Am a King James Bible Believer

[The Ark Hive Mind]

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

I thought it was called 'practice'.

 

[gordonhooker]

I thought it was called 'practice'.

No practice is doing it over and over again and improving. Alas I am not seeing that in some of these posts.

 

[The Ark Hive Mind]

No practice is doing it over and over again and improving. Alas I am not seeing that in some of these posts.

You might have to explain that definition to some 'sports' teams or 'rap artists'. They 'practice', but maybe they don't have your definition.

 

[DeaconDean]

The evidence in favor of the last 12 verses of Mark's Gospel is overwhelming.

Even the copier who produced Vaticanus recognized something was missing and left room for the last 12 verses. It was not uncommon for the last several verses of a papyrus or vellum scroll to be missing as, when it was rolled up, the very end of the manuscript would be the outermost layer of the roll and was more likely to be damaged.

Photo of the last pages of Mark in Vaticanus.

View attachment 230332

That also is highly debatable.

Any textual critic would point out to you that the context of those verses do not match.

I cite:

"1. The Various Endings of Mark in the Manuscript Tradition

The various endings of Mark found in the manuscript tradition can be organized into five main groups.

1.1. Mark 16:8


In certain manuscripts, Mark ends at 16:8, which reads, “So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid” (nrsv). The last two words of this form of the Greek text of Mark are the now-famous ejfobouAnto gavr, “for they were afraid.” This ending is found in two major Greek Codices—Codex Sinaiticus (a) and Vaticanus (B), as well as in 304, certain Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, and Georgian manuscripts, and is witnessed to by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome.

1.2. The “Shorter Ending”


A second ending found in the manuscript tradition is the shorter ending. This ending reads, after 16:8, “And all that had been commanded them they told briefly to those around Peter. And afterward Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Amen.” The best known example of this in its pure form is found in the Old Latin Codex Bobiensis (itk), which dates from the late 4th or early 5th century.8 The non-Markan origin of the shorter ending is witnessed to by its poor and late textual attestation; the fact that 9 of the 34 words in this ending are not found elsewhere in Mark;9 its non-Markan style; and especially the presence of the expression, “the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation,” which reflects a later date.

1.3. The “Longer Ending” (16:9–20)10


The best-known ending of Mark is the longer ending, 16:9–20. The manuscript evidence in support of this reading is too large to recite. Let it suffice to refer to Kurt and Barbara Aland,11 who claim that the longer ending is found in 99% of the Greek manuscripts as well as the rest of the tradition, and to Michael Holmes,12 who refers to it being found in 95% of the Greek manuscripts.13 The early attestation of this ending (Epistle of the Apostles 9–10 [mid-2nd century]; Tatian’s Diatessaron; Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.10.5; possibly Justin Martyr, Apology 1:45) suggests that the longer ending was
composed early in the 2nd century.14 The longer ending has excellent textual attestation, but a number of the manuscripts have asterisks or other markings by the text indicating that the copyists thought the longer ending was spurious.15 It has, however, early patristic support, and Hengel argues
that it “must be dated to the first decades of the second century.”16 The evaluation of the longer ending by scholars today is almost unanimous in rejecting it as Markan. There are a number of reasons for this:17

1. Manuscript Evidence. Although the number of manuscripts containing this ending is impressive, the quality of manuscripts lacking it (Codexes a and B, itk [Codex Bobiensis], Clement of Alexandria and Origen, and the comments by Eusebius and Jerome that the majority of Greek manuscripts they were familiar with lacked it) is weighty.

2. Transcription. It is unlikely that a copyist would omit 16:9–20 if it


was originally part of the Gospel of Mark. It is far more likely that a scribe would add 16:9–20 to 16:8 than delete it from 16:8.

3. Lack of Attestation by Early Church Fathers. The lack of reference to 16:9–20 by Origen, Tertullian, Cyrian, Cyril of Jerusalem, and others, indicates that they were apparently unacquainted with the longer ending of Mark.

4. Vocabulary. The vocabulary is non-Markan and contains 18 terms not found anywhere else in Mark.18

5. Style. The Greek style of the longer ending is quite unlike the style we find in Mark 1:1–16:8.19

6. Theology. The theological content is decidedly non-Markan.20

As a result, the great majority of scholars who have studied the longer ending of Mark have concluded that the Evangelist did not write it and that it was attached later to his Gospel. In fact, Taylor, in his commentary on Mark, states, “It is unnecessary to examine in detail the almost universally held conclusion that xvi. 9–20 is not an original part of Mark. Both the external and the internal evidence are decisive.”21 The vast majority of Markan scholars agree with this statement."

__________________________________________________________________________________

8. See Bruce M. Metzger (“The Ending of the Gospel according to St. Mark in Ethiopic Manuscripts,” in New Testament Studies: Philological, Versional, and Patristic [Leiden: Brill, 1980], 127–47), who points out that in most Ethiopic manuscripts of Mark the shorter ending is found immediately following 16:8 and is then followed by the longer ending.

9. Edwards, Mark, 498.

10. This reads as follows:

16:9 Now after he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. 10She went out and told those who had been with him, while they were mourning and weeping. 11But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it. 12After this he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country. 13And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them. 14Later he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were sitting at the table; and he upbraided them for their lack of faith and stubbornness, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. 15And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation. 16The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.” 19So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. 20And they went out and proclaimed the good news everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that accompanied it” (nrsv).

11. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism (trans. Erroll F. Rhodes; 2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 292.

12. Michael W. Holmes, “The Many Endings of the Gospel of Mark,” BRev 17/4 (2001): 19.

13. Some of the witnesses to the longer ending are: A C D E H K S U W X Y G D Q P S F W 047 055 0211 f13 28 33 274 565 700 892 1009 lat syr sah cop goth Justin? Tatian Irenaeus Tertullian, and so on.

14. Compare Martin Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark (trans. John Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 167–69 n. 47; and James A. Kelhoffer, Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and Their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark (WUNT 2/112; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 169–77.

15. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed.; New York: United Bible Societies, 2002), 102–6.

16. Hengel, Studies, 68 n. 47. Compare also Kelhoffer (Miracle and Mission, 75), who dates it ca. 120–150.

17. Cf. J. Lee Magness, Sense and Absence: Structure and Suspension in the Ending of Mark’s Gospel (Semeia Studies; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 5–6.

18. James Keith Elliot, “The Text and Language of the Endings to Mark’s Gospel,” TZ 27 (1971): 258–62; and Edwards, Mark, 498 n. 4.

19. Perhaps I will be permitted to share a personal anecdote here. Since my doctoral studies at Princeton Theological Seminary where I did my dissertation on Mark, I have had a continued love affair with this Gospel. I think that I can say with some measure of confidence that this is the book of the Bible of which I am least ignorant. I have become familiar with the style, vocabulary, and theological interests of the author of Mark 1:1–16:8, but I do not know the identity of the author of 16:9–20. He is a stranger to me.

20. Contra William R. Farmer, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (SNTSMS 25; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), 107–9. Contrast especially 16:17–18, 20 with 8:11–13. Verses 12 and 13 furthermore appear to be dependent upon Luke 24:13–35.

21. Vincent Taylor, The Gospel according to St. Mark (London: MacMillan, 1952), 610.

The Ending of Mark, Robert H. Stein, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Bulletin for Biblical Research, 18.1, 2008, p. 79-98

While some accept it, I do not. Because from style, vocabulary, it is clear that it was included long after the original text was written.

Not to mention, verse 16 adds a "condition" that is missing from any other Gospel and from the epistles.

Accept it if you would, I do not.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

The evidence in favor of the last 12 verses of Mark's Gospel is overwhelming.

Even the copier who produced Vaticanus recognized something was missing and left room for the last 12 verses. It was not uncommon for the last several verses of a papyrus or vellum scroll to be missing as, when it was rolled up, the very end of the manuscript would be the outermost layer of the roll and was more likely to be damaged.

No offense, but that is funny considering you claim being a "Baptist".

That is so far from Baptist theology it isn't even funny.

Oh well.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[gordonhooker]

You preach to the choir brother Dean

 

[gordonhooker]

You might have to explain that definition to some 'sports' teams or 'rap artists'. They 'practice', but maybe they don't have your definition.

Doesn’t that mean we go back to the insanity comment

 

[The Ark Hive Mind]

Doesn’t that mean we go back to the insanity comment

Touché. Again?

 

[Strong in Him]

By Sam Gipp (i agree)

QUESTION: Don't King James Bible believer's "worship" the Bible? Didn't God destroy the originals because He didn't want these people to venerate them?

ANSWER: No and no.

I'm sure that you don't worship the KJB as such, and certainly not in place of God - but that is the impression you are giving in this thread. You have said that the KJB is;
- the true word of God
- chosen by God
- perfect
- pure.
JESUS is the Word of God. HE is truth, perfect, chosen and pure, not a book.

You don't engage in debate about this; neither will/can you explain why God allows CORRUPT versions of his word to exist.

I'm guessing the reason why you can't answer the questions and points that have been raised or put to you is because you can't, and can't dispute the facts.
The translators of the KJB say that it was not inspired by God and is not perfect - you are contradicting the very people who made this translation of Scripture.

 

[Strong in Him]

PS I freely admit to insanity.
I must be, if I expect any answer other than "the KJB is perfect".

 

[The Ark Hive Mind]

PS I freely admit to insanity.
I must be, if I expect any answer other than "the KJB is perfect".

The King James Bible (really the Holy Word of God, around a long time before James), that I hold in my hand today, is the perfectly preserved words of God (in the English language), what else would it be? Just askin', no, I am not stayin' 'round here. I am not here to tell you what you have in your (whosoever) hands, only to state what I have in mine.

 

[DeaconDean]

The King James Bible (really the Holy Word of God, around a long time before James), that I hold in my hand today, is the perfectly preserved words of God (in the English language), what else would it be?

It's just like what the KJ Translators said themselves:

"Truly (good Christian Reader) wee never thought from the beginning, that we should neede to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had bene true in some sort, that our people had bene fed with gall of Dragons in stead of wine, with whey in stead of milke but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one,...Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."

Source

The very thing, modern translations stand accused of, the KJ Translators did the exact same thing.

What you guys accuse any modern version of, is the same thing they were trying to accomplish. Put the last version, into a more modern language. And now, nobody will allow it to be done again. Its sacrilege to allow anybody the same right the KJ Translators did, or Wycliffe, or Tyndale, or any others.

All that is being accomplished here is to continue to foster the KJVOnlyism that separates.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[TCassidy]

No offense, but that is funny considering you claim being a "Baptist".

I don't "claim" to be a Baptist. I am a Baptist.

I was saved in a Baptist church.

I was baptized in a Baptist church.

I met my wife in a Baptist church.

We were married in a Baptist church.

I was educated in a Baptist Seminary.

I taught in a Baptist College.

I taught in a Baptist Seminary.

I was Pastor of a Baptist church.

I am now retired and a member of, and serving in a limited capacity, a Baptist church.

That is so far from Baptist theology it isn't even funny.

Why? What did I post that you think contradicts or stands in opposition to Baptist theology? And what do you mean by "Baptist theology?" Is systematic theology exclusively Baptist? If not, what part of Theology, either Systematic or Biblical, makes it "Baptist?"

 

[TCassidy]

The New King James Bible (really the Holy Word of God, around a long time before James), that I hold in my hand today, is the perfectly preserved words of God (in the English language), what else would it be? Just askin', no, I am not stayin' 'round here. I am not here to tell you what you have in your (whosoever) hands, only to state what I have in mine.

 

[TCassidy]

The World English Bible (really the Holy Word of God, around a long time before James), that I hold in my hand today, is the perfectly preserved words of God (in the English language), what else would it be? Just askin', no, I am not stayin' 'round here. I am not here to tell you what you have in your (whosoever) hands, only to state what I have in mine.

 

[TCassidy]

The English Majority Text Version (really the Holy Word of God, around a long time before James), that I hold in my hand today, is the perfectly preserved words of God (in the English language), what else would it be? Just askin', no, I am not stayin' 'round here. I am not here to tell you what you have in your (whosoever) hands, only to state what I have in mine.

 

[TCassidy]

That also is highly debatable.

Which probably explains why the debate has been around since 1881.

Any textual critic would point out to you that the context of those verses do not match.

Any? Well, not really. I suggest your read "The Last Twelve Verses of Mark" by John Burgon, Worcester College, Oxford University, Gresham Professor of Divinity, Gresham College, London.

Or perhaps several works by Dr. Maurice Robinson, Ph.D. New Testament Greek textual criticism, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Ft. Worth, Texas.

 

[TCassidy]

thanks for that i use the 1769 KJB

So does that mean you accept the KJV 1769 readings and reject the KJV 1611 readings as being wrong?

but what do You think of the NKJV problems that i posted?

You didn't post any. You just posted blanket accusations without any chapter or verse references to check to ascertain the place of the accused deletion.

But I gave you chapter and verse of differences between the 1611 and the 1769 and, so far, you have not dealt with them. Care to give it a try?

 

[The Ark Hive Mind]

The New King James Bible (really the Holy Word of God, around a long time before James), that I hold in my hand today, is the perfectly preserved words of God (in the English language), what else would it be? Just askin', no, I am not stayin' 'round here. I am not here to tell you what you have in your (whosoever) hands, only to state what I have in mine.

NKJV, Perfectly preserved? Look at Hebrew 9:12 NKJV please, and show me a single Koine greek mss extant on earth that says 'most holy place' (hagia hagion):

TR - ουδε δι αιματος τραγων και μοσχων δια δε του ιδιου αιματος εισηλθεν εφαπαξ εις τα αγια αιωνιαν λυτρωσιν ευραμενος​

NKJV - 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.​

Doesn't exist (in any language mss, papyrii, codice), and there are no variants for such in any apparatus (N/A, UBS). They added the word (and left off the italics) to God's word.

The very name of God, Jehovah, is entirely not present in the English translation text of the NKJV. Turn to Exo. 6:3, Psa. 83:18, what is the actual name of God in the NKJV English text? Perserved? No. Is it a 'new' King James? No (it's even based on different sources, OT and NT). It's a diabolical counterfeit which attacks the remnant at every point (I have the listings, personally collated). Do you personally care brother that God's very name is no longer there in the English text of the NKJV?

Ecc. 12:11, AV - "masters of assemblies" [priests/pastors]
Ecc. 12:11, NKJV - "scholars" [egg heads, 'professional liars', circa the late Ruckman]

The NKJV even reads the same in OT places as from the non-existant Septuagint (Origen's 5th column Hexapla) - https://www.soulwinning.info/books/peter_ruckman/the_mythological_septuagint.pdf

Matt. 7:14, AV - "narrow"
Matt. 7:14, NKJV - "difficult"

Not the same at all, and two different meanings.

 

[The Ark Hive Mind]

The World English Bible (really the Holy Word of God, around a long time before James), that I hold in my hand today, is the perfectly preserved words of God (in the English language), what else would it be? Just askin', no, I am not stayin' 'round here. I am not here to tell you what you have in your (whosoever) hands, only to state what I have in mine.

World English Bible (WEB) a new revision of the ASV of 1901 [- World English Bible with Deuterocanon Preface ] into Modern English. The New Testament is revised to reflect the Majority Text. Yet it still has corruptions because of the ASV sources (such as the Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensa*) and "Majority"? Whose collection (Hermann von Soden's **)?

"The order of Matthew 23:13 and 14 is reversed in some translations.

Luke 17:36 and Acts 15:34, which are not found in the majority of the Greek Manuscripts (and are relegated to footnotes in the WEB) may be included in some other translations.

Romans 14:24-26 in the WEB may appear as Romans 16:25-27 in other translations.

1 John 5:7-8 contains an addition in some translations, including the KJV. Erasmus admitted adding this text to his published Greek New Testament, even though he could at first find no Greek manuscript support for it, because he was being pressured by men to do so, and because he didn’t see any doctrinal harm in it. Lots of things not written by John in this letter are true, but we decline to add them to what the Holy Spirit inspired through John." - World English Bible with Deuterocanon Preface​

Preserved garbage (lie (above, Erasmus, nonsense)):

"The World English Bible is an ecumenical project that includes books included in Bibles in many denominations." [they mean the apocrypha]​

* "from the source such as the Ben Asher text [Gerhard Kittel [whose father was Rudolph Kittel], was Hitler's propaganidst 'high priest', who wrote: Die Judenfrage [1934]] Biblia Hebraica [BHK] of 1937, or the German Stuttgart edition, from the singular Leningrad [“L”] Manuscript B19a [ben Asher text], which differs from the KJB, Ben Chayyim/Bomberg texts] of the OT, in as much as 20,000 to 30,000 places, [see Preface page “v”], and is therefore not the same as the [1st edition] Daniel Bomberg edition [1516-1517], aka the First Rabbinic Bible, or the [2nd edition] [1524-1525] which was edited by Abraham [Jacob???] ben Chayyim [ben Hayyim] iben Adonijah [Ben Chayyim edition, or Ben Chayyim Masoretic text], aka The Second Great Rabbinic Bible, which was the standard for 400 years, and the foundation of the OT for the King James Bible. In Kittel's first two editions [1906, 1912], he had used the Ben Chayyim Masoretic, but in a 3rd edition [1937, by Paul Kahle], it diverged to the Ben Asher Masoretic text, the MS B19a or “L” text."

** "a NT singular collation of about 414 mss of Hermann von Soden [[so-called 'M'; masquerading as 'Majority text', out of a total 88 papyri, 274 uncials, 2,700 cursives, 2,143 lectionaries, or “the vast field of Patristic and Versional evidence.”, a mere 8% of the Greek sources, and of which he selected for those closely allied to the Alexandrian], which were skewed towards the Alexandrian, and palmed off as the 'Majority text' to the unsuspecting], [see Preface page “v”]"

KJB Articles​