King James authorized bible vs the rest of other bibles

[Nick01]

Are the earlier manuscripts more accurate?

Generally, they are more likely to be, and are more likely to contain original readings, than later manuscripts. This is pretty uniformly the case, unless there are other particular textual reasons for preferring a later reading.

 

[Agricola]

Trying to convince a King James Only Cult member they are wrong is impossible, it is like trying to tell a hardended athiest who loves evolution that God created the world. You have to remember they have been brainwashed into this cult and just blindly see nothing is wrong with thier claims. TO support thier claims they have to justify every single spelling difference and every single word change, which often results in having to cherry pick dozens of other verses and come up with some incredible theories to make it all fit.

 

[KJV1611]

Generally, they are more likely to be, and are more likely to contain original readings, than later manuscripts. This is pretty uniformly the case, unless there are other particular textual reasons for preferring a later reading.

Do you know when the book of Judas was written?

 

[JackH]

Do you know when the book of Judas was written?

Judas was written around 280 AD, with a margin of error of 60 years, according to National Geographic.

Is the Book of Judas the Word of God?

Whatever point you are inferring or are going to make is going to be mostly irrelevant, as usual.

 

[KJV1611]

Judas was written around 280 AD, with a margin of error of 60 years, according to National Geographic.

Is the Book of Judas the Word of God?

Whatever point you are inferring or are going to make is going to be mostly irrelevant, as usual.

You're so pleasant Jack it's always a pleasure to talk to you... at least this time you actually did provide some information. No the book of Judas is not the word of God. I am trying to establish the earliest known attempts at perverting the bible. Nick's argument is older sometimes means more accurate.

 

[Bushido8000]

I know someone probably had posted this title before. Just to inform that I had 4 other bibles beside I add the King James version. Should I burn the rest of the 4 because I read on the internet as well youtube that our faith to our Lord will dwindled for using the wrong bibles unless we used the King James version.

No. There is nothing wrong with other Bibles. Even the King James Version is a copy in a line of copies.

 

[Nick01]

Do you know when the book of Judas was written?

Jack's estimate is a distinct probability, although its also possibly a second century text, given a fairly good case can be made that Irenaeus refers to and had read the same Gospel of Judas we now have (albeit almost certainly in the original Greek, not Coptic Egyptian, which is the only extant version) by around 180 AD.

But I hope we can agree that creating an entirely new, different, and idiosyncratically gnostic document that was NEVER collected with prior documents and was quickly denounced by an established orthodox tradition, is a very different scenario to redacting portions of recognised orthodox documents in wide circulation in the same time period.

 

[Nick01]

Trying to convince a King James Only Cult member they are wrong is impossible, it is like trying to tell a hardended athiest who loves evolution that God created the world. You have to remember they have been brainwashed into this cult and just blindly see nothing is wrong with thier claims. TO support thier claims they have to justify every single spelling difference and every single word change, which often results in having to cherry pick dozens of other verses and come up with some incredible theories to make it all fit.

If you aren't going to contribute to the discussion, can I please politely ask you to step out of the thread. At least be considerate enough to try and be convincing, and treat people as intelligent human beings. Your comment is not becoming, and certainly doesn't serve anyone or convince people.

If you don't believe that's possible, and that we're all wasting our time, then stop wasting yours, and serve the kingdom in a fruitful way instead. For me, my time is mine to 'waste'.

 

[Agricola]

If you aren't going to contribute to the discussion, can I please politely ask you to step out of the thread. At least be considerate enough to try and be convincing, and treat people as intelligent human beings. Your comment is not becoming, and certainly doesn't serve anyone or convince people.

If you don't believe that's possible, and that we're all wasting our time, then stop wasting yours, and serve the kingdom in a fruitful way instead. For me, my time is mine to 'waste'.

I dont see moderator under your name. Anyway I make a valid point, its impossible to convice or change a cult members mind. I also hate how people like yourslef take the superior moral high ground to try and make your opinion more valid and to elevate yourself above others, its a ridiculous stance and position to take and serves no useful purpose.

 

[KJV1611]

I dont see moderator under your name. Anyway I make a valid point, its impossible to convice or change a cult members mind. I also hate how people like yourslef take the superior moral high ground to try and make your opinion more valid and to elevate yourself above others, its a ridiculous stance and position to take and serves no useful purpose.

I don't agree with Nick on a lot of things, but he's giving his view of scripture... all I see from you is name calling and ZERO contribution to the debate.

 

[KJV1611]

Jack's estimate is a distinct probability, although its also possibly a second century text, given a fairly good case can be made that Irenaeus refers to and had read the same Gospel of Judas we now have (albeit almost certainly in the original Greek, not Coptic Egyptian, which is the only extant version) by around 180 AD.

But I hope we can agree that creating an entirely new, different, and idiosyncratically gnostic document that was NEVER collected with prior documents and was quickly denounced by an established orthodox tradition, is a very different scenario to redacting portions of recognised orthodox documents in wide circulation in the same time period.

No that's not my point Nick. The book of Judas I would assume is older than the "later manuscripts". If so, then the book of Judas proves that heretical writings were around at the same time as the earlier manuscripts. Point being older does not mean more accurate. Accuracy is determined by the source and not by it's age.

 

[JackH]

Point being older does not mean more accurate. Accuracy is determined by the source and not by it's age.

The objective is, as I see it, to determine what, for example, Gold told Moses, exactly. Or what God told Paul, for example.

Do you agree?

The source I think we are looking for is God.

Do you agree?

Next we are looking for something that people like Moses or Paul wrote down.

Do you agree?

We don't have any access to manuscripts that Moses or Paul wrote. None have been discovered to date, which does not mean that any exist, however unlikely.

Do you agree?

The way to determine as best we possibly can as to what exactly Moses or Paul wrote down is to examine what manuscripts we do have, and see which manuscripts confirm each other.

Do you agree?

Just nod your head yes or explain what I have said you do not agree with.

 

[Jason0047]

We know because it only belongs to a select group of manuscripts and the style is off. The NIV? It doesn't belong there. It was not in the earliest versions.

Again, how do you know that these are not false corrupted Greek manuscripts and there is not another set of Greek manuscripts that the KJV uses? Were you there with a time machine to follow these documents? No. You are taking it by faith that these manuscripts are not corrupted. But as I shown by a side by side comparison so far, things are changed for the worse and not for the better.

It's a copyist note on a Christian teaching. One that was added because they already believed in the Trinity. The belief was held before it was added.

I don't think you really understand where I am coming from. Historical evidence is not fact or proof of anything. You are applying faith in this situation and you are not giving me fact. For this is something "Historical" without you directly observing whether such a thing actually happened or not. Somebody could have falsely wrote that it was a copyist note to cover up a lie that the Greek Manuscripts used for the Modern Translations (Not the Greek Manuscripts used for the KJV) are corrupt.

That does not support such a thing. I believe we are in the millennium. I don't believe in Darby's nonsense.

It has nothing to do with Darby. Just read Revelation chapter 20. It says Satan is bound for one thousand years. It is also says that there are believers who did not receive the marks in their hands and foreheads would then go thru the Millennium and live and reign with Christ a thousand years. First, how are they living and reigning with Christ a thousand years if the world governements of today are still in power? Second, where in History did we ever see anyone being forced to take a mark? It just didn't happen. For such an event will be one the largest death tolls in human history which will correspond with "Death" hitting the Earth or the breaking of the 4th seal. Such an event would have impacted people in a huge way. Sort of like with the killing of the Jews by Hitler in World War 2.

 

[JackH]

Again, how do you know that these are not false corrupted Greek manuscripts and there is not another set of Greek manuscripts that the KJV uses? Were you there with a time machine to follow these documents? No.

Say what?

We know what manuscripts were utilized to translate the KJV. And the NASB. And the NIV.

We know, for example, that that the Dead Sea Scrolls were utilized to some extent in the translation of the NASB. We know that the Dead Sea Scrolls were not utilized whatsoever in the translation of the KJV.

 

[Jason0047]

Before going into these, again, the language of 'changes' by you begs the question - if they were added, then the doctrinal changes are in fact the other way around.

Hey, look. I see a pattern of bad things and not a pattern of good things. These things ARE IMPORTANT. I believe the Trinity, Waling after the Spirit so as not to be under the Condemnation, fasting to cast out stronger demons, and be separate from those who think Godliness is gain to be very important things as a a part of my faith in God's Word. Without these teachings, the Word of God is changed.

This is hardly an important doctrine -

Uh, there is no doctrine in the Bible that is not important. In fact, try telling that to the Christian who has a wrong Modern Bible in another third world country who has been struggling to cast out stronger demons within a particular child that they care for and love.

there has never been any great argument in the church on the doctrines surrounding demonology.

Written man made documents are not inspired and they cannot be proven to be true. People can have false agendas. So placing your faith in man made documents instead of the Word of God is a false premise.

But, again, in several early manuscripts, prayer and fasting is missing in Matthew, while prayer is in many of those same in MSS in Mark.

I believe there are two different sets of Greek manuscripts that are used today. One set of Greek manuscripts was used for the KJV and the other set of Greek manuscripts was used for the Modern Translations. Why do I believe this? Is this based just on History alone (Like what you are doing)? No. It is also based on the Word of God. For the Bible repeatedly teaches that there has always been a good choice and a bad choice. In the Garden, for Adam and Eve: there was a good tree and a bad tree. The Bible mentions that there is a vine of Sodom and there is also a true vine (Jesus Christ). There is a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour and then there is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah.

This makes why anyone would want to remove fasting, especially given how much the church generally exalted fasting from the fourth century, particular strange. I'm willing to concede that this is probably one of the most marginal cases, but the thing that tips it in my favour are 1) the abscence of any good reason why someone would want to remove JUST the fasting component and 2) the similar addition of prayer and fasting in a non-demon-related context in 1 Corinthians 7:5 in TR manuscripts but its absent in a large number and variety of earlier Greek manuscripts further suggests that were prepared to add those words in, for whatever reason.

1 Corinthians 7:5 does not suggest that we are to pray and fast for challenging situations. It just says that the husband and wife are to pray and fast and then come together (intimately) so that Satan does not tempt them (Which is no doubt because of the weakness of their flesh).

1 Peter 4:1 has precisely nothing to do with Matthew 7 or Mark 9. It is talking about Jesus, who suffered in the flesh and did away or finished with sin, and how we should mirror our attitude on his. You're clutching at straws here, mate.

We are told to resist the devil and he will flee from you. Resist him how? By not giving into temptation or sin. People would not be possessed by demons if their was no sin in their lives. To cease from sin, one needs to suffer in the flesh. This is what fasting is about. You are making the flesh suffer. It is a picture (as you said) of mirroring the suffering that Christ went thru so as to conform to His image. So when we mirror Christ (Who is Light) we repel that which is evil (dark). That's why the removal of the words that talk about fasting from fighting stronger dark forces is so wrong.

I'm a Trinitarian. I read the Bible without the comma. What does that tell you? That you don't need the addition of the comma in 1 John 5:7 to establish Trinitarian doctrine.

If this was the case, then you be placing your faith in church doctrine and not in what the Bible actually says. The guy who is marooned on an island with an island would have no straight forward explanation in God's Word as to why God is triune. He would only be making inferrences from other verses. 1 John 5:7 is the only verse that teaches the Trinity. In other words, God is not the author of confusion. The Lord is not going to have you guess about the Trinity and make only guesses.

It's striking that no church father explicitly refers to or quotes this verse in defence of Trinitarian doctrine during any of the heresies - it surely would have been the first port of call against Arius, for example, surely? Happy to give a fuller argument on why I think the Comma was an addition, but I think someone else might have already posted something somewhere.

Your limited sphere of Historical knowledge is not the sum of History, my friend. There are other Historical documents that suggest otherwise.

Is it true that 1 John 5:7 is not in any Greek manuscript before the 1600s? If it is true, why is it in the King James Bible?

I hardly think 1 Timothy 6:5, even without that clause, is advocating fellowship with such people. Most of 1 Timothy is advocating being wary of people who are out for financial gain, or are false teachers, etc etc.

No. It is says to be separate from those who think Godliness is gain. That's what the verse teaches. The removal of this verse makes one think it is okay to have fellowship with prosperity preachers (even if you may not do so). We are not to have fellowship with them because they are false believers.

But textually, again, the clause is missing from a large number of early manuscripts, with no particularly good reason for its removal given the rest of the chapter paints the same behavior incredibly negatively.

Again, you were not there to see which manuscripts you are looking at are true or false. In other words, I believe you are looking at false Greek Manuscripts. I base this belief not only on History, but on the Word of God and by doing a study on words here in the present moment (i.e. that things are changed for the worse and not for the better when one compares the KJV next to Modern Translations).

Ah, well, here's where we have bigger issues. This portion of Revelation is not concerned with the Millenium. It's clearly placed in the final eternal state, where God dwells with man, with a new heaven and earth. Only those whom belong to the lamb are counted among the people allowed to enter, which obviously includes "the nations". "Those who are being saved" may well be an accurate clarification, but it is not needed, and it is almost certainly not original. It is clearly not teaching all Gentiles will enter in, just from the rest of the passage.

So do you believe unsaved peoples will enter the Millennium?

It is an addition. Paul mentions the same point in v.4, defining those who are in Christ as those who walk in the Spirit. Again, if someone were trying to take out the phrase for some conspiratorial purpose, they did a terrible job because they left the same thing in 3 verses later.

No. There is no mention of the "Condemnation" which is defined for us in John 3:19-21 in verse 4. Taking away "walk after the Spirit" tied to the "Condemnation" ties in a point with another portion of Scripture. You take that out and you neuter the harmony of God's Word. Somebody could think verse 4 was just talking about physical death. But if we were to tie in Romans 8:1 (the complete passage) with John 3:19-21, it then becomes unmistakeable that this is talking about spiritual death.

Also, the version in the KJV is not even the only variant reading at this point. Another earlier variant reads "“who do not walk according to the flesh”". The fact that there are multiple variants, all of them derived from later in the same passage, and with attestation to the shortest reading in various Western and Alexandrian texts, makes it most likely an addition.

Again, you really have no way of really knowing what manuscripts are true or not true unless you can back up your belief that God's Word can be lost or corrupted or something.

Even then, it's an addition that doesn't change a singhe thing when read in the full context of Paul's argument in ch. 7-9.

Walk after the Spirit is not addition to Romans 8:1. It is meant to be in your Bible! You take those words away and the true believer cannot quote to an OSAS proponent that they must WALK after the Spirit so as not to be under the Condemnation in John 3:19-21.

 

[Jason0047]

Say what?

We know what manuscripts were utilized to translate the KJV. And the NASB. And the NIV.

We know, for example, that that the Dead Sea Scrolls were utilized to some extent in the translation of the NASB. We know that the Dead Sea Scrolls were not utilized whatsoever in the translation of the KJV.

No, sorry. You really don't know. You were not there to follow these manuscripts to see if they were true or not. You have faith. But not fact. You have no observable evidence to prove your case. To have observable evidence you would need to have a time machine along with a video camera with a time stamp posted in the corner as you filmed.

Yes. There are manuscripts. But you really don't know if they are fakes or the real thing. You cannot confirm that unless you have observable evidence.

 

[Jason0047]

Oh, and sorry for the spelling errors in Post #735. It is walking after the Spirit and not waling after the Spirit in the first paragraph. I also did not want to add that the man has an island.

Anyways, I just noticed the "Go Advanced" feature button and I can proof read my work better with this option.

In any event, may God bless you all.

 

[KJV1611]

The objective is, as I see it, to determine what, for example, Gold told Moses, exactly. Or what God told Paul, for example.

Do you agree?

The source I think we are looking for is God.

Do you agree?

Next we are looking for something that people like Moses or Paul wrote down.

Do you agree?

We don't have any access to manuscripts that Moses or Paul wrote. None have been discovered to date, which does not mean that any exist, however unlikely.

Do you agree?

The way to determine as best we possibly can as to what exactly Moses or Paul wrote down is to examine what manuscripts we do have, and see which manuscripts confirm each other.

Do you agree?

Just nod your head yes or explain what I have said you do not agree with.

The only thing I agree with is that God is the source. The word of God is beyond the letters that are written down in the bible, it's way beyond human language and it's barriers. There's always more than one "phrase" to describe a concept. The bible is written in layers, in my opinion infinite layers. The words of the bible lead us to the concepts. That being said, the words written down on paper have to with 100% accuracy lead us to the concept. In other words the words written down on paper have to written down exactly as God intended else they can't lead us to the concept.

This is what Jesus is talking about in John 5:39, those guys reading the scriptures were EXPERTS at reading the scriptures, they new the Hebrew meanings of ALL the words. But what they could not understand was the symbolic meaning of the scripture, that's why even though they understood the language better than anyone else, they could not see Jesus hidden on every page. That's where the word of God is.

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

 

[Kerry]

Having eyes to see they could not see and having ears to hear they could not hear. That's why the Holy Spirit is so important. We cannot understand the word of God unless it is revealed to us by the Holy Spirit. I meant, just look how the scriptures opened up to Paul and the others after receiving the Holy Spirit.

How many people understand this

Yet it is a language. But, the Holy Spirit knows and understands.

 

[Kerry]

Also do you know what this means 0110101001100101011100110111010101110011 ?