KJV-onlyism?

[farouk]

So, the person preaching at church today mentioned Mark 16, how it originally ended at verse 8. He was not discounting verses 9-20 or claiming them to be innaccurate, merely stating that they were added later. Sounded like he was saying they were passed on through oral tradition, I believe?
This guy attends Bible seminary, so I tend to think he knows what he's talking about. Plus he has good sermons.

Still, I had never heard of this before, so I decided to look it up when I got home and read more on it.
So, the first few pages I find read to me like KJVonlyists who are pointing fingers and going, "See, proof the modern translations are trying to take away from the gospel!" (One claimed that it took away the resurrection, but no--it doesn't. It just doesn't. Read verses one through eight. It has the angel appearing to the women saying Jesus was risen. Just how is that omitting the resurrection? Granted, it does omit some parts where the disciples and others actually saw Jesus after His resurrection.. But the verses are still included in the modern translations today, so obviously the translators aren't discounting the validity of them. They're merely being honest by making a note that the earlier manuscripts do not have those verses. From what I've read, the history behind which manuscripts are most accurate are not so cut and dry as some make them out to be, even to Bible scholars.)
Which kind of annoys me, TBH. I'm gonna do some more research, so hopefully I can find some sources that actually try to be helpful. But anyway.

Thoughts on this?

[MENTION=89910]questdriven[/MENTION]:

There is also good manuscript evidence for the longer KJV reading at Mark 16. (I think Scofield has a useful note, too.)

What happens is that some people decide that some sets of manuscripts only are trustworthy, and never mind about the rest, and then if the manuscripts that they want to believe are exclusively best omit them, they will say: Oh, but the manuscripts I prefer omit it.

KJV, NKJV & KJ21 include the whole of Mark 16.

Blessings.

 

[evenifigoalone]

So, the person preaching at church today mentioned Mark 16, how it originally ended at verse 8. He was not discounting verses 9-20 or claiming them to be innaccurate, merely stating that they were added later. Sounded like he was saying they were passed on through oral tradition, I believe?
This guy attends Bible seminary, so I tend to think he knows what he's talking about. Plus he has good sermons.

Still, I had never heard of this before, so I decided to look it up when I got home and read more on it.
So, the first few pages I find read to me like KJVonlyists who are pointing fingers and going, "See, proof the modern translations are trying to take away from the gospel!" (One claimed that it took away the resurrection, but no--it doesn't. It just doesn't. Read verses one through eight. It has the angel appearing to the women saying Jesus was risen. Just how is that omitting the resurrection? Granted, it does omit some parts where the disciples and others actually saw Jesus after His resurrection.. But the verses are still included in the modern translations today, so obviously the translators aren't discounting the validity of them. They're merely being honest by making a note that the earlier manuscripts do not have those verses. From what I've read, the history behind which manuscripts are most accurate are not so cut and dry as some make them out to be, even to Bible scholars.)
Which kind of annoys me, TBH. I'm gonna do some more research, so hopefully I can find some sources that actually try to be helpful. But anyway.

Thoughts on this?

@questdriven :

There is also good manuscript evidence for the longer KJV reading at Mark 16. (I think Scofield has a useful note, too.)

What happens is that some people decide that some sets of manuscripts only are trustworthy, and never mind about the rest, and then if the manuscripts that they want to believe are exclusively best omit them, they will say: Oh, but the manuscripts I prefer omit it.

KJV, NKJV & KJ21 include the whole of Mark 16.

Blessings.

I'm sure there is. Personally, I saw the footnote present in the NIV regarding those verses as just informing, not rendering them inaccurate.

I actually have a Scofield KJV, so I'll go look at that footnote.

Anyways--I'm not sure I really have a manuscripts preference. Not yet, anyway. I tend to think that both serve their purposes. I have yet to find how modern translations promote a different gospel or message than the KJV--to me, it looks like they essentially say the same thing. But, y'know, there's always more to learn and all that.
This thing I learned today did give me a little jolt at first--but even if verses 9-20 are supposed to be omitted (which, it doesn't look like anyone is trying to say they should be), I don't see how anything essential is missing.

 

[farouk]

So, the person preaching at church today mentioned Mark 16, how it originally ended at verse 8. He was not discounting verses 9-20 or claiming them to be innaccurate, merely stating that they were added later. Sounded like he was saying they were passed on through oral tradition, I believe?
This guy attends Bible seminary, so I tend to think he knows what he's talking about. Plus he has good sermons.

Still, I had never heard of this before, so I decided to look it up when I got home and read more on it.
So, the first few pages I find read to me like KJVonlyists who are pointing fingers and going, "See, proof the modern translations are trying to take away from the gospel!" (One claimed that it took away the resurrection, but no--it doesn't. It just doesn't. Read verses one through eight. It has the angel appearing to the women saying Jesus was risen. Just how is that omitting the resurrection? Granted, it does omit some parts where the disciples and others actually saw Jesus after His resurrection.. But the verses are still included in the modern translations today, so obviously the translators aren't discounting the validity of them. They're merely being honest by making a note that the earlier manuscripts do not have those verses. From what I've read, the history behind which manuscripts are most accurate are not so cut and dry as some make them out to be, even to Bible scholars.)
Which kind of annoys me, TBH. I'm gonna do some more research, so hopefully I can find some sources that actually try to be helpful. But anyway.

Thoughts on this?

@questdriven :

There is also good manuscript evidence for the longer KJV reading at Mark 16. (I think Scofield has a useful note, too.)

What happens is that some people decide that some sets of manuscripts only are trustworthy, and never mind about the rest, and then if the manuscripts that they want to believe are exclusively best omit them, they will say: Oh, but the manuscripts I prefer omit it.

KJV, NKJV & KJ21 include the whole of Mark 16.

Blessings.

I'm sure there is. Personally, I saw the footnote present in the NIV regarding those verses as just informing, not rendering them inaccurate.

I actually have a Scofield KJV, so I'll go look at that footnote.

Anyways--I'm not sure I really have a manuscripts preference. Not yet, anyway. I tend to think that both serve their purposes. I have yet to find how modern translations promote a different gospel or message than the KJV--to me, it looks like they essentially say the same thing. But, y'know, there's always more to learn and all that.
This thing I learned today did give me a little jolt at first--but even if verses 9-20 are supposed to be omitted (which, it doesn't look like anyone is trying to say they should be), I don't see how anything essential is missing.

[MENTION=89910]questdriven[/MENTION]:

It's also sometimes stated to the effect that the KJV, NKJV textual base has a stronger witness to essential doctrines; not that they are absent in other versions.

There is nothing new about this whole area of discussion, anyway; it's been going on for decades and centuries.

Blessings.

 

[evenifigoalone]

True. I just don't like it when people point fingers and try to demonize those who prefer the other manuscripts. Not all of them are evil just because so and so says so, and the modern translations do appear to be sufficient for today's general use--so what's the big deal?
And even if verse 9-20 were deleted from the manuscripts by some cult in Alexandria (as KJVonlists claim, and I do admit I haven't read much on that)--so? Doesn't the fact that scholars thought enough to include them in modern translations anyway say anything?

I still think the KJV is an excellent translation, perhaps the best. But from what I've been able to learn I see no real reason to completely discount the modern translations. But anyway, I'm not a Bible scholar, so I have a rudimentary understanding of this stuff at best.

 

[jasoncran]

I would NOT use either a scholfield commentary or a dakes! both are well off. the later is the worst of the two as he denies the trinity and believes in five reserrections and was defrocked by my denomation and also was a racist.

 

[veryberry]

it looks like they essentially say the same thing.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. ~ KJV

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. ~ NIV

These don't say the same thing. God had more then one son. Jesus was his only begotten Son but not his only Son.

Isaiah 14: 12

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! ~ KJV

How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn!You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! ~ NIV

The key difference here is "Lucifer" and "Morning Star". Whats wrong with that?

Rev 22: 16 “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.†~ NIV.

These are just a couple of contradictions. Also The newer perversions take out the name Jesus over 50 times and God over 500 times. Don't know about you guys, but this bothers me.

One more, That clearly waters down God.

Matthew 6: 13 -

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. ~ KJV

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. ~ NIV

Why such a drastic change?

The Roman Catholics have first hand dealings with the translation with all the "newer" perversions know today.

 

[farouk]

I would NOT use either a scholfield commentary or a dakes! both are well off. the later is the worst of the two as he denies the trinity and believes in five reserrections and was defrocked by my denomation and also was a racist.

[MENTION=11841]jasoncran[/MENTION]:

Actually I like Scofield; a lot of sound, Bible believing Christians use his notes (I never used Dakes; no particular link with Scofield, I don't think).

Blessings.

 

[Obadiah]

God had more then one son. Jesus was his only begotten Son but not his only Son.

God has more than one son? Where in the world did you get this idea from? It sounds false to me. Besides, the difference in the translations only provides an excuse for people to fight over it, it makes little difference in the purpose of the verse, which is to tell us the way of salvation.

The key difference here is "Lucifer" and "Morning Star". Whats wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with it. Like it or not both "lucifer" and "morning star" are correct translations of the original language and, contrary to popular modern belief, are used to describe different persons at different times. It has to be read in context to be properly understood. Lucifer is simply Latin for the English "morning star" or "bearer of light". Both are from the same Hebrew word.

Why such a drastic change?

Because one says "evil one" and the other leaves out the word "one"? I don't see a drastic change at all. They both mean the same thing, asking God to protect us from evil, from Satan, from bad things, whatever.

...with all the "newer" perversions...

The word is "version" not "perversion". Using this language is just trolling for a reaction and you know it.

 

[farouk]

Maybe @veryberry meant 'not his only son' (lower case) rather than ' not his only Son' (capital), when he said there were more than one?

 

[Obadiah]

Maybe @veryberry meant 'not his only son' (lower case) rather than ' not his only Son' (capital), when he said there were more than one?

I still don't get it. It still seems to imply God has more than one son, whether it's capitalized or not. I guess there is that vers that talks about sons of God and daughters of men, and I have to admit I've never understood that one. I've heard people try to explain it, but it always seemed they had to read things into it that weren't there.

 

[evenifigoalone]

@veryberry Heard and checked 'em all out before. I'd explain why I checked them off as not a problem, but that was a while back and I forget what my reasons were now.

 

[veryberry]

God has more than one son? Where in the world did you get this idea from? It sounds false to me. Besides, the difference in the translations only provides an excuse for people to fight over it, it makes little difference in the purpose of the verse, which is to tell us the way of salvation

Luke 3: 38 - the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Adam was the son of God created, Jesus was the son of God begotten.

Nothing is wrong with it. Like it or not both "lucifer" and "morning star" are correct translations of the original language and, contrary to popular modern belief, are used to describe different persons at different times. It has to be read in context to be properly understood. Lucifer is simply Latin for the English "morning star" or "bearer of light". Both are from the same Hebrew word.

Here is a little extra. In my study NIV study bibles ( I have 2 which are diffrent), Isaiah 14: 12 has a side note that leads you to 2 Peter 1: 19 which has a side note that leads to Rev 22: 16

2 Peter 1: 19 - We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

Is Satan rising in your heart?

Rev 22: 16 - “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

Is Jesus saying that he is Satan?

These are 2 completely different NIV study bibles that do this. Not I.

Because one says "evil one" and the other leaves out the word "one"? I don't see a drastic change at all. They both mean the same thing, asking God to protect us from evil, from Satan, from bad things, whatever.

Did you even bother reading what I put?

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen ~ KJV

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. ~ NIV

Unless I'm seeing things, I see a little bit more then the word "one" left out.

The word is "version" not "perversion". Using this language is just trolling for a reaction and you know it

I used the correct word, Thanks

 

[Obadiah]

I used the correct word, Thanks

Then you are a troll. I have nothing more to say to you.

 

[evenifigoalone]

The NIV and KJV were translated from different manuscripts. That is the reason for any differences between them. They actually agree in the vast majority of places, which says something to me. Most of the differences they do have are simply differences in wording, not meaning. The few major differences that are there have no bearing or affect on doctrine.
I've looked at a ton of verse comparisons and use any opportunity to compare that I can, and that seems to be true. The stuff that is pointed out that some claim to be major changes, really, really, really seem like small, inconsequential potatoes to me. But maybe that's just me.

Which manuscript is more accurate is what's up to dispute, and since a lot of history has to be taken into account to determine this, it's not so cut and dry as some make it out to be. I've done some reading up on that, and it can get really confusing.

I'm always learning more, but the conclusion I've come to based on what I've learned so far is that God has used both manuscripts to preserve His word. They're adequate to learn from Him what He wants us to learn.

 

[Obadiah]

The stuff that is pointed out that some claim to be major changes, really, really, really seem like small, inconsequential potatoes to me. But maybe that's just me.

No, this describes most Christians. The KJV Only cult is just a vocal minority.

 

[farouk]

Maybe @veryberry meant 'not his only son' (lower case) rather than ' not his only Son' (capital), when he said there were more than one?

I still don't get it. It still seems to imply God has more than one son, whether it's capitalized or not. I guess there is that vers that talks about sons of God and daughters of men, and I have to admit I've never understood that one. I've heard people try to explain it, but it always seemed they had to read things into it that weren't there.

He might have been thinking of 1 John 3.2, anyway. But I don't know.

 

[evenifigoalone]

So, that thing I mentioned earlier today...(which brought this thread back from the dead, xD)

So, the person preaching at church today mentioned Mark 16, how it originally ended at verse 8. He was not discounting verses 9-20 or claiming them to be innaccurate, merely stating that they were added later. Sounded like he was saying they were passed on through oral tradition, I believe?
This guy attends Bible seminary, so I tend to think he knows what he's talking about. Plus he has good sermons.

Still, I had never heard of this before, so I decided to look it up when I got home and read more on it.

I did find a few helpful sites, and this was one of them: http://www.textexcavation.com/snapp/PDF/snapporiginmk.pdf

It's a long read, and takes a lot of concentration to understand. (Especially if you're a layman like me!) This is the kind of technical information I was looking for, though.
This particular article comes to the conclusion that evidences does not point to verses 9-20 in Matthew 16 being added later, and that it does point to them being there originally. But it did say that the book may not have been completed as Mark intended it to be, that he may have died before it's completion (I think).

I haven't really come to any conclusions on this matter. But at least I did learn a little bit. And, whether the verses were originally there or added on later doesn't appear to be an especially important issue.

 

[veryberry]

It is not necessarily KJV compared to the NIV or even wording diffrences, but KJV compared to all other translations. The KJV has no proven contradictions while the others have some clear contradictions, which I pointed out a couple. Whether they agree in vast majority or not is irrelevant. The other translations have proven contradictions and in my opinion makes them false scripture and cannot be trusted. If a prophet makes 100 predictions and one does not come to pass then, he his a false prophet. I feel the same applies to what is considered scripture. If this does not bother you, then that's fine. I just want to get the truth out to others that it may bother and want to know.

 

[evenifigoalone]

I'm aware that the NIV isn't the only one under criticism by the KJVO crowd. Most modern translations use the Alexandrian manuscripts, so naturally anyone who is against any manuscripts other than the TR are going to be against those.

I've just come to almost the opposite conclusion based on my own research. I haven't yet found anything that looks like a contradiction to me, and I try to research things before jumping to conclusions if I do find something odd--like the thing with the verses in Matt. 16.
Also, there are errors in the KJV, as well. Minor ones. Even a Bible scholar who used to be supported by my old church, which was and still is strictly KJVO, used to mention this. He would always use the Greek manuscript in his sermons along with the KJV, and from time to time pointed out where the translators made a mistake. (Eventually, the church quit sponsoring him because the pastor didn't think it was morally right to say the KJV has errors. There were no hard feelings, though, and I believe guy still keeps in contact with the church.)

I originally made this thread so I could watch and learn from others' discussion and debate of the topic (in addition to reading on my own), so disagreement is kinda wanted. (Although this is a bit of an emotionally-charged subject for me, for personal reasons that are hard to explain. So I have to kinda bite the bullet every time I delve into it. ^^; But I do think it's a subject worth learning about. ) I've mostly stayed out of the debate part myself, although if I think I can provide a good counterargument to something it's hard not to.


Sheesh, I think I edited this post like 50 times before being satisfied with it.

 

[farouk]

It is not necessarily KJV compared to the NIV or even wording diffrences, but KJV compared to all other translations. The KJV has no proven contradictions while the others have some clear contradictions, which I pointed out a couple. Whether they agree in vast majority or not is irrelevant. The other translations have proven contradictions and in my opinion makes them false scripture and cannot be trusted. If a prophet makes 100 predictions and one does not come to pass then, he his a false prophet. I feel the same applies to what is considered scripture. If this does not bother you, then that's fine. I just want to get the truth out to others that it may bother and want to know.

The fact that the basic text of the New Testament has strong manuscript support is actually a strength, rather than an irrelevance. (I myself use and appreciate the King James.) Blessings.