KJV Only...which one!

[Bible Highlighter]

Why does the KJV omit “nor the son” in Matt 24:36?

KJV - “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only

RSV - “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”

The gospel account in Mark includes a variation that express these words. So I don’t see the problem here.

As for the RSV: It’s a revision of the ASV or the American Standard Version. Looks like they just whimsically made changes and updates as they saw fit like they do in other Modern Bibles even with the RSV.

Revised Standard Version - Wikipedia

And they still did not get it right. Looks like they revised it again.

New Revised Standard Version - Wikipedia

In fact, Modern Bibles teach that Jesus is some kind of created second God, right?

They say that Jesus is a begotten God in John 1:18 in the BLB, Amplified Bible, Literal Standard Version, and certain versions of the NASB.

In Micah 5:2 it talks about how the Messiah is from everlasting in the King James Bible. Yet, in some of your Modern Bibles, it says the Messiah is from the distant past (NLT) (NET), or they say the Messiah is from ancient days (ESV) (NRSV) (AMP), etcetera.

The updates in the KJB is nowhere near the level of the changes that were made the different editions of the RSV. See, the goal of these Modern bibles is about money and they need to make a certain percentage of changes to consider it to be another updated changed version to be copyrighted. So they shoot for that magic number to make the money.

The King James Bible has been settled with the 1900 Cambridge Edition (that seeks to be faithful to the 1611). Modern Versions do not really seek to be faithful to it’s original first one.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Things are not always as they appear.

The translation of the King James Bible (NT Textus Receptus) uses Formal Equivalence and Modern Bibles (NT Critical Text) uses Dynamic Equivalence. Formal Equivalence is word for word translation and Dynamic Equivalence is a thought for thought translation. So one approach to the Bible is more liberal (Which is why those who are Textual Critics are liberal themselves and disbelieve many parts of Scripture like not believing the story of Jonah was real, etcetera). In fact, many of your Modern bibles are riddled with Luciferian statements (“Yea, hath God said,…?”) with the addition of footnotes that say that this part of the Bible is not a part of the originals or best manuscripts, etcetera.

If you were to compare the KJB vs. Modern Bibles: The real issue is if you were to see that various doctrines are watered down and outright attacked (if doctrine is important to you). You will see the changes are for the worse and not for the better in Modern Bibles. Another big one is the history of the Bible lines. If you were to compare the history leading up to the KJB and it’s history afterwards, you will see that it appears wholesome in that it made people believe in God’s Word and even some to be martyred for their faith. With Modern Bibles you hear of Textual Critics who attack the Bible and who hold to heretical beliefs and or who are into Liberalism.

So what you mean to say is that Christians do not have an authoritative Word of God.

No, that's not what I am saying. I don't agree with the premise that a "word-for-word" translation is necessarily an accurate or reliable translation. In my experience, the most accurate translation is the one that conveys the meaning of the Biblical text. What idea is being conveyed and does my translation convey that idea in my language?

If a translator should decide that a word-for-word translation is necessary, THIS in and of itself, IS an interpretive decision. Don't get me wrong, I am not talking about a stylistic representation of the Biblical text. All translations of the Bible attempt to convey the meaning of the text, which the author intended to convey. In this sense, all translation are interpretations, even word-for-word translations.

But once a translator decides to convey the author's intent with a "word-for-word" decode, he or she must still decide on what ideas the words intended to convey. The fact is, most if not all words have more that one possible meaning. For this reason, since the translator is attempting to convey what the Biblical author intended to say, the translator must choose between several possible meanings for any particular word.

Let me illustrate. Consider Paul's exhortation to the Corinthian church regarding the wearing of head coverings. Even a word-for-word translation requires a decision from the translator. The Greek word for "woman" is also the same word for "wife" and so the translator must decide whether Paul was giving instructions to all women at large or was his exhortation directed strictly to married women?

I believe Paul was speaking to married women in that context and so I would translate the Greek word word as "wife" rather than "woman". I could be wrong, but the point is, I had to make a choice. A word-for-word translation can be just as wrong as any other translation structured differently.

 

[CadyandZoe]

So the belief of “Originals Onlyism” (i.e. Only the Originals are Perfect) that says that we need to look to the original autograph because it is perfect, and the copies are flawed and full of errors is unbiblical. Believers in God's Word can trust that God has preserved a copy of His Word for us today that is perfect (Which would be consistent in the way God operates involving the preservation of His Word). This then leads us to conclude that there must be a perfect Bible that we can find today.

I must say, brother, I can not agree with your point here. First of all, you defeat your own argument. If you want to maintain that the KJV is authoritative because God superintended its creation, then fine. But this concept is not the basis of your argument against other translations. After all, if one can affirm that God superintended the KJV, another person could affirm that God superintended the NASB 1995. But if one is going to prove that God superintended the KJV, one is left to personal revelation. How does one prove that God superintended something? Divine oracle, i.e. God said so himself. But as far as I know, no one can say God spoke from heaven about the KJV.

Second, your argument is based on text types, text structure, stylistic representations, etc., which are human conventions and structures. You want to argue that the KJV is the most reliable English translation because it best conveys the ideas that were originally conveyed in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. If not, then what are we doing here? If we don't have the original autographs, then why debate over text types?

 

[Naomanos]

But as far as I know, no one can say God spoke from heaven about the KJV.

Since I have some history arguing with BH over his stance on the KJV, I can say with some surety that he is going to post a Psalm about silver being purified seven times and extrapolating that to the circa 1900 Cambridge KJV as it is the seventh version of the KJV. That it is saying that God's word is purified seven times and that makes the 1900's Cambridge KJV the authoritative Bible and the one that God wants English readers to use.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

No, that's not what I am saying. I don't agree with the premise that a "word-for-word" translation is necessarily an accurate or reliable translation. In my experience, the most accurate translation is the one that conveys the meaning of the Biblical text. What idea is being conveyed and does my translation convey that idea in my language?

If a translator should decide that a word-for-word translation is necessary, THIS in and of itself, IS an interpretive decision. Don't get me wrong, I am not talking about a stylistic representation of the Biblical text. All translations of the Bible attempt to convey the meaning of the text, which the author intended to convey. In this sense, all translation are interpretations, even word-for-word translations.

But once a translator decides to convey the author's intent with a "word-for-word" decode, he or she must still decide on what ideas the words intended to convey. The fact is, most if not all words have more that one possible meaning. For this reason, since the translator is attempting to convey what the Biblical author intended to say, the translator must choose between several possible meanings for any particular word.

Let me illustrate. Consider Paul's exhortation to the Corinthian church regarding the wearing of head coverings. Even a word-for-word translation requires a decision from the translator. The Greek word for "woman" is also the same word for "wife" and so the translator must decide whether Paul was giving instructions to all women at large or was his exhortation directed strictly to married women?

I believe Paul was speaking to married women in that context and so I would translate the Greek word word as "wife" rather than "woman". I could be wrong, but the point is, I had to make a choice. A word-for-word translation can be just as wrong as any other translation structured differently.

This would only be as you say if GOD left it up to humans alone to handle His Word without GOD's providential hand protecting the preservation of His Word in one form or another.

See, your position here is looking at things from a purely humanistic perspective (anti-faith), and not from a biblical perspective (faith). For faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17).

The Bible says the words of the Lord are pure words, and the Psalmist writes about how God will preserve His words forever (Psalms 12:6-7). Jesus says Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but His words shall not pass away (Matthew 24:35). Peter says, “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.” (1 Peter 1:23-25).

2 Timothy 3:16-17 says all Scripture is given by inspiration of God.

According to our reading of the Bible: We learn that when the original manuscript was destroyed, God did not let His word to remain extinct like many dinosaurs.

Again, in the book of Jeremiah, when king Jehoiakim had burned the scroll of Scripture, God had told Jeremiah to write another scroll and write in it the former words that were in the first scroll.

“Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned.” (Jeremiah 36:28).

What you are probably ignorant of is the fact that the copy that was made that God told Jeremiah to make had additional words to it. Meaning, the copy was not a perfect copy of the original.

“Then took Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah; who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire: and there were added besides unto them many like words.” (Jeremiah 36:32).

If you read between these two verses (Jeremiah 36:29-31) you will see the reason why there were many like words added. The point here is that you are looking for a perfect copy and yet the way God makes copies is not in the humanistic way you prefer. God does things His way and your way. What you may deem as silly and or illogical, God does that as a test of faith for you to believe in His Word over believing your own thoughts or the thoughts of men.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Since I have some history arguing with BH over his stance on the KJV, I can say with some surety that he is going to post a Psalm about silver being purified seven times and extrapolating that to the circa 1900 Cambridge KJV as it is the seventh version of the KJV. That it is saying that God's word is purified seven times and that makes the 1900's Cambridge KJV the authoritative Bible and the one that God wants English readers to use.

Well, you are not telling us anything new within this thread, my friend. I already mentioned in post #17 about how I believe the Cambridge Edition 1900 KJB is the final purified settled Word of God. In post #17 I mention three points of criticism against my fellow KJB Only Brethren (Showing that I don't always just always follow whatever another KJB Only Christian teaches on the subject).

In post #18, I provided the following link on an explanation given for the seven purifications of the KJB (involving the seven major KJB editions).

www.bibleprotector.com/forum • View topic - Seven major purifications of the KJB

In post #22, I said, I quote: “I want to study more the different King James Editions. I want to truly be an expert on the subject because it is like this big question mark for many believers. I know the article link I sent you explains the Cambridge 1900 KJB viewpoint, in how that there were 7 KJB editions lining up with the 7 purifications mentioned in Psalms 12:6-7, but I like to confirm the truth of things for myself.”

In other words, the explanation on the seven purifications and the seven KJB editions is sound and plausible, but I want to do my own homework to double confirm the truth. For now it is the most logical explanation.

 

[Naomanos]

In other words, the explanation on the seven purifications and the seven KJB editions is sound and plausible, but I want to do my own homework to double confirm the truth. For now it is the most logical explanation.

According to you. Others like myself don't see it like that.

As I said, I have God's word in my hands each time I pick up my NKJv. I do not doubt that they are God's words and that they are perfect.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Since I have some history arguing with BH over his stance on the KJV, I can say with some surety that he is going to post a Psalm about silver being purified seven times and extrapolating that to the circa 1900 Cambridge KJV as it is the seventh version of the KJV. That it is saying that God's word is purified seven times and that makes the 1900's Cambridge KJV the authoritative Bible and the one that God wants English readers to use.

Thanks for the warning.

 

[CadyandZoe]

This would only be as you say if GOD left it up to humans alone to handle His Word without GOD's providential hand protecting the preservation of His Word in one form or another.

Your arguments don't support any particular translation. We simply have to take your word that God came down from heaven and told you himself. Is that your argument? Are you claiming divine authority? Whatever you say concerning the KJV can be said of any other translation.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I must say, brother, I can not agree with your point here. First of all, you defeat your own argument. If you want to maintain that the KJV is authoritative because God superintended its creation, then fine. But this concept is not the basis of your argument against other translations. After all, if one can affirm that God superintended the KJV, another person could affirm that God superintended the NASB 1995.

By saying this, it simply means you are simply either never heard before (or you simply refuse to accept the truth) on the following three things:

#1. You are not aware of the doctrinal differences between the KJB vs. Modern Bibles.
#2. You are not aware of the corruptions in Modern bibles (major blatant mistakes, the devil's name is placed in Modern bibles where they don't belong, and how some Modern bibles make Jesus appear to sin).
#3. You are not aware of the history of the dark origins of Modern bibles vs. the wholesome origin of the KJB.​

#1. See here for Doctrinal Differences Between the KJB vs. Modern Bibles.
Other doctrinal differences is that some Modern bibles teach that Jesus was a created second God in John 1:18 by calling Him the begotten God (instead of begotten Son), and that the Messiah in Micah 5:2 was from the distant past or ancient days instead of from everlasting (as the KJB correctly renders it). Some Modern bibles falsely teach that Jesus had faith (NIV) (CSB) (ISV) in the fact that they say He is the pioneer of our faith. Jesus is GOD and GOD cannot have faith in Himself. That's a contradiction. Our faith is to justify us before God for salvation. Jesus did not need salvation because He is salvation.

#2. For the blatant mistakes in Modern bibles:

See here to learn about how the devil tries to place his name in the Bible where it does not belong (in Modern Translations). See point #24 here for the verses on how Modern bibles make Jesus appear to sin.

#3. To check out the Dark Origins of Modern Bibles, see this documentary here:

Watch Bridge to Babylon | Prime Video

Keep in mind that this is just the tip of the iceberg of the dark origins of Modern Bibles. To get a little more on what I am talking about, the Nestle & Aland Critical Text (used today for all Modern English bibles) is supervised (influenced) by the Vatican. You can learn about this in my post #53 within this thread.

To check out the wholesome origin of the King James Bible, check out these two documentaries here:

KJB: The Book That Changed the World:

Watch Kjb - The Book That Changed The World | Prime Video

The Forbidden Book:

Watch The Forbidden Book | Prime Video

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Your arguments don't support any particular translation. We simply have to take your word that God came down from heaven and told you himself. Is that your argument? Are you claiming divine authority? Whatever you say concerning the KJV can be said of any other translation.

See my recent post #170.
Carefully examine and weigh in the evidence.
If not, you are simply seeing what you want to see.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I must say, brother, I can not agree with your point here. First of all, you defeat your own argument. If you want to maintain that the KJV is authoritative because God superintended its creation, then fine. But this concept is not the basis of your argument against other translations. After all, if one can affirm that God superintended the KJV, another person could affirm that God superintended the NASB 1995. But if one is going to prove that God superintended the KJV, one is left to personal revelation. How does one prove that God superintended something? Divine oracle, i.e. God said so himself. But as far as I know, no one can say God spoke from heaven about the KJV.

Second, your argument is based on text types, text structure, stylistic representations, etc., which are human conventions and structures. You want to argue that the KJV is the most reliable English translation because it best conveys the ideas that were originally conveyed in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. If not, then what are we doing here? If we don't have the original autographs, then why debate over text types?

I forgot to add one extra point involving how the Vatican supervised (influenced) the Nestle and Aland Critical NT Greek Text (Which is the textual basis or standard today for all Modern English Translations).

This point is that there are 14 points in Scripture where we can see the Vatican (the Roman Catholic Church) influence Scripture. Simply check out page 21 in this PDF document here:

http://www.keithpiper.org/storage/books/NIV-Omissions-Cimatu-7July2018-pdf.pdf

 

[Naomanos]

If not, you are simply seeing what you want to see.

Typical BH MO, if you don't see it his way, it's your fault. It doesn't cross his mind that he actually can be wrong. That for all his research it is he who is seeing what he wants to see.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Thanks for the warning.

But he really did not warn you because the information was already posted in this forum. I have nothing to hide or to trick you with. You are free to believe the evidence (both from the Bible and history) I present or not. Ultimately, my goal is to get you to believe the Bible. My goal is to get you to believe Psalms 12:6-7, Proverbs 30:5-6, Matthew 24:35, 1 Peter 1:23-25, and Jeremiah 36:28, and Jeremiah 36:32.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Typical BH MO, if you don't see it his way, it's your fault. It doesn't cross his mind that he actually can be wrong. That for all his research it is he who is seeing what he wants to see.

Shooting the messenger instead of dealing with the evidence is not really a good way for people to seek the truth. In other words, you are trying to make it about me so as to bring down the argument. However, you are not refuting any of the evidence I present (Explaining the verses and historical evidence I put forth, etcetera). There are many Anti-KJB Only Christians I have ran into who just post their opinion on how their faith in Religion of Modern Scholarship is superior (When that's not really proof of anything).

But we have to stop and really think here. The opinions of scholars that make up footnotes in Bibles that makes people to doubt Scripture like the ending of Mark, and or the inclusion of 1 John 5:7 is just the scholar's opinion and it is not based on church history or what the Bible actually says. The Religion of Modern Scholarship is all about... “Yea, hath God said,...?” (Genesis 3:1).

 

[Naomanos]

Shooting the messenger instead of dealing with the evidence is not really a good way for people to seek the truth. In other words, you are trying to make it about me so as to bring down the argument. However, you are not refuting any of the evidence I present (Explaining the verses and historical evidence I put forth, etcetera). There are many Anti-KJB Only Christians I have ran into who just post their opinion on how their faith in Religion of Modern Scholarship is superior (When that's not really proof of anything).

But we have to stop and really think here. The opinions of scholars that make up footnotes in Bibles that makes people to doubt Scripture like the ending of Mark, and or the inclusion of 1 John 5:7 is just the scholar's opinion and it is not based on church history or what the Bible actually says. The Religion of Modern Scholarship is all about... “Yea, hath God said,...?” (Genesis 3:1).

Wasn't really shooting the messenger, unless you are trying to actually play the victim card?

Was only pointing out your posting style.

 

[Naomanos]

The Religion of Modern Scholarship is all about... “Yea, hath God said,...?” (Genesis 3:1).

Which is literally only your opinion.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

According to you. Others like myself don't see it like that.

As I said, I have God's word in my hands each time I pick up my NKJv. I do not doubt that they are God's words and that they are perfect.

Sorry, the NKJV is not perfect like the KJB.
Let's examine the verses to check it out.

Hebrews 3:16 KJB

“For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.”​

Hebrews 3:16 NKJV

“For who, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, was it not all who came out of Egypt, led by Moses?”​

Joshua and Caleb did not rebel. This is why the King James Bible correctly renders it as some and not as all who came out of Egypt as the NKJV falsely renders it.

Zechariah 13:6 KJB

“And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.”​

Zechariah 13:6 NKJV

“And one will say to him, ‘What are these wounds between your arms?’ Then he will answer, ‘Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.’”​

The NKJV falsely says this is arms and not hands.
Psalms 22:16 in the NKJV says, “They pierced My hands and My feet;”

What's odd is that in a previous NKJV edition (1982) it said hands.
It seems like the NKJV cannot make up its mind.

See, the updates in the KJB were done for loyal and good reasons (So that men can have the purest form of the Word of God). Seeing the KJB is not copy written outside of the UK, the goal is for men to have the Word of God. On the other hand, Modern Bibles are out to create a certain percentage of changes like Modern Bibles in order to place a copyright upon it and make money off of it. You have to make a certain percentage of changes in order to claim it is a new edition to get a copyright. So this forces the translator to make changes to fit the need of copyright laws rather than trying to be guided by God to give readers the most accurate words of God.

The NKJV was created to deceive KJB Only Christians who are ignorant or uneducated on the topic.

The NKJV is the perfect bait and switch Bible (Which is a tactic of deception).
Check out this video here to learn more:

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Which is literally only your opinion.

It's not an opinion if somebody believes the footnotes in Modern Bibles that comes from Modern Scholars. If somebody does not believe the ending of Mark or they don't believe 1 John 5:7 because some scholar says they don't belong in the Bible, that is faith in the Religion of Modern Scholarship and not faith in what the Bible says.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

My first Bible translation was an NIV in 2007.

But it always bothered me that there were so many different versions on the shelf to chose from. Being totally ignorant of the scriptures at the time my only “proof” was to look up the story of the flood which I learned about watching a Bible movie years ago. So I happened to pick up the NIV and found the flood account while scanning through the pages. Once I found the flood account I bought the NIV.

So throughout the year as I read the NIV this was a source of questioning of the scriptures; why so many versions?

So I prayed one night asking God if the NIV was His word.

Soon after I met a man who came to my job and saw my Bible on my desk. He then asked what version was it? From there he proceeded to tell me about modern Bible corruptions. This got my attention quickly because at the time whenever I searched the internet on Bible translations I always seemed to find only pro-modern Bible sources. But after speaking with this man I tried searching the internet using phrases like “Bible corruption” and I found many enlightening articles showing how modern translations were greatly influenced by the critical text of 1881.

Once I realized how different the modern versions were from the KJV I felt that my prayer was answered.

But I got even more confirmation once I started reading the KJV! The word in the KJV translation moved me and changed me! The NIV did not do this!