Open Debate Challenge on My Defending the KJV as the Perfect Word for Today in English

[Bible Highlighter]

As I understand it, no Greek manuscripts include commas, or any other ENGLISH language punctuation. You are probably referring to an English translation. Right?

No. She is not talking about punctuation. The Comma she is referring to is the Johannine Comma.

Johannine Comma - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It is the words found in the KJV and its underlying Greek (the Textus Receptus).

1 John 5:7 in the KJV says,
”For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

This is the one and only verse that point blank teaches the Trinity directly.
While most Bible believing Christians accept the Trinity, they do not accept the one and only verse in the Bible that teaches such as the Comma. Whats deceptive is that the first Modern English Bible (The Revised Version) from the Westcott and Hort Movement had taken the last sentence of 1 John 5:6 and moved it to 1 John 5:7 (To replace the Comma). Then a few years later, Modern Bibles started to move a few words from 1 John 5:8 (rewording them slightly) to replace the Comma in 1 John 5:7. So instead of the Modern Scholars being honest and leave the verse blank entirely, they decided to move certain words to where verse 7 is. No doubt this was not to alarm new readers and think an important verse teaching a major doctrine was removed. Greek grammarians over the years even say there is a grammar error in the text if the Comma is removed. But this does not stop the liberals, Bible twisters, Bible agnostics, and Modernists of our day wanting to attack this verse and say it is not legitimate. They generally have not even done their homework on this topic when they say this. They are just going off their own thoughts as if they were from God. But the Bible says my thoughts are not your thoughts. Many of them just trust the Modern Scholars when they do not realize that they have lied or done things to simply keep their jobs. The Modern Bible Industrial Complex is a billion dollar industry.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You didn't explain why my interpretation is false, all you did was cite unrelated scriptures and try to apply them to support a your vie of what 2 Timothy 2:15 is saying.

You're welcome to run along and join the crowd, I guess the crowd feels there's safety in numbers. But my Lord teaches His children not to follow the crowd. So I wis you lots of luck, on your wide road with the crowd.

I did explain how it was false. Man of God is in context in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 when referring to how all Scripture is profitable (beneficial) for doctrine, reproof, and instruction in righteousness. You have not really refuted how Man of God is the context and is referring to every believer. You have not refuted to how this is in reference to ALL SCRIPTURE. You are rejecting the Word of God as being applicable to you by saying the letters of Timothy anre only for pastors, elders, and teachers. You are judging another for rejecting the Word when you are doing the very same thing because of your odd interpretation that has no clear basis or support in the text. You are merely leaping to conclusions and ignoring other verses. Your interpretation would not hold up in a court of law among normal English speaking people.

I also pointed out Colossians and Acts which also refer to the regular believer in general in how they are to learn or look at God’s Word in study. You seem to have just skipped over these points and act like I did not say anything. This was pointed out in my post #57.

As for running with the crowd:

Well, you are running with the crowd when it comes to Modern Scholarship or your siding with the Modern Bible Movement (Which is all about the money and not strictly charity alone). You cannot have members of a church read from the NIV without violating copyright law. You cannot create a Bible app from a Modern Version without paying huge fees to them. You have shoot your conscience when you fight for your Modern Bible when in reality many lose their faith because of them as a result of Textual Criticism that they learn in Bible school and or the doubt producing footnotes. You might be alright with not knowing what the Word of God precisely says, but others are not okay with that (seeing it is contradictory) and thereby they abandon the faith (Seeing God does not know how to keep His own words for us to trust them).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You have no idea what the term "Majority Text" even means. Obviously. You should read that article.

You did not even pick up the statement about the Comma, which is common knowledge to those who have a basic cursory understanding of the Bibliology topic. When you say “Majority Text” today most will take this as a reference to the HODGES-FARSTAD text. Farstad was the creator behind the deceptive Trojan horse New King James Version (Which did not strictly following the Textus Receptus even though they stated that they did). They also did not collate all of the majority of manuscripts in existence today, either. So it is an incomplete work. It’s also flawed position because even Dan Wallace said that we lost 1 million manuscripts in World War 2. There was also the London fire in 1666 where no doubt even more manuscripts were destroyed. This does not include even the many other other manuscripts that have been destroyed due to fires, insects, wars, etcetera. So there is no Majority Text. It is impossible to have an accurate Majority Text when so many manuscripts have been lost.

Before the NKJV creator created his incomplete and faulty Majority Text, the Majority Text term used to refer to the many Byzantine manuscripts (the 5,800 manuscripts) that support the Textus Receptus (Not that they are always an exact match). They agree more with the Textus Receptus and not the Alexandrian manuscripts (Which are in the minority) and used for Modern Bibles.

Majority Text Advocates look to both the Textus Receptus and Critical Text readings. I know of Majority Text advocates and have even talked with them. Have you? At the end of the day, Majority Text folk become their own authority (unfortunately). The Majority Text Advocates cannot point to any Bible in the past or a Bible now that has any significant influence among the church. This is what Majority Text folk and Critical Text Advocates fail to understand. They seem to throw the church under the bus when it comes to them having the perfect Word of God (as God promised).

The Bible was humankind's idea, not God's idea. What could go wrong?

You need to be born again by water in order to see how God’s Word is a revelation from God. Being born again of water is receiving the words of the Bible from God and submitting to them fully by faith. Being transformed or awakened by God on this happens generally when a person accepts Jesus Christ as their Savior when they heard the words from the Bible or Scripture convicting them of their sin and they ask Jesus to save them and they dedicate their lives to Him according to His Word (the Bible). If you reject the Bible and say it is from men and not God, then you are not born again. It’s just that simple, my friend. Check out the tract called, “This Was Your Life.”

Chick.com: This Was Your Life

Everything you have said or done will be played back at judgment. Will your name be in the Book of Life?

www.chick.com

(Note: You can click on the image of the link above to check it out)

Please know I do not agree or endorse everything Chick Publications says or does. I agree with this tract here. But I do not agree with all of their tracts. Anyway, being transformed and changed by God is a full surrender to the Lord Jesus Christ who is God and His Word.
I pray that you will do that, my friend. This is the only way to see spiritually what the Bible says.

 

[St. SteVen]

No. She is not talking about punctuation. The Comma she is referring to is the Johannine Comma.

LOL
So the fancy title makes it NOT punctuation? How can a comma NOT be English punctuation?
Are you claiming that the Johannine Comma was in the Greek manuscript? - LOL

]

 

[Rockerduck]

My 2 cents; all the money greedy, for profit, modern bible versions are leaving verses out that are in the KJB. It's been proven that the verses are in some manuscripts. Why not just leave the verses in? Instead, "scholars" leave the verse out, then put a footnote with an * to say some manuscripts have this verse, Duh. Matthew 18:11 for instance; It skips from verse 10 to verse 12. why not just put verse 11 there and add the footnote. At least it would not look so ridiculously, redundant to skip verse numbers. Rant over.

 

[St. SteVen]

St. SteVen said:
The Bible was humankind's idea, not God's idea. What could go wrong?

You need to be born again by water in order to see how God’s Word is a revelation from God. Being born again of water is receiving the words of the Bible from God and submitting to them fully by faith. Being transformed or awakened by God on this happens generally when a person accepts Jesus Christ as their Savior when they heard the words from the Bible or Scripture convicting them of their sin and they ask Jesus to save them and they dedicate their lives to Him according to His Word (the Bible). If you reject the Bible and say it is from men and not God, then you are not born again. It’s just that simple, my friend. Check out the tract called, “This Was Your Life.”

You are claiming that I am not a Christian on the basis of a difference of opinion.

]

 

[St. SteVen]

Majority Text Advocates look to both the Textus Receptus and Critical Text readings. I know of Majority Text advocates and have even talked with them. Have you? At the end of the day, Majority Text folk become their own authority (unfortunately). The Majority Text Advocates cannot point to any Bible in the past or a Bible now that has any significant influence among the church. This is what Majority Text folk and Critical Text Advocates fail to understand. They seem to throw the church under the bus when it comes to them having the perfect Word of God (as God promised).

Again, you have no idea what the term "Majority Text" even means. Obviously. You should read that article.

Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus – Textual Criticism 101​

https://www.bereanpatriot.com/majority-text-vs-critical-text-vs-textus-receptus-textual-criticism-101/#Corruption-of-the-Alexandrian-text-type

]

 

[Bible Highlighter]

LOL
So the fancy title makes it NOT punctuation? How can a comma NOT be English punctuation?
Are you claiming that the Johannine Comma was in the Greek manuscript? - LOL

Her reference to the Comma has nothing to do with a comma in punctuation but it is a reference to the reading in the KJV. Seeing you did not catch this, it merely shows you do not have knowledge of the Bibliology topic like you should.

The Latin word "Comma," (when referring to "Johannine Comma") means a short clause or phrase. In this context, it refers to the specific short clause in the First Epistle of John (1 John 5:7-8) that discusses the testimony of the Father, the Word (Son), and the Holy Spirit. The phrase "Johannine" indicates that it pertains to the writings attributed to John. Again, it has nothing to do with punctuation. Please do not revel in your own ignorance. It only makes you look bad or unintelligent, my friend.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

My 2 cents; all the money greedy, for profit, modern bible versions are leaving verses out that are in the KJB. It's been proven that the verses are in some manuscripts. Why not just leave the verses in? Instead, "scholars" leave the verse out, then put a footnote with an * to say some manuscripts have this verse, Duh. Matthew 18:11 for instance; It skips from verse 10 to verse 12. why not just put verse 11 there and add the footnote. At least it would not look so ridiculously, redundant to skip verse numbers. Rant over.

Your heart is in the right direction here, but the problem is that the footnotes in the Modern Bibles will say that the oldest and best manuscripts do not have this particular reading (Which can lead a person to abandon the faith because God does not know how to keep His own Word). Another problem with this is in the fact that there are changed doctrines in Modern Bibles when you compare it to the KJV, as well. There are not only missing verses, but there are also changed words that are for the worse, as well. To make matters worse for the Critical Text Movement, they employed deception on numerous occasions involving the translations themselves. The KJV does not have these problems. Granted, I am not saying to never use a Modern Translation. They can be helpful in fleshing out the difficult archaic wording in the KJV at times (just like a dictionary can), but they should never replace what the KJV says. The KJV was the trusted Bible for hundreds of years and it led to three of the greatest revivals in history. The Modern Bibles cannot make any such claim.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

LOL
So the fancy title makes it NOT punctuation? How can a comma NOT be English punctuation?
Are you claiming that the Johannine Comma was in the Greek manuscript? - LOL

If you were to watch Nick Sayers YouTube Channel (Called Revolution), you would at least learn of the issues involved. Whether you would agree or not is another matter.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Again, you have no idea what the term "Majority Text" even means. Obviously. You should read that article.

Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus – Textual Criticism 101​

Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot

My apologies. I did not read the article fully. I just checked it out now.

According to the article:

The write-up defines the Majority Text as a methodology that relies on the premise that any reading overwhelmingly supported by the manuscript tradition is more likely to be original. It is often referred to as the "democratic" method, where each manuscript has a vote, and the majority reading wins. This approach is simple yet sophisticated, involving mathematical and common sense arguments, as well as careful textual criticism, rather than just counting manuscripts.

The Berean Patriot article's view on the Majority Text, which involves sophisticated textual criticism rather than merely counting manuscripts, represents a minority position among Majority Text adherents.

Most Majority Text advocates tend to adhere to the simpler, more traditional approach where the majority reading is determined by the numerical majority of manuscripts. This more straightforward method is commonly associated with the Majority Text belief. So no. I was not wrong.

What about James Snapp Jr.? He has another oddball view within the Majority Text Movement.

James Snapp Jr. supports the use of the Majority Text, particularly its Byzantine form, but he advocates for a more eclectic method that evaluates evidence from all available textual traditions. This approach, known as "equitable eclecticism," integrates principles from various textual families rather than adhering strictly to a single textual tradition.

In his writings and analyses, Snapp argues for the credibility and reliability of the Majority Text, yet he does not exclusively depend on it. Instead, he evaluates textual variants on a case-by-case basis, considering internal and external evidence from different manuscript traditions.

So why not follow James Snapp Jr.?
Why not follow the large crowd of Majority Text advocates?
How do you decide? Do you just roll the dice? Do you go off your own thinking?
There is no Bible that is used by the church in the Majority Text Movement. It's silly.

]

Why do you keep using right square bracket in your posts?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

St. SteVen said:
The Bible was humankind's idea, not God's idea. What could go wrong?

The Bible is Scripture.
Yet, all Scripture is given by inspiration of God according to 2 Timothy 3:16.
So you are claiming that either the Bible is lying here or you are simply do not understand what this verse plainly says.

You are claiming that I am not a Christian on the basis of a difference of opinion.

While I am not claiming you do such bad things, a person can claim to be Christian and murder and rape people. Are they still a Christian?
Can a person follow a false Christ or Jesus of their own imagining that is not found in the Bible and still be a Christian? Well, they can call themselves a Christian. They may be one in a nominal sense, but are they truly of Christ and following the real Jesus? We know of Jesus from the Bible, and so if we go against what Jesus said, then how we can say we are of Him? That is the point I am making. I am not saying you are not claiming you are Christian. I am also not claiming you don’t believe in Jesus. I imagine that you do. But are you following the Jesus of the Bible? That is entirely different thing.

 

[Rockerduck]

2 cents again,
The title of "scholar" does not necessarily equate to being a Christian. There are atheists who are Bible scholars, and I am aware of a pastor who does not subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity, yet they identify as Christian. So, when I see scholar translators listed in modern bibles, I'm leery. Westcott and Hort were scholars too.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

2 cents again,
The title of "scholar" does not necessarily equate to being a Christian. There are atheists who are Bible scholars, and I am aware of a pastor who does not subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity, yet they identify as Christian. So, when I see scholar translators listed in modern bibles, I'm leery. Westcott and Hort were scholars too.

Most of your Modern Bibles comes from the Westcott and Hort text. They uplifted the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus Greek manuscripts (Despite them being in the minority and despite them never being used by the church). Yes, the Nestle and Aland NT Greek text is what is used for Modern Bibles today, but most do not know that the Nestle and Aland is basically still the Westcott and Hort NT 1881 Greek (Which smashed together Vaticanus and Sinaiticus together. Note: Keep in mind that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree with each other in thousands of places in the gospels alone).

In addition, Westcott and Hort had a Unitarian named George Vance Smith on their team when they did the Revised Version (i.e., the first Modern English Bible of the current Modern Bible Movement that exists today). Smith had written a book called “Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament” whereby he celebrates in the changes that favor Unitarianism. Unitarians even visit the Sinaiticus manuscript today because they see this manuscript as a huge win for their Unitarian cause. Most Modern Bible Advocates are ignorant of such facts. If they are aware of it, they either like to downplay them or they try to deny it.

 

[Johann]

Most of your Modern Bibles comes from the Westcott and Hort text. They uplifted the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus Greek manuscripts (Despite them being in the minority and despite them never being used by the church). Yes, the Nestle and Aland NT Greek text is what is used for Modern Bibles today, but most do not know that the Nestle and Aland is basically still the Westcott and Hort NT 1881 Greek (Which smashed together Vaticanus and Sinaiticus together. Note: Keep in mind that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree with each other in thousands of places in the gospels alone).

In addition, Westcott and Hort had a Unitarian named George Vance Smith on their team when they did the Revised Version (i.e., the first Modern English Bible of the current Modern Bible Movement that exists today). Smith had written a book called “Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament” whereby he celebrates in the changes that favor Unitarianism. Unitarians even visit the Sinaiticus manuscript today because they see this manuscript as a huge win for their Unitarian cause. Most Modern Bible Advocates are ignorant of such facts. If they are aware of it, they either like to downplay them or they try to deny it.

Your take on the Koine Greek in the Textus?

Erasmus was the author of five published editions from 1516 to 1535, the 1516 edition being the very first Textus Receptus. There were approximately thirty distinct editions of the Textus Receptus made over the years.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Your take on the Koine Greek in the Textus?

Erasmus was the author of five published editions from 1516 to 1535, the 1516 edition being the very first Textus Receptus. There were approximately thirty distinct editions of the Textus Receptus made over the years.

Hello Johann.

Good to see you.
May God bless you this fine day.
I hope all things are going well for you.

To get down to business:

Well, some KJV and TR advocates who have studied the topic deep enough understand that the KJV is based primarily on Beza’s 1598 edition Greek. There are only 20 translatable differences between the KJV and Beza’s 5th edition. So the TR (Textus Receptus) went through a purification of different editions until it reached the Beza 1598.

Even the KJV printed editions went through a purification.
While I take it by faith that the hand written master copy of the KJV was perfect and without error, the printing process was messy and imperfect during its time. People do not realize that printing mistakes was a natural part of printing large works in those days. I believe that the 1638 KJV edition was most likely when they fixed the printing errors. Dr. Samuel Ward and Dr. John Bois who were part of the original team of translators for the 1611 helped to fix any remaining problems with the 1638 KJV edition. So when folks try to criticize the KJV by comparing the 1611 with the Blayney 1769 or the Pure Cambridge (circa 1900), they don’t realize that the printing errors were not fixed until the 1638 KJV edition. So they need to compare the 1638 edition KJV with the later KJV editions that we used today (Which is generally the Blayney KJV and the Pure Cambridge). By 1644, the Apocrypha was removed in most KJV editions. By the 1660s, the KJV became popular in use (i.e., the mainstream Bible in the UK). Coincidentally, during the 1680s, the Waldenses and their Bible were fading more away because of the persecution of the Catholic Church. I believe that before the KJV, the Bible existed perfectly with the Waldenses in the French Alps. The Waldenses and their Bible (Vetus Latina) can be traced back to the apostles. In fact, the Waldenses gave the reformers a pure Bible. So there is an unbroken chain of custody where the church always had the perfect words of God.

I hope this helps, and may the Lord Jesus Christ shine all manner of good things unto you and your family.

With loving kindness to you in Christ,

Sincerely,

BL. Highlighter.

Side Note:

Oh, and just in case you may be wondering, the KJV became the dominant translation here in America by the 1700s.

 

[Johann]

The Waldenses and their Bible (Vetus Latina) can be traced back to the apostles. In fact, the Waldenses gave the reformers a pure Bible. So there is an unbroken chain of custody where the church always had the perfect words of God.

Hi brother-all good here and I find this very interesting.

The Waldenses, also known as the Waldensians, were a Christian movement that emerged in the 12th century in the region that is now part of France and Italy. They sought to adhere closely to the teachings of the Bible and opposed certain practices and doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church at that time. One significant aspect of their faith practice was the use of the Bible in the vernacular, which was uncommon in medieval Europe, where Latin was predominantly used for Scripture.

The Waldensian Bible (Vetus Latina)
The term "Vetus Latina" refers to the "Old Latin" versions of the Bible, which predate the Vulgate, the Latin translation completed by St. Jerome in the late 4th century. The Vetus Latina is not a single translation but rather a collection of various Latin translations of the Bible used by Christian communities before the Vulgate became widely adopted.

Key Points about the Waldensian Bible:
Translation: The Waldensian Bible was an early vernacular translation based on the Vetus Latina manuscripts. This translation was in the Romance languages spoken by the Waldenses, specifically in their regions, likely in Occitan (the language of southern France) or other regional dialects.

Usage: The Waldenses highly valued Scripture and sought to make it accessible to laypeople. They believed in personal piety and the authority of the Bible over church traditions and hierarchy. This led them to translate and distribute the Bible in the vernacular, ensuring that ordinary people could read and understand it.

Preservation and Impact: The Waldensian Bible translations played a crucial role in the preservation and dissemination of biblical texts in vernacular languages during a time when the Roman Catholic Church restricted access to the Scriptures in languages other than Latin. Their commitment to scriptural accessibility influenced later movements, including the Protestant Reformation.

Waldensian Bible and the Reformation
The Waldensians were precursors to the Reformation in their emphasis on returning to the Bible as the sole authority for faith and practice. Their use of vernacular translations prefigured the Reformation's push for translating the Bible into common languages, as seen with figures like Martin Luther and William Tyndale.

Conclusion
The Waldensian Bible, based on the Vetus Latina manuscripts, represents an early effort to make the Scriptures accessible to ordinary people in their own languages. This movement predated and influenced the broader push for vernacular translations that became a hallmark of the Protestant Reformation. The Waldenses' dedication to the Bible and its teachings underscores the enduring importance of scriptural access and understanding in the Christian faith.


Now for the big question--can we find a Vetus Latina in English? I use my KJV Bible for studying and doing searches such as on the Godhead, occurring only 3x.
A lot of information here brother and appreciate the hard work.
Johann.

 

[Christian Soldier]

Your views are only your personal opinion, as are mine. There is no consensus on what the Bible says.

Very wrong of you to trash me over a difference of opinion.

Bibliolatry: Worship/knowledge of the book MORE than the author

I have encountered some that I thought had fallen into this trap. I asked them, "What would become of your faith if you put your whole library out on the curb on trash day?" The guilty are left mostly speechless. Or, alternatively VERY angry. How come? To be clear, I love the Bible and use...

www.christianityboard.com

]

My views are the same as the Apostles, because I accept everything God says. Unlike you I don't believe, the Bible is open to private interpretation. I believe the Bible interprets the Bible, so I reject any suggestion that there are many truths and different ways to to interpret the Bible.

Yes there are many who twist Gods Word to push their false religion, but that will never change the truth. So we have mass confusion because people trust false prophets rather than God.

I don't trash just your opinion, but everyone's opinion. Gods Word is not open to opinion, God said "let your yes be yes and your no be no, anything apart rom these is of the Devil." So opinions are of the Devil, they are the spirit antichrist.

 

[Christian Soldier]

Indeed. You should be ashamed. But here you are...
Would you surrender your doctrine in the name of unity? Neither would I. So...

The Unity and Division threads - Unified to one topic - Divided by links

Doctrinolatry - tribalism and division in the Body of Christ A follow-up to my Bibliolatry topic. Doctrine becomes an idol when it is used to support tribalism and cause division in the Body of Christ. Since doctrinal unity is impossible, allowing others to hold their own doctrinal opinions may...

www.christianityboard.com

]

I don't have any doctrine, Gods Word is the only doctrine I believe in.

I would never commit spiritual fornication with anyone who holds to false unbiblical doctrine.

The only way Christians can have unity and fellowship, is if they both believe in the same God. But the problem is, most Christians invent a god in their head and idolize it. So I can't have fellowship with those who worship pagan gods.

 

[Grailhunter]

A SHORT LIST OF ERRORS, MODIFICATIONS, ADDITIONS THAT APPEAR IN THE KJV FOR THE NEW TESTAMENT ONLY … MANY MORE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.

As a matter of perspective all of these discrepancies do not originate from the King James Version of the scriptures…many of them were adopted from the Jewish Vulgate Translation, the William Tyndale Bible and the Geneva Bible. At times the translators of the KJV played the Amplified Bible thing LOL where they would add words that they thought clarified the meaning of the verse….

(1) Matthew 9:13​

KJV: But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”
Discrepancy: The KJV added “to repentance”..ie come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”

(2) Matthew 17:21​

KJV: Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
Discrepancy: This verse is an addition and not found in earlier manuscripts.

(3) Matthew 18:11
KJV: For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.
Discrepancy: This verse is an addition and not found in earlier manuscripts. But a longer version of this appears in Luke 19:10.

​

(4) Matthew 20:16​

KJV: …. for many be called, but few chosen.
Discrepancy: An addition and a duplication of Matthew 22:14 and not found in earlier manuscripts.

(5) Matthew 23:14​

KJV: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
Discrepancy: This verse is an addition….not found in earlier manuscripts. And is an expansion of similar verses in Mark and Luke.

(6) Mark 7:16
KJV: If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
Discrepancy: This verse is nearly identical with verses 4:9 and 4:23. But this verse is an addition….not found in earlier manuscripts.

(7) Mark 9:44 - 46​

KJV: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. .. (Both verses identical to each other, and to 9:48, which is still in the main text)
Discrepancy: Both verses 44 and 46 are duplications of verse 48. These verses are additions and not found in earlier manuscripts.

(8) Mark 11:26​

KJV: But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
Discrepancy: This verse is very similar to Matthew 6:15 but this verse is an addition….not found in earlier manuscripts.

(9) Mark 15:28​

KJV: And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, "And he was numbered with the transgressors."
Discrepancy: This verse is similar to Luke 22:37. But this verse is an addition….not found in earlier manuscripts. It does not appear in any manuscript until the 6th century.

(10) Mark 16: 9-20

KJV Eleven verses added to the ending of the Gospel of mark.
Discrepancy: The KJV adds eleven verses to the end of the Gospel of Mark. Not found in earlier manuscripts.

(11) Luke 4:4
KJV: And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
Discrepancy: The KJV added the words; but by every word of God.

(12) Luke 4:8​

KJV: And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
NASB: Jesus replied to him, “It is written: ‘YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD AND SERVE HIM ONLY.’”
Discrepancy: The KJV reworded this verse and added the phrase “Get thee behind me, Satan:”

Discrepancy: This is an addition and a reworking of the scriptures. Also get behind me, Satan, does not appear in the earlier manuscripts.

(13) Luke 17:36
KJV: Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Discrepancy: This verse is obviously a rewording of Matthew 24:40. This verse is an addition….not found in earlier manuscripts.

(14) Luke 23:17​

KJV: For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.
Discrepancy: The same verse or a very similar verse appears in Matthew 27:15 and Mark 15:6. But in Luke they are additions. Not appearing in older manuscripts.

(15) Luke 24:40
KJV: And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
Discrepancy: This verse is an addition and does not occur in older manuscripts.

(16) 1 John 5:7–8
The infamous Comma johannine Addition

KJV: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
Discrepancy: This is a well known reworking of the scriptures to support a theological belief of the time period.

(17) John 8:1-11​

KJV: The story of the Adulterous Woman brought before Christ​

Discrepancy: This is an addition and no part of it appears in older manuscripts.​

​

(18) The words witch witchcraft and bewitched in the KJV​

KJV​

Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Sorceress here pointed directly women.​

Deuteronomy 18:10 The phrase here is practice magic.​

1st Samuel 15:23 The word here is divination.​

2nd Kings 9:22 The word here is sorcery.​

2nd Chronicles 33:6 This verse is reworded from the original. The words here are sorcery and divination and mediums….the words wizards, enchantment, and familiar spirits were added.​

Acts 8:9 The word here is amaze or astonish, not bewitched.​

Acts 8:11 The word here also is amaze or astonish, not bewitched.​

Galatians 3:1 Now this one is interesting, It appears once in the scriptures. Scholars do not agree on its use here or its meaning. Just that bewitched is not in the scriptures…. something like….cast a spell or enchanted.​

​

Galatians 5:20 The word here is socery.​

Discrepancies: The word witch, witchcraft, and bewitched cannot be in the scriptures because the words did not exist at that time. These insertions contributed to the horrible torture and deaths of millions. The word witch has it own mean(s) and imagery and superstitions associated with them, that are not biblical. The atrocities of the Church, both Catholic and Protestants that were associated with the witch-hunts and inquisitions are so horrible that we cannot discuss them on this forum. Most of the women and men that died were killed for their property, because they would charge them for the torture and executions. Most of the inquisitions were politically motivated or they were killing people of other faiths, not necessity none Christians. The word witch is mostly associated with women. The Catholic Church produced a book called the Malleus Maleficarum …Latin for the Hammer of Witches which was an instruction manual on how to locate and torture and execute witches, mostly female. A lot if the information in the Malleus Maleficarum was a collection of superstitions which eventually made its way into Christianity. First step, strip them and inspect them.​

Now in perspective, there are witches….mostly nature witches and satanic witches. The new age beliefs dabble in this. I know Satan witches exist because I have had run in’s with them.​

(18) John 9:4​

KJV: I must work the works of Him who sent Me while it is day; the night is coming when no one can work.
Discrepancy: Should be; We must work the works of Him who sent Me….​

​

Continued…​