testimony is valid?

All these manuscripts are from different regions and from different times, and yet they all represent one Traditional Text (minor inconsequential variations do occur).

Along come a handful of imposters, known to have been influenced by heretics, and challenge the readings of the majority.  Normally no one in their right mind would give them a glance. But there was a conspiracy to reject the true text and replace it with the corrupted text. And so we have the great Bible version deception.

All things being equal in the 95 to one witness scenario, the preponderance of evidence should go with the 95%. Of course, the preponderance of evidence is a standard in civil law, not criminal law like your illustration, where beyond reasonable doubt is the standard. We certainly do not have a reasonable doubt standard met here, for either side. 

Like I said though (back to the 95/5 example, that would be the way to go, if all things are equal, In this case, not all things are equal.  When examining witnesses, some may not be as credible. Some witnesses lack character, or are known to be truth challenged, etc, so as an evidence, it is weighed by other factors, not just pure volume of testimony.

For example, suppose a witness says: "I saw the man do it with my own eyes." That sounds pretty damning, However, it is discovered that the witness was no where near the scene, at the time that the events were known to have taken place. You have 95 witnesses like that, you do not get good evidence, you get a lot of questionable evidence.

The problem with the Byzantine text type types, is that the differences they tend to exhibit over the Alexandrian test types, are at odds with the older manuscript fragments that we have. You want to apply an inappropriate test, this is not a court of law, this is a matter of historical accuracy. In documents of antiquity, the credibility generally goes to the oldest records not the most numerous, which makes a lot of sense. Time corrupts things. In the case of manuscripts, we are dealing with copies, of copies of copies of copies, each generation is an opportunity  for error. As time goes on, the errors are copied, and they become more numerous. So it could well be with the Byzantine text. Whether you agree with the premise that more recent manuscripts are more likely to be less accurate that older manuscripts or not, surely if one wants to be honest and rational, one would realize that copying errors prolifically, just leads to an abundance of errors. As I said, lots of weak evidence in not the same a good evidence.

Now, I think it needs to be pointed out that no real doctrine is lost in either text type, both point the way to salvation etc., unless you consider that being able to drink poison and handle serpents etc, if you are a believer, as an important doctrine.  I find  it suspect myself. I did before I even new about the textual differences.

Just to get that passage on record, since perhaps not everyone reading this will know what I am talking about from Mark 15, King James Version:

 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

I know you are aware of this Ezra, that most evangelical scholars (and not only them) believe that the Gospel of Mark, was the basis of of the gospels of Luke and Matthew. If their conclusions are correct, it is odd that this account is missing in Matthew and Luke. I am not sure of the basis for it, but many scholars believe that passage was added in at a later time, by some copyist in the second century, but not part of Mark's original writing.

Seems to me, that believers of this KJV ending of Mark, are either obligated to think that Christians (those who believe) will be evidenced by tongue speaking, immunity to any harmful substance that they drink, and snakebite, and they will be healers and exorcists. I do not see any qualification there that suggests this is only for some believers, or in some specific era, if  it is not applicable to those who believe, then they need to play some exegetical gymnastics to avoid that. Maybe these are things KJV onlyists believe,I do not know, probably at least some do, those who are consistent and most truthful with the text.

Similarly, KJV onlyers should also have to confront that it is those who are believers AND are baptized, who are saved. That means of course, that it isn't just by grace through faith, but requires a work, that of baptism. Again, that is just being consistent, just not consistent with the rest of scripture.

All of those issues aside, I find it odd, that some people seem to think that the KJV is the only English Bible, which is true. I have to confess, I do not know why that is the case. Why is the KJV superior to earlier English Bibles? Is it that some English King did not like the fact that other the users of other Bible did not like the like the idea of the King of England claimed to be the head of the church? I  have spoken to some KJVers who think the "Authorized Version" was authorized by God, not that is was authorized by a mere human king for use in the church of England (darn those pesky protestants). 

I also find it extremely interesting, that some want to claim inspiration of the KJV, does that mean the God inspired the errors it contains as well? Inquiring minds, what to know. It is also a mystery, that KJVonlyists would even want to consider a Bible, written by men, who were clearly not KJVonlyists themselves. Funny, isn't it?

What I perceive to be the case, is that most who are okay using other versions, have no problem with the fact that others prefer the KJV. I know that I do not. What I do object to, is the superior attitude, that KJVonlyists too often seem to ooze, toward anyone who disagrees with them. I do not think that sort of elitism is appropriate, and it can certainly be ugly and divisive, and it is not necessary.  That exclusivity, is very cult-like, but I guess others feel differently.

Go ahead and have the last word if you like. Certainly you will want to respond, and that is understandable. I do not expect to return to this thread, unless it causes problems, so far it looks pretty civil to me, though I do think it is a bit redundant with other similar threads. Since I do not desire to return, if you respond to this, I ask that you  consider doing so, it a way that is defending of your position, and not something that would seem to expect me to respond. Make your points from a positive perspective, sell your case, more that just trying to undo mine, since I do not want to have to respond. As long as you are accurate and truthful, I should not need to return.

May the Holy Spirit help those who read this thread discern what is true, and may He also, lead you to represent that well,

 

[heyvavhey]

Have any of you tried the Tree of Life Bible?

 

 

 

[Fran C]

1 hour ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

All things being equal in the 95 to one witness scenario, the preponderance of evidence should go with the 95%. Of course, the preponderance of evidence is a standard in civil law, not criminal law like your illustration, where beyond reasonable doubt is the standard. We certainly do not have a reasonable doubt standard met here, for either side. 

Like I said though (back to the 95/5 example, that would be the way to go, if all things are equal, In this case, not all things are equal.  When examining witnesses, some may not be as credible. Some witnesses lack character, or are known to be truth challenged, etc, so as an evidence, it is weighed by other factors, not just pure volume of testimony.

For example, suppose a witness says: "I saw the man do it with my own eyes." That sounds pretty damning, However, it is discovered that the witness was no where near the scene, at the time that the events were known to have taken place. You have 95 witnesses like that, you do not get good evidence, you get a lot of questionable evidence.

The problem with the Byzantine text type types, is that the differences they tend to exhibit over the Alexandrian test types, are at odds with the older manuscript fragments that we have. You want to apply an inappropriate test, this is not a court of law, this is a matter of historical accuracy. In documents of antiquity, the credibility generally goes to the oldest records not the most numerous, which makes a lot of sense. Time corrupts things. In the case of manuscripts, we are dealing with copies, of copies of copies of copies, each generation is an opportunity  for error. As time goes on, the errors are copied, and they become more numerous. So it could well be with the Byzantine text. Whether you agree with the premise that more recent manuscripts are more likely to be less accurate that older manuscripts or not, surely if one wants to be honest and rational, one would realize that copying errors prolifically, just leads to an abundance of errors. As I said, lots of weak evidence in not the same a good evidence.

Now, I think it needs to be pointed out that no real doctrine is lost in either text type, both point the way to salvation etc., unless you consider that being able to drink poison and handle serpents etc, if you are a believer, as an important doctrine.  I find  it suspect myself. I did before I even new about the textual differences.

Just to get that passage on record, since perhaps not everyone reading this will know what I am talking about from Mark 15, King James Version:

 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

I know you are aware of this Ezra, that most evangelical scholars (and not only them) believe that the Gospel of Mark, was the basis of of the gospels of Luke and Matthew. If their conclusions are correct, it is odd that this account is missing in Matthew and Luke. I am not sure of the basis for it, but many scholars believe that passage was added in at a later time, by some copyist in the second century, but not part of Mark's original writing.

Seems to me, that believers of this KJV ending of Mark, are either obligated to think that Christians (those who believe) will be evidenced by tongue speaking, immunity to any harmful substance that they drink, and snakebite, and they will be healers and exorcists. I do not see any qualification there that suggests this is only for some believers, or in some specific era, if  it is not applicable to those who believe, then they need to play some exegetical gymnastics to avoid that. Maybe these are things KJV onlyists believe,I do not know, probably at least some do, those who are consistent and most truthful with the text.

Similarly, KJV onlyers should also have to confront that it is those who are believers AND are baptized, who are saved. That means of course, that it isn't just by grace through faith, but requires a work, that of baptism. Again, that is just being consistent, just not consistent with the rest of scripture.

All of those issues aside, I find it odd, that some people seem to think that the KJV is the only English Bible, which is true. I have to confess, I do not know why that is the case. Why is the KJV superior to earlier English Bibles? Is it that some English King did not like the fact that other the users of other Bible did not like the like the idea of the King of England claimed to be the head of the church? I  have spoken to some KJVers who think the "Authorized Version" was authorized by God, not that is was authorized by a mere human king for use in the church of England (darn those pesky protestants). 

I also find it extremely interesting, that some want to claim inspiration of the KJV, does that mean the God inspired the errors it contains as well? Inquiring minds, what to know. It is also a mystery, that KJVonlyists would even want to consider a Bible, written by men, who were clearly not KJVonlyists themselves. Funny, isn't it?

What I perceive to be the case, is that most who are okay using other versions, have no problem with the fact that others prefer the KJV. I know that I do not. What I do object to, is the superior attitude, that KJVonlyists too often seem to ooze, toward anyone who disagrees with them. I do not think that sort of elitism is appropriate, and it can certainly be ugly and divisive, and it is not necessary.  That exclusivity, is very cult-like, but I guess others feel differently.

Go ahead and have the last word if you like. Certainly you will want to respond, and that is understandable. I do not expect to return to this thread, unless it causes problems, so far it looks pretty civil to me, though I do think it is a bit redundant with other similar threads. Since I do not desire to return, if you respond to this, I ask that you  consider doing so, it a way that is defending of your position, and not something that would seem to expect me to respond. Make your points from a positive perspective, sell your case, more that just trying to undo mine, since I do not want to have to respond. As long as you are accurate and truthful, I should not need to return.

May the Holy Spirit help those who read this thread discern what is true, and may He also, lead you to represent that well,

 

Hi Omegaman,

Regarding Mathew and Mark, it seems there's some debate as to who wrote the first Gospel, Mathew or Mark.  This doesn't interest me very much however.

 

What does interest me is additions to the bible.  For instance, I learned years ago that one of my favorite scriptures MAY HAVE been added on at a later date and not written by John.  Could you comment on this if you're familiar with it?

John 21:18

It Always represented to me how Jesus was omniscient by this time (after the resurrection He knew EVERYTHING as God, whereas before it was limited)  and spoke to how Peter would die.  I was disappointed to learn this - if it's even true.

 

Thanks.

Fran

Edited January 14, 2017 by Fran C
additional comment

[Guest BacKaran]

Thank you for the chart, that really is nice to have on hand.

I received The Message years ago when I was just learning there were Bible bookstores and more than one Bible! 

I thought the message was thee worst book I ever tried to read.

I finally thru it out after getting a couple of Study Bibles, the Nkjv, the holman Christian and the ESV.

 

[Fran C]

2 minutes ago, Yowm said:

Sounds bogus to me. Bruce Metzger never mentions the verse in his Commentary on the Greek New Testament and Robertson never brings up any such possibility of an addition. Do you  remember what source you  heard  that from?

I don't remember - it was over 20 years ago, for sure.

I never looked into it because it doesn't change how I feel about Jesus or the bible.  But maybe one of these days I WILL look into it,.  You've read a lot it seems like - if these knowledgeable Writers didn't mention it, maybe it's not true and it is in the original text.

IF you do find out for sure, do you think you could remember to let me know???

 

Fran

[Fran C]

46 minutes ago, BacKaran said:

Thank you for the chart, that really is nice to have on hand.

I received The Message years ago when I was just learning there were Bible bookstores and more than one Bible! 

I thought the message was thee worst book I ever tried to read.

I finally thru it out after getting a couple of Study Bibles, the Nkjv, the holman Christian and the ESV.

 

Hi

The only reason I'm responding to your post is for those reading along, not for you.

 

I think The Message is one of the best bibles out there.  NOT for study, but for Learning the Word of God.  A lot of people will not read the bible because many versus are difficult to understand, both in the O.T. and the N.T.

 

Originally, bibles were not divided as they are today by chapter and verse.  This was done to facilitate finding specific verses.  The Message could be purchased with chapter and verse, or with only chapter.  I prefer it with the verse.

 

I still refer to it many times when something is unclear to me.   I don't like commentaries - I like to read a few different bibles and come to an understanding and maybe THEN read a commentary.  I feel that we have to understand each concept on our own and not borrow from a commentator.  (I am NOT a solo, SOLO, scriptura person).

 

I would not have thrown it out.  You do outgrow it and it is not good for study.  I like the NASB for that, and the YLT.

It probably benefited you to have read that first before going on to other versions.

 

I recommend it highly for Young people.  It speaks their Language and is true to the orginal meanings.

 

My two cents.

Fran

[Guest shiloh357]

8 minutes ago, Fran C said:

Hi

The only reason I'm responding to your post is for those reading along, not for you.

 

I think The Message is one of the best bibles out there.  NOT for study, but for Learning the Word of God.  A lot of people will not read the bible because many versus are difficult to understand, both in the O.T. and the N.T.

 

Originally, bibles were not divided as they are today by chapter and verse.  This was done to facilitate finding specific verses.  The Message could be purchased with chapter and verse, or with only chapter.  I prefer it with the verse.

 

I still refer to it many times when something is unclear to me.   I don't like commentaries - I like to read a few different bibles and come to an understanding and maybe THEN read a commentary.  I feel that we have to understand each concept on our own and not borrow from a commentator.  (I am NOT a solo, SOLO, scriptura person).

 

I would not have thrown it out.  You do outgrow it and it is not good for study.  I like the NASB for that, and the YLT.

It probably benefited you to have read that first before going on to other versions.

 

I recommend it highly for Young people.  It speaks their Language and is true to the orginal meanings.

 

My two cents.

Fran

The Message is NOT a Bible.  The Message is a paraphrase and not a very good one.   There is nothing about any formal translation that a young person cannot grasp and understand.   I know 10 year-olds who quote from the KJV and can tell you what the verse means, so I don't think we need to dumb things down for young people.

[Ezra]

6 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

I know you are aware of this Ezra, that most evangelical scholars (and not only them) believe that the Gospel of Mark, was the basis of of the gospels of Luke and Matthew. If their conclusions are correct, it is odd that this account is missing in Matthew and Luke. I am not sure of the basis for it, but many scholars believe that passage was added in at a later time, by some copyist in the second century, but not part of Mark's original writing.

Omegaman,

Perhaps before you go any further, you should get a hold of The Last Twelve Verses of Mark by Dean John William Burgon (1871). He has written a 334 page book on this subject which THOROUGHLY DEMOLISHES any objection to those verses being Scripture.  So it is totally incorrect to claim that Mark 16:9-20 is not the Word of God.

Strangely enough, these so-called scholars have cast doubt on this passage, but feared to expunge it entirely from the Bible. As we all know, there is a very serious warning for those who add to or take away from the Word of God.