KJV Alone?

tall73 said:

This is a ridiculous claim. You cannot tell which Bible is best because it came from Egypt.

a. Many of the manuscripts we have, even some that follow the majority text, come from Egypt because the climate tends to preserve them.

b. The Codex Alexandrinus, from Alexandria, and one of the most relied upon uncials is in fact representative of the majority text in the gospels, and the rest of the books are in an Alexandrian text type. It is one of the earliest ever majority text type examples, and you want to get rid of it because it is from Egypt?

Click to expand...

You keep twisting my words. I referenced modern bibles from Egypt, not texts.

SaintJoeNow said:

I don't know about almost all of them who study coming to the conclusion of KJV only. I think some will, but I think it's more like one or two out of ten. Most people will look at the facts and say, "well, I don't know, I think I have the Holy Spirit to guide me into truth the same as the King James Bible translators so I'll let God show me what His word really is and trust my own judgement above other people's". Becoming a KJV only believer causes divisions and it may cost some friendships. People can be afraid or proud and choose to stand with "all versions convey God's word, and a couple more versions will help it come across better". That is the popular stand today, and it's easier to go along with than to stand against.

Click to expand...

Becoming a believer in Jesus Christ causes divisions and it may cost some friendships. Does that mean that I wouldn't want to follow Jesus? I do not care what the world thinks, I do not care what is popular. I do not care what anyone thinks about my decision to follow Jesus Christ nor do I care what anyone thinks about my decision to choose the KJB as the preserved word of God. My beliefs are not swayed by popular opinion. My beliefs come from God's word. I believe I have God's word as He has preserved it for me and do not feel the need to study from any other bible. I know the agenda of the other "Modern" versions and I want no part of it.

I have edited this post to say that I agree with what you have said here and just wanted to clarify my position. It is sad that you are all too correct in what you have shown as a popular view among many people today, including a number of Christians.

graphuto said:

What do you mean you don't see any changes? One said that Jesus is God. The other says that he isn't...

Click to expand...

There is no verse that says He isn't.

Dude... What don't you understand about the following :

The ESV denies the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ in Philippians 2:6!

Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" KJV
King James Bible says that Jesus did not think it robbery to be equal with God.

Philippians 2:6 "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped," ESV
Modern versions say that Jesus didn't think being equal with God was a thing to be grasped.

Seriously, I'm getting bored of you people.

graphuto said:

Dude... What don't you understand about the following :

The ESV denies the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ in Philippians 2:6!

Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" KJV
King James Bible says that Jesus did not think it robbery to be equal with God.

Philippians 2:6 "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped," ESV
Modern versions say that Jesus didn't think being equal with God was a thing to be grasped.

Seriously, I'm getting bored of you people.

Click to expand...

The ESV does not deny the deity of Christ . And since it doesn't, there is no doctrinal difference.

The accusation was that the modern translations deny Christ's deity and literal hell.

graphuto said:

Dude... What don't you understand about the following :

The ESV denies the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ in Philippians 2:6!

Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" KJV
King James Bible says that Jesus did not think it robbery to be equal with God.

Philippians 2:6 "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped," ESV
Modern versions say that Jesus didn't think being equal with God was a thing to be grasped.

Seriously, I'm getting bored of you people.

Click to expand...

Modern versions say no such thing. The inability of KJV-Onlyists to correctly parse the sentence does not mean squat. Moreover, when did the KJV become the bench-mark to judge other versions by? It is the Greek and Hebrew which are the benchmarks if there are any. Further given that John 1 clearly equates Jesus with God, it is clear that his deity is not reduced in any way by these translations. Moreover the Greek here translates as "did not deem to seize upon being equal to God" which supports the modern versions.

The ESV says that Christ, although in the form of God, didn't consider that something to be held onto. Instead he emptied himself. So the point of "not a thing to be grasped" was that Christ was willing to become human. He didn't insist on hanging onto the form of God. I don't think the implication is that he stopped being God, but that he didn't let being God stop him from joining us as a man. This powerful description of the Incarnation is obscured by the KJV translation.

graphuto said:

I couldn't care less about the manuscripts, as I don't read ancient Greek or Hebrew. I'm asking why we've had these scriptures for the past 400 years, yet all of a sudden we're changing words, and removing whole verses.

Click to expand...

If you can't care less about the manuscripts then you will never understand why they changed and removed the verses. Because the manuscripts are why they did it.

graphuto said:

I'm asking why we've had these scriptures for the past 400 years, yet all of a sudden we're changing words, and removing whole verses.

Click to expand...

As to the 400 years argument, why was the KJV introduced in the first place when there was already the Geneva, and the Bishop's Bible? The translators note in their Translators to the Reader that some were critical of them for changing the old stand-by Bibles.

So why did they do it?

mikenold said:

Sorry, but the NKJV has the same changes as the NIV, same verses missing etc.

Click to expand...

That is demonstrably not true. Rather than me pick one of the many listings of differences between the KJV and the NIV, why don't you find the one that you feel is most complete listing you can find and we will go through the NKJV to see how it compares. I think you will find that it retains most of the verses in the KJV, because it is based largely on the same underlying manuscripts.

Moreover, when it does differ from the majority text (as opposed to the TR) or the critical text, it notes that in the footnote, meaning that you can tell at a glance what the various text families have.

mikenold said:

I have not heard of the MEV. Do you know if it has the same changes as the NKJV or the NIV?

Click to expand...

It is rather new. It strives to follow the same underlying text as the KJV in the NT. In the Old Testament it mostly follows the Masoretic, however, when the NT quotes follow the LXX it reads those back into the OT text, which is rather interesting, and I would actually say an improvement.

However, I have just started reading it some myself. If you like we can go through and see how it compares on the verse list as well. It would be helpful in evaluating it.

mikenold said:

I never said that the translators of the KJB didn't only used the TR text. They examined many texts but were very careful in what they actually translated to English. The KJB is NOT based on the Latin Vugate.

Click to expand...

I did not say it was based on the Vulgate. However, they did consult it, and a few readings are arguably only based on the Vulgate.

mikenold said:

You keep twisting my words. I referenced modern bibles from Egypt, not texts.

Click to expand...

Here is what you said:

The fact remains that the KJB came through Antioch using the majority text and all the rest of the modern bibles came through Alexandria using the minority texts.

Click to expand...

I think we all agree the KJV came through England. The MANUSCRIPTS are the majority text, and we find examples of that not only in Antioch but in Egypt as well. So if you are not referring to the manuscripts, in what way did the KJV come through Antioch?

And then you say the modern Bible came through Alexandria USING THE MINORITY TEXTS.

Minority texts of what? The minority of MANUSCRIPTS of the Greek NT. The manuscripts are what the majority and minority texts refer to.The Majority text is the text that the majority of extant Greek texts agree with.

And how did the modern versions originate in Egypt in any way other than the manuscripts? I did not twist your words at all. Or perhaps you simply didn't know what minority and majority text refers to.

graphuto said:

Seriously, I'm getting bored of you people.

Click to expand...

We are not too thrilled with your argumentation either when you avoid the entire issue. If the claim is that the KJV is a better translation then you have to be interested in the manuscripts, not just the differences between the KJV and the NIV. Both of those are translations.

You can't see what is closest to something without looking at the something they are trying to translate.

tall73 said:

That is demonstrably not true. Rather than me pick one of the many listings of differences between the KJV and the NIV, why don't you find the one that you feel is most complete listing you can find and we will go through the NKJV to see how it compares. I think you will find that it retains most of the verses in the KJV, because it is based largely on the same underlying manuscripts.

Moreover, when it does differ from the majority text (as opposed to the TR) or the critical text, it notes that in the footnote, meaning that you can tell at a glance what the various text families have.

Click to expand...

I am saying that there is an agenda to take away the diety of Jesus Christ, to take away God from Jesus Christ and portray him as just another man. The NIV and the NKJV have the same agenda and leave out and change the very same verses to do so.

mikenold said:

I am saying that there is an agenda to take away the diety of Jesus Christ, to take away God from Jesus Christ and portray him as just another man. The NIV and the NKJV have the same agenda and leave out and change the very same verses to do so.

Click to expand...

Please post the verses so I can examine the claim. Which verses do you refer to?

tall73 said:

It is rather new. It strives to follow the same underlying text as the KJV in the NT. In the Old Testament it mostly follows the Masoretic, however, when the NT quotes follow the LXX it reads those back into the OT text, which is rather interesting, and I would actually say an improvement.

However, I have just started reading it some myself. If you like we can go through and see how it compares on the verse list as well. It would be helpful in evaluating it.

Click to expand...

I have looked in to what texts have been used and although they did use the TR they also used the corrupted Alexandrian texts. I prefer to read a bible that throws away all corrupted text and contradictory text. Just the word of God and not the philosophy of the Greeks.

mikenold said:

I have looked in to what texts have been used and although they did use the TR they also used the corrupted Alexandrian texts. I prefer to read a bible that throws away all corrupted text and contradictory text. Just the word of God and not the philosophy of the Greeks.

Click to expand...

Can you link me to what you read exactly? I would like to see what was indicated.

tall73 said:

I did not say it was based on the Vulgate. However, they did consult it, and a few readings are arguably only based on the Vulgate.

Click to expand...

I agreed that they did look at other texts. They threw away most of the Vulgate, if not all.

mikenold said:

I agreed that they did look at other texts. They threw away most of the Vulgate, if not all.

Click to expand...

If you want we can look at a specific example where their rendering used English versions based on the Vulgate rather than the Greek. However, it may not be that important to the overall issue. Let me know if you want me to post the discussion.