King James Bible ONLY? Or NOT?

[trofimus]

If false gospels are being written at the same time as true gospels does that mean both are equally accurate? Just because a false gospel writing survived longer than a true gospel writing doesn't mean the false gospel writing is right just because it's older.

Oh yes, sure, for example old pagan writings are not as accurate as modern English Bibles, just because they were not accurate ever.

But we are talking about the hand copying of the NT texts from originals through centuries. Every hand made copy produces some errors. Every single one, its a fact you can verify.

So in this situation we are talking about - why older does not mean more accurate in any way?

 

[trofimus]

There were false gospels in Paul's time.

Galatians 1:6-7 KJV
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
[7] Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

Meaning Judaism and such.

 

[John146]

It is unfortunate that you have chosen to denigrate me personally rather than focusing on the facts. I will say it again, the KJV is not the standard against which other versions are measured.

Therefore, your long lists of compared verses are irrelevant.

The KJV is the standard in which all other versions are measured. When a new version comes out, it is always compared to the KJV. Promoters will say, "Easier to read than the KJV." They'll never say that about any other version.

Also, what about all the missing verses in the new versions. For instance, Matthew 18:11 is missing from the new versions and yet they don't continue their writing but skip over Matthew 18:11 and go into verse 12. Why? To make it mesh with the amount of verses in the KJV. Why not just make verse 12, verse 11 in these new versions? Because the KJV is the standard.

 

[hornetguy]

The KJV is the standard in which all other versions are measured. When a new version comes out, it is always compared to the KJV. Promoters will say, "Easier to read than the KJV." They'll never say that about any other version.

Because they are trying to point out to narrow-minded, dogmatic people that the English language is not the same as it was in the 17th century.

It is not "THE" standard of accuracy...

It is "A" standard of accuracy, just as the NASB is, or any of the "original" texts are.

 

[John146]

Because they are trying to point out to narrow-minded, dogmatic people that the English language is not the same as it was in the 17th century.

It is not "THE" standard of accuracy...

It is "A" standard of accuracy, just as the NASB is, or any of the "original" texts are.

Matthew 18:10-12

KJV 10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.
11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?

ESV 10 “See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven. 12 What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray? No verse 11, but instead of making the next sentence their verse 11, they skip 11 and go right into 12. Why? The KJV is the standard.

NASB 10 “See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven. 11 [[a]For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.] 12 “What do you think? If any man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go and search for the one that is straying? Why the brackets? Because the KJV has verse 11 and the NASB does not. They say in the footnotes that "early mss do not contain this verse." Then why include it? Because the KJV has included it. The KJV is the standard.

 

[trofimus]

Matthew 18:10-12

KJV 10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.
11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?

ESV 10 “See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven. 12 What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray? No verse 11, but instead of making the next sentence their verse 11, they skip 11 and go right into 12. Why? The KJV is the standard.

NASB 10 “See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven. 11 [[a]For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.] 12 “What do you think? If any man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go and search for the one that is straying? Why the brackets? Because the KJV has verse 11 and the NASB does not. They say in the footnotes that "early mss do not contain this verse." Then why include it? Because the KJV has included it. The KJV is the standard.

Not "because KJV has included it", but more generally "because traditional Bibles have included it for 500 years".

The same situation is in every language that has some traditional translation and newer ones.

Its easier to just jump over the verse than to rewrite all numbers after it so that people would be confused using different Bibles.

 

[Dino246]

The KJV is the standard in which all other versions are measured. When a new version comes out, it is always compared to the KJV. Promoters will say, "Easier to read than the KJV." They'll never say that about any other version.

Also, what about all the missing verses in the new versions. For instance, Matthew 18:11 is missing from the new versions and yet they don't continue their writing but skip over Matthew 18:11 and go into verse 12. Why? To make it mesh with the amount of verses in the KJV. Why not just make verse 12, verse 11 in these new versions? Because the KJV is the standard.

You are conflating two concepts: that of an absolute standard and that of a culturally-accepted standard. I am asserting that the KJV is not any sort of objective absolute standard of God's word against which all other translations should be measured. It is merely one translation among many. By common usage it has become the cultural standard. However, that cultural acceptance does not define it as either accurate or reliable, in and of itself.

The KJV was not the first published bible to contain verse and chapter numbering. Even if it were, it still would not be the objective standard, because these things are not Scripture, but human convention. So, for the "missing verses" as you call them, the scholars who translated some modern versions thought that they did not belong in the text, and renumbering makes little sense.

The objective standard is what the apostles wrote, period. Granted, we don't have access to the originals, but through careful work with available manuscripts, scholars can determine with a high degree of confidence what the apostles did write. This "textual criticism" is the same process undertaken by Erasmus and others and by the KJV translators themselves.

 

[KJV1611]

You are conflating two concepts: that of an absolute standard and that of a culturally-accepted standard. I am asserting that the KJV is not any sort of objective absolute standard of God's word against which all other translations should be measured. It is merely one translation among many. By common usage it has become the cultural standard. However, that cultural acceptance does not define it as either accurate or reliable, in and of itself.

The KJV was not the first published bible to contain verse and chapter numbering. Even if it were, it still would not be the objective standard, because these things are not Scripture, but human convention. So, for the "missing verses" as you call them, the scholars who translated some modern versions thought that they did not belong in the text, and renumbering makes little sense.

The objective standard is what the apostles wrote, period. Granted, we don't have access to the originals, but through careful work with available manuscripts, scholars can determine with a high degree of confidence what the apostles did write. This "textual criticism" is the same process undertaken by Erasmus and others and by the KJV translators themselves.

I guess it's just coincidental that Ezekiels temple is in the 40th chapter or Noah's new beginnings are in the eighth chapter or Revelation has 22 chapters... it would be more miraculous for these things to occur accidentally rather than by divine inspiration.

 

[trofimus]

I guess it's just coincidental that Ezekiels temple is in the 40th chapter or Noah's new beginnings are in the eighth chapter or Revelation has 22 chapters... it would be more miraculous for these things to occur accidentally rather than by divine inspiration.

Well, there had to be something in the 40th chapter somewhere... and you can always find some interesting numbers, always.

It is absolutely irrelevant.

 

[KJV1611]

Well, there had to be something in the 40th chapter somewhere... and you can always find some interesting numbers, always.

It is absolutely irrelevant.

Im assuming you haven't noticed these patterns throughout the Bible. How is that you, knowing nothing about these things and to the extent they're found, declare it as irrelevant?

 

[trofimus]

Im assuming you haven't noticed these patterns throughout the Bible. How is that you, knowing nothing about these things and to the extent they're found, declare it as irrelevant?

You can do some magic with numbers in Quran or in every book you have in your library. Thats why it is not proof of anything.

Actually it only depends on your fantasy, what you can relate to some number here or there.

 

[KJV1611]

You can do some magic with numbers in Quran or in every book you have in your library. Thats why it is not proof of anything.

Actually it only depends on your fantasy, what you can relate to some number here or there.

No fantasy it's an indisputable fact.

 

[KJV1611]

You can do some magic with numbers in Quran or in every book you have in your library. Thats why it is not proof of anything.

Actually it only depends on your fantasy, what you can relate to some number here or there.

Can you show some numbers magic in the Quran?

 

[trofimus]

Can you show some numbers magic in the Quran?

I can, but I do not want to spend my time in such a book.

So I will use for example The Theodicy by G.W.Leibniz

It has three main parts - Son, Father and the Holy Spirit are also three - coincidence? I do not think so, inspiration!

----

And it is not only about books.

My country (in a modern history) was founded in 1918.

In 1938 the Nazi Germany got it.

In 1948 the communist party took over it.

In 1968 the Russian invasion for the support of communism

Coincidence? I do not think so! New beginnings! Inspiration!

-----------

I hope you can see that such connections are useless for proving anything. If I took more time for this, I could list as many "patterns" as you can with your KJV, but sincerely, I have better things to do

 

[KJV1611]

I can, but I do not want to spend my time in such a book.

So I will use for example The Theodicy by G.W.Leibniz

It has three main parts - Son, Father and the Holy Spirit are also three - coincidence? I do not think so, inspiration!

----

And it is not only about books.

My country (in a modern history) was founded in 1918.

In 1938 the Nazi Germany got it.

In 1948 the communist party took over it.

In 1968 the Russian invasion for the support of communism

Coincidence? I do not think so! New beginnings! Inspiration!

-----------

I hope you can see that such connections are useless for proving anything. If I took more time for this, I could list as many "patterns" as you can with your KJV, but sincerely, I have better things to do

I don't see anyone can understand most of the bible without a good understanding of the way God uses numbers.

 

[trofimus]

I don't see anyone can understand most of the bible without a good understanding of the way God uses numbers.

Really? So demonstrate your doctrine

Show me how your "understading of the KJV numbers" gives you some kind of knowledge not accessible to people who just read the text of the Bible.

Maybe we will find its just some kind of pride

 

[KJV1611]

Really? So demonstrate your doctrine

Show me how your "understading of the KJV numbers" gives you some kind of knowledge not accessible to people who just read the text of the Bible.

Maybe we will find its just some kind of pride

It's not pride, I just try to help people know the word better.... get all they can get out of it.

 

[trofimus]

It's not pride, I just try to help people know the word better.... get all they can get out of it.

So....?

 

[KJV1611]

Really? So demonstrate your doctrine

Show me how your "understading of the KJV numbers" gives you some kind of knowledge not accessible to people who just read the text of the Bible.

Maybe we will find its just some kind of pride

Ok lets start with one that's easy to see. Based on the use of the number 4 in the KJV, why did Jesus come from the tribe of Judah instead of the 3rd son Levi?

 

[trofimus]

Ok lets start with one that's easy to see. Based on the use of the number 4 in the KJV, why did Jesus come from the tribe of Judah instead of the 3rd son Levi?

Tell me