The KJV bible is the only bible that is worth reading.

[Vic C.]

Here is a page I think you will like Vic, that defends the antiquity of some of the classical readings in the TR (paying particular attention to the important witness of early Church Fathers): EARLY WITNESSES TO THE RECEIVED TEXT....

Thanks Josh. I lost my original bookmark to that site. I ran across it a few years ago while researching the Johannine Comma.

http://logosresourcepages.org/Versions/1_john_5.htm

 

[PeterAU]

I love the KJV. It seems inspired in a wonderful way that is lacking in the newer copyrighted versions. I find reading and contemplating passages from KJV to be a deeply rewarding spiritual experience.

 

[PrimeRoot]

About KJV Copyright

I love the KJV. It seems inspired in a wonderful way that is lacking in the newer copyrighted versions...

Cheers Peter,

I dearly wish there was a considerable text
of God's word that was completely unencumbered,
and yet securely anchored by some irrefutable physical means.


Perhaps you'll permit an observtion about KJV copyright.

If you go to Cambridge.Org
you'll find this statement :

Rights enquiries relating to the
Authorized (King James) Version of the Bible...
...should be addressed to the Bibles Manager,
Christopher Wright (cwright@cambridge.org).

Inferring of course that, in the UK at least, there may be restrictions.

Evidently, in the United Kingdom,
the Crown holds a perpetual copyright,
because the KJV pre-dates the present laws:
But I cant confirm that after a brief search of
their government website.

If they hear not Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded,
though one rose from the dead.
Luke 16:31

 

[nadab]

The King James Bible has been proven to have many inaccuracies and inconsistencies. For example, at Genesis 13:1,3 it says that Abraham "went up out of Egypt, he, and his wife, and all that he had, and Lot with him, into the south....And he went on his journeys from the south even to Bethel." Could Abraham reach Bethel by going "south" ? No, for Bethel was over 225 miles (360 kilometers) northeast of Egypt. The Hebrew word for "south" is ne´ghev and is thought to be derived from a root meaning “be parched†and often denotes the semiarid area south of the mountains of Judah.

From the circumstance that this region lay south of Judah, ne´ghev also came to mean “south†and is used with reference to a southern side (Num 35:5), a southern boundary (Josh 15:4), and a southern gate (Eze 46:9). In some translations a distinction between the geographic designation and the compass direction is not maintained, resulting in confusing renderings. Hence, the King James Bible, along with several other Bibles (such as American Standard Version, Young's Bible, Darby's Bible, Webster's Bible) causes a confusion on which way Abraham went.

At 1 Timothy 3:16, the King James Bible reads: "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh." This Scripture, with the words "God was manifest in the flesh" has been found to have been tampered with. John James Wetstein (1693-1754), while he was examining the Alexandrine Manuscript in London (a Greek manuscript dating from the fifth century C.E., which contains most of the Bible), made a startling discovery. Up till that time, according to the King James Version (1611), 1 Timothy 3:16 was rendered: “God was manifest in the flesh.†This rendering was reflected in most other Bibles in use.

However, Wetstein noticed that the Greek word translated “God,†which was abbreviated to TC, had originally looked like the Greek word OC, which means “who.†But a horizontal stroke showing through faintly from the other side of the vellum page, and the addition by a later hand of a line across the top, had turned the word OC (“whoâ€Â) into the contraction TC (“Godâ€Â). Other manuscripts now confirm Wetstein’s reading, accurate modern translations read: “He was made manifest in flesh,†or “He who . . . ,†referring to Jesus Christ and not God. (American Standard, Moffatt, Weymouth, Spencer, The New English Bible)

The Hebrew word she’ohl´ is also translated 31 times as "hell", 31 times as “grave†and 3 times “pit" in the King James Bible, which brings confusion. Many Bibles leave this Hebrew word untranslated in order to be consistent with its rendering.(American Standard Version, Young's Bible, Darby's Bible)

The King James Bible renders 2 Peter 3:10: "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." The ending words "shall be burned up" is not found in the most ancient Greek manuscripts.

Rather, the words "will be discovered" is the proper expression.(Greek eyrethesetai, online interlinear Scripture4all "shall-be-being-found", Greek master text The New Testament in the Original Greek, by Westcott and Hort, Codex Sinaiticus and Vatican 1209 manuscripts of the fourth century C.E.)

The Greek word katakaesetai, meaning "will be burned" was put in place of eyrethesetai in later manuscripts, such as the Codex Alexandrinus manuscript of the 5th century C.E., and the Latin Vulgate, Clementine recension of the 16th century. The American Standard Version of 1901 has this footnote on the expression “burned upâ€Â; “The most ancient manuscripts read discovered.â€Â

At Psalms 99:3, the King James Bible reads of God's name: "Let them praise thy great and terrible name; for it is holy." Is God's name "terrible" ? Not at all. The Hebrew word used is wehan·noh·ra’ and accurately means "fear-inspiring". Thus, Young's Bible reads "They praise Thy name, 'Great, and fearful (literally "fear-inspiring"), holy [it] is."

Another example is at Deuteronomy 7:21, in which the King James Bible reads: "Thou shalt not be affrighted at them: for the Lord thy God is among you, a mighty God and terrible." Is God "terrible" ? No, for 1 John 4:8 says that "God is love". Some reading the King James Bible could thus gather a misconception of who God is. A more accurate translation of what Moses told the nation of Israel, is: "thou art not terrified by their presence, for Jehovah thy God [is] in thy midst, a God great and fearful [literally "fear-inspiring"]."(Young's Bible)

Again at Deuteronomy 10:17, the King James Bible reads of Moses telling the nation of Israel: "For the Lord your God is God of Gods, and Lord of Lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible (Hebrew wehan·noh·ra’ ), which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:" This leaves the impression that God is again "terrible". Concerning an angel visiting Manoah and his wife, according to the King James Bible, she said: "A man of God came unto me, and his countenance was like the countenance of an angel of God, very terrible: but I asked him not whence he was, neither told he me his name:"(Judges 13:6)

Is it not any wonder that individuals may regard God as cruel since the King James, along with other Bibles that follow its leading, incorrectly render so many words in its pages and thus cause confusion ? It is more accurately rendered as: "for Jehovah your God - He [is] God of the gods, and Lord of the lords; God, the great, the mighty, and the fearful [literally "fear-inspiring"];"(Young's Bible)

At Nehemiah 1:5, according to the King James Bible, Nehemiah prayed: "I beseech thee, O Lord God of heaven, the great and terrible (Hebrew wehan·noh·ra’ ) God , that keepeth covenant and mercy for them that love him and observe his commandments:" With so many inaccuracies (and these are just a few examples), how can an individual gain an "accurate knowledge" of God and the Bible ?

We should want to gain "accurate knowledge" with "full discernment" as Paul wrote at Philippians 1:9 ("accurate knowledge", Greek epignosis, "precise and correct knowledge", The New Testament Greek Lexicon). Using mislabeled maps or the wrong combination on a lock all results in "problems". Likewise, one needs an accurate Bible in order to "understand the fear of Jehovah, And find the knowledge of God."(Prov 2:5, American Standard Version)

On an even more important note, Jesus taught his disciples to pray for God's name to be "hallowed" or sanctified at Matthew 6:9,10. Yet the name of God, Jehovah, is found in the King James Bible only four times, at Exodus 6:3, Psalms 83:8, Isaiah 12:2 and 26:4.(The New King James Bible has completely removed it from its pages) However, the name of God, Jehovah, is found in the Hebrew writings of the scriptures ("Old Testament") almost 7000 times.

The Codex Leningrad B 19A (in the National Library of Russia), the earliest complete Hebrew manuscript of the Bible, is presented in Rudolf Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica and in his updated work Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, use the Tetragrammaton (meaning "four letter", YHWH or JHVH) or divine name, 6,828 times in the original text.

Jesus, on the night before his death, said in prayer to his Father: "I have made your name known to the men you gave me from the world....(John 17:25, International Standard Version) . . .Righteous Father, the world has never known you. Yet I have known you, and these men have known that you sent me. . .I made your name known to them, and will continue to make it known, so that the love you have for me may be in them (more accurately "in union with them") and I myself may be in them."("in union with them")(John 17:25,26, International Standard Version) Thus, Jesus made known his Father's name of Jehovah, unashamed of it, even teaching his followers to pray for that name to be cleansed. Yet many Bible translators and the churches have hidden this most precious name.

 

[Paidion]

Christianity isn't a buffet where we pick what we like.

"I like the King James Version"
" I like the NIV"
"I like the NASB"
"I like the RSV"

etc., etc., etc.

We can all say what we like, but do we want to know what the Biblical writers actually meant when they wrote? I did. That's why I studied Hellenistic Greek for several years. And that's why I studied some of the Christian writers who wrote immediately after the days of the apostles. I thought they would be more likely to understand what the apostles meant than we, 2000 years later.

As for the criticism of the NWT, yes, it contains errors, but so do all the others including the AV.
The NWT is a thousand times better than THE MESSAGE, which is not a translation at all.

 

[francisdesales]

Christianity isn't a buffet where we pick what we like.

"I like the King James Version"
" I like the NIV"
"I like the NASB"
"I like the RSV"

etc., etc., etc.

We can all say what we like, but do we want to know what the Biblical writers actually meant when they wrote? I did. That's why I studied Hellenistic Greek for several years. And that's why I studied some of the Christian writers who wrote immediately after the days of the apostles. I thought they would be more likely to understand what the apostles meant than we, 2000 years later.

I agree. People have particular favorites for their own reasons. I suppose for devotional purposes, any decent translation is OK. But for serious study, the path you have taken is the best one. I have previously spoken with Greek friends on a different board, and it is interesting some of the insight they gave me when discussing the shortcomings of the English versions of Scriptures. For example, the Greek version of the Transfiguration gives the sense that the Prophets were already there, just not visible, until Jesus became Transfigured. Gives a whole new meaning to being surrounded by a cloud of witnesses (that we cannot see) when Paul mentions this in Hebrews!

Also, it makes perfect sense to me that one would read the first Christians and how they interpreted Scriptures. You would think they would have a good handle on the basics of Christianity from the Apostles teachings. Thus, you offer sound advice, if one is looking to actually study, rather than just do devotional reading...

Regards

 

[Free]

For those who haven't had the privilege of studying Greek, I would suggest using many versions to better understand the nuances and gain a better meaning, or in the very least to not be ignorant of various meanings.

As for the criticism of the NWT, yes, it contains errors, but so do all the others including the AV.

I disagree with essence of this quote. Yes, other versions have errors but the majority of accepted translations are in agreement on essential, core Christian doctrine. The NWT purposely adds words not found in the Greek text which completely change the meaning of such doctrines. It is one thing to make an honest error in translation or translate something slightly different due to the nuances found in the Greek and the difficulty in translating. It is quite another thing to purposely change the meaning of a given verse or passage without any warrant to do so whatsoever.

 

[follower of Christ]

We are all familiar with the addition of 1 John 5:7

For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. NKJV

This is obviously an attempt to get “The Trinity†into the Bible. This verse is found only in eight late manuscripts, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these manuscripts originate in the 16th century. The earliest of them was from the 10th century, but that one does not include the verse in the text, but in a marginal note. No Greek text prior to the 16th century is known to contain the verse. Yet it found its way into Textus Receptus and in every one of the Group A translations (YLT puts it in italics). How could Group A translators have gone against all evidence? If it had been in early Greek texts, surely the 4th century Greek Fathers would have loved to use it during the Trinity debates as scriptural evidence of the Trinity.

Great evidence that while the KJV is a great version, it isnt without its problems

 

[follower of Christ]

Christianity isn't a buffet where we pick what we like.

"I like the King James Version"
" I like the NIV"
"I like the NASB"
"I like the RSV"

etc., etc., etc.

We can all say what we like, but do we want to know what the Biblical writers actually meant when they wrote? I did. That's why I studied Hellenistic Greek for several years. And that's why I studied some of the Christian writers who wrote immediately after the days of the apostles. I thought they would be more likely to understand what the apostles meant than we, 2000 years later.

As for the criticism of the NWT, yes, it contains errors, but so do all the others including the AV.
The NWT is a thousand times better than THE MESSAGE, which is not a translation at all.

I dont know greek or hebrew, but I do use about 2 dozen different translations so Im not made biased by one or the other.
I also use Interlinears and every other resource I can get my hands on.
I agree with you 100% that ALL contain some error or another as far as rendering goes. Perfect translation is a myth.

 

[Eichblatt]

Hey, if you could speak fluent Hebrew and Greek, I think the original manuscripts would be the best ;).

As far as 'The Message' goes... I don't think there's anything wrong with it, given that you're smart enough to read the REAL Bible first, THEN the Message, and always know that the REAL Bible is more accurate than The Message.

 

[follower of Christ]

Hey, if you could speak fluent Hebrew and Greek, I think the original manuscripts would be the best ;).

As far as 'The Message' goes... I don't think there's anything wrong with it, given that you're smart enough to read the REAL Bible first, THEN the Message, and always know that the REAL Bible is more accurate than The Message.

We could make a time machine and have Paul write up a copy for us to bring back

 

[Vic C.]

We are all familiar with the addition of 1 John 5:7

For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. NKJV

This is obviously an attempt to get “The Trinity†into the Bible. This verse is found only in eight late manuscripts, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these manuscripts originate in the 16th century. The earliest of them was from the 10th century, but that one does not include the verse in the text, but in a marginal note. No Greek text prior to the 16th century is known to contain the verse. Yet it found its way into Textus Receptus and in every one of the Group A translations (YLT puts it in italics). How could Group A translators have gone against all evidence? If it had been in early Greek texts, surely the 4th century Greek Fathers would have loved to use it during the Trinity debates as scriptural evidence of the Trinity.

Great evidence that while the KJV is a great version, it isnt without its problems

Great if you like the slant of only one side. :gah I posted a link above for what I am about to quote. I sincerely doubt that anyone but Josh actually read the article. :ohwell Maybe we all should take Paidion's advice and see what the ECFs believed. My past research showed some convincing evidence from the ECFs that warrants the inclusion of the Johannine Comma.

TEXTUAL EVIDENCE FOR INCLUSION

First, it must be stated that Metzger’s statement, at first glance, might make one believe that 1 John 5.7–8 does not appear in any writings before 1500. However, MS. 61 was the first Greek manuscript discovered which contains the passage. It is not the earliest manuscript containing the passage; it was merely the first manuscript found which contained the passage. [6] Metzger later admits that the Johannine Comma also appears in manuscripts from the twelfth century, the fourteenth century and the sixteenth century. "The oldest known citation of the Commais in a fourth-century Latin treatise entitled Liber apologeticus." [7]

Edward Hills admits that there is not as much Greek manuscript support for this passage as there is for many other passages in the New Testament. However, there is an abundance of other ancient manuscript evidence in support of the passage. As Hills says, "The first undisputed citations of the Johannine comma occur in the writing of two 4th-century Spanish bishops… In the 5th century the Johannine comma was quoted by several orthodox African writers to defend the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals, who…were fanatically attached to the Arian heresy." "Evidence for the early existence of the Johannine comma is found in the Latin versions and in the writings of the Latin Church Fathers." Among these is Cyprian (c. 250) and Cassiodorus (480–570), as well asan Old Latin manuscript of the 5th or 6th century, and in the Speculum, a treatise which contains an Old Latin text. It is also found in the great mass of the later Vulgate manuscripts and in the Clementine edition of the Vulgate. [8]

 

[Adullam]

Who would want to read anything but the bible in it's original English form? :P ;)

 

[follower of Christ]

Great if you like the slant of only one side. :gah I posted a link above for what I am about to quote. I sincerely doubt that anyone but Josh actually read the article. :ohwell Maybe we all should take Paidion's advice and see what the ECFs believed. My past research showed some convincing evidence from the ECFs that warrants the inclusion of the Johannine Comma.

We'll have to agree to disagree, Vic.
Im not just agreeing with Paidon because his post sounded good.
Im agreeing with him because after a LOT of study on the various manuscripts and different translations, I have concluded the exact same thing that he did...that while the KJV claims to be from the Majority Texts (NT), those texts do not actually support the Comma.

Heres what is the clincher.
MOST of the Greek Majority Texts do not have the Comma. Are we to assume that someone OMITTED the Comma from ALL of those texts ? I have a MUCH harder time believing that it just up and vanished from all the rest rather than accepting the more likely scenario that it was a notation that ended up in the texts, which is precisely what the evidence seems to show occurred.

In reading what you provided, I see assertions being made by the author, but no actual evidence to support the claims...ie names tossed out, but no quotes for us to SEE so that we know for a fact that the person mentioned IS actually quoting the Comma directly.

I saw a LOT of smoke and mirror arguments when I researched this before by those claiming that the Comma belongs in the text, but nothing substantial that could be PROVEN that would refute the fact that the comma seems to have been a note that ended up in the text

 

[follower of Christ]

Who would want to read anything but the bible in it's original English form? :P ;)

Thats pretty good :D

I know an old pastor who said he only wanted to use the bible that Jesus used..the 1611 King James Authorized Version.
I love that old man, so I keep my mouth sealed very tightly when he's talking most of the time, but I think we can rest assured that Jesus didnt use a bible that wouldnt be written for more than 15 centuries :D

 

[Adullam]

Who would want to read anything but the bible in it's original English form? :P ;)

Thats pretty good :D

I know an old pastor who said he only wanted to use the bible that Jesus used..the 1611 King James Authorized Version.
I love that old man, so I keep my mouth sealed very tightly when he's talking most of the time, but I think we can rest assured that Jesus didnt use a bible that wouldnt be written for more than 15 centuries :D

If one doesn't embrace the KJV then one could become NIV positive. It's a plague I tell you! :o

 

[John]

:biglol

 

[Vic C.]

Agreed. You don't want to believe it's valid, fine. But I don't agree with your smoke and mirrors comment. I also believe the link I posted is just a stepping stone for more serious research. If you desire to fairly evaluate both sides, you will do it. If not, you won't

I'm not saying "you" as in just you; I'm using "you' in the much broader sense.

MOST of the Greek Majority Texts do not have the Comma. Are we to assume that someone OMITTED the Comma from ALL of those texts ?

All? All it takes is one or two errors by some scribes to perpetuate the error. Have you ever made 50 (or more) photo copies of a document that contained an error? How many of your copies has the error? Just a few? 10? 40? ...Or all 50? You do know that a scribe either discarded or destroyed his "original" after making a copy. They made copies because the old ones were degrading. One, two or several errors will go a loooong way.

I'm not looking to just validate this verse to support by triune beliefs. I'm going to believe in a Triune Godhead whether or not this verse is valid. I say evidence that it belongs there exists, even if it's minuscule. Many of you are looking for quantum evidence that dismisses the verse.

The Adversary is very clever. It would be just like him to deny the Deity of Jesus and convince people of the same.

 

[follower of Christ]

If one doesn't embrace the KJV then one could become NIV positive. It's a plague I tell you! :o

eh..I went thru the who 'kjvonly' thing for a bit. Till I realized that God doesnt speak Ye Kings Olde English.

I dont like the NIV by any means, but use a lot of versions and anything else I can get my hands on.
An NIV is better than no bible at all, for certain.

 

[follower of Christ]

Agreed.

Just one of those things where we both have looked at the evidence and conclude entirely different things, I suppose

As I presented, Im more interested in who supposedly REMOVED the Comma from the GMT's than I am who may have put it in.
Id be more interested in seeing a logically consistent explanation for why it supposedly disappeared from so many texts and why...I mean we arent talking about a missing word here but an entire 'sentence'.
I find that there is no logical explanation for that other than to claim it was intentionally removed and that there were many collaborators involved in the church assisting its removal.
Sorry, but I cant believe that was the case given the details as a whole.

You don't want to believe it's valid, fine. But I don't agree with your smoke and mirrors comment. I also believe the link I posted is just a stepping stone for more serious research. If you desire to fairly evaluate both sides, you will do it. If not, you won't

uh...i HAVE....thats why Ive concluded that MOST of the arguments for the Comma end up being smoke and mirrors.

Beleive you me, being a former KJVonly man, it was sort of like pulling not only the eye teeth, but the jaw itself in trying to accept what I found.
I hate the probability that the Comma does not belong as it casts doubt on more than just the Comma itself, but also the ability of God to preserve HIs word 'intact'.

If it does belong, why was it removed from the very texts that supposedly the KJV comes from ?
If it doesnt belong why has it been added to a version that we english speaking peoples have relied on for such a long time ?

Either way it goes there is a problem that needs an answer.

I'm not saying "you" as in just you; I'm using "you' in the much broader sense.

I understand
I dotn think this is an issue that we need to do anything more than just agreeing or disagreeing, honestly. Its not going to send anyone to hell and it certainly isnt breaking marriages/families apart...its just a matter of opinion

All? All it takes is one or two errors by some scribes to perpetuate the error

Like I said, this isnt a number or a word that was mispelled, but an ENTIRE 'sentence' so to speak.
I seriously doubt that someone removed that large a portion, and in such a precise way, and didnt notice it.

If it had been a word, or a letter, a number, or was done in some manner where the reader is looking at the passage thinking 'wow, something is missing from this passage', then I could see how your argument might work.
But to remove something as long as the Comma is....and with such precision....no accident would explain it, in my opinion.
Look at what has to be removed from the passage in order for your views to work, Vic.
Why not only one word removed ? Why not 2 or 3 ?
Why not the portion of text prior to the Comma ? or after ?

Its just too precise to be an oversight.

But again, this is all the thoughts that ran thru my mind the first time around when researching this. Its just the way my brain works...always breaking things down to a very rudimentary level and questioning from every possible direction.

Honestly, I dont believe the Comma belongs anymore. Years ago Id have been on your side of the discussion, but I really hadnt spent much time with it at that point (not that you havent).

God bless