Bible Versions and Translations

Deadworm said:

Apologetic: ""For readers wanting a fair and balanced view of the "majority text", read this article by Bible Scholar Daniel B. Wallace HERE. Sorry Deadworm, but I find your evaluation overly negative to say the least."

I must sadly conclude that either you didn't read Wallace's lengthy article all the way through or you didn't understand its support for the anti-KJV stance of my post. I know that my former mentor, text critic Bruce Metzger would agree with me and the Wallace article cites him as one of his authorities.

Apologetic: "The fact that the KJV was the sole English Bible translation of the English reading/speaking world for roughly 290 years speaks volumes if we have a Biblical view of God. Yes the KJV underwent numerous revisions, but it has a long standing history behind it."
As your source, eveh Daniel Wallace refutes your point by arguing against the majority text on which the KJV is based. He points out that the Bible never claims that God would preserve the purity and accuracy of the biblical text!

"Apologetic: "We should not devalue or underestimate those involved in a major translation such as the KJV, nor the God of truth in leading and assisting them. If we attempt to remove God from the whole process of translation we corrupt and fall into the worst of errors."

The Wallace article that you champion refutes precisely your point here.
For those who would appreciate a detailed documentation of the corrupt KJV texts, read through the list of later KJV additions here: List of New Testament verses not included in modern English translations - Wikipedia

Two of the major KJV interpoations are Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:3 (the story of the woman taken in adultery). In my view, the latter story is a somewhat benign error: it was missing from early manuscripts and was interpolated from the Gospel of the Hebrews and into the text of the Fourth Gospel. So why is its erroneous inclusion in John somewhat benign? Because it has all the hallmarks of a true story from oral tradition.

The interpolation of Mark 16:9-20 is more egregious and doctrinally dangerous. Mark ends with no resurrection appearance of Jesus and some scribes found this unacceptable. So 16:9-20 is just one additional ending that was contrived to provide a more palatable ending. Not only was this passage absent from earlier manuscripts; modern scholars agree that its very different Greek style from Mark also gives it away as an interpolation. Indeed, one early Greek manuscript containing this text identifies the forger as Aristo of Pella, a Christian apologist from the 2nd half of the 2nd century.

There are 2 reasons why 16:9-20 is more egregious and doctrinally dangerous.
"And these signs will accompany those who believe: they will speak in new tongues. They will pick up snakes in their hands and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them (16:17)."

(1) True, Paul was once spared from the bite of an aggressive viper that surprised him by attaching to his hand by a fire (Acts 28:3) and Jesus promises protection for those who inadvertently "tread on snakes and scorpions (Luke 1O:19)." But many Appalachian Christians rightly take Jesus' promise in Mark 16:17 to mean a deliberate act of picking up deadly snakes and drinking poison as a test of faith. Sadly many of these Appalachian Christians and their children have died from rattler bites and strychnine rat poison when they put their faith to the test in this way.

(2) 16:17 highlights speaking in new tongues as a "sign" or badge of the true believer. This is the most powerful text in support of the standard Pentecostal doctrine of speaking in tongues as the unique initial evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit. It is doubtful that this doctrinal distinctive would have been created without Jesus' promise here. Once the bogus nature of Mark 16:9-20 is recognized, the pattern of tongues speaking in the Book of Acts is insufficient to sustain this Pentecostal distinctive. I say this as a tongues speaker, who is encouraged by Paul's wish that everyone speak in tongues and his celebration of the fact that he speaks in tongues more than everyone (1 Corinthians 14:5, 18). But that is not the equivalent of claiming that Spirit baptism requires tongues as its unique initial evidence.

The bias of the KJV causes it to make many other errors, including one that has negatively affected the leadership potential of women: the identification of the apostle in Romans 16:7 as Junias, a male name. The NIV produces the correct and unbiased translation:
"Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was."

The Greek itself allows for both "Junia" and "Junias," but Junia is a rather common female name in the New Testament world, while Junias is virtually unattested as a man's name. As early as Origen, church Fathers recognize this and celebrate Junia as a female apostle, the highest ranking status in the early church.

Paul notes that Junia has been a Christian even before him, a fact that raises the possibility that Junia is one of the commissioned disciples in Luke 10:1, one of the female disciples who helped finance Jesus' ministry (Luke 8;2-3), and one of the 500+ witnesses to a resurrection appearance of Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:6). Oxford scholar Richard Bauckham has made an intriguing linguistic case for "Joanna" as the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek "Junia." Thus, Junia is one of the female disciples who traveled with Jesus, supported Him financially and, then unlike the male apostles, followed Him to the cross and the empty tomb (Luke 23:49; 24:9-10).

Click to expand...