A major King James Version flaw

[Bible Highlighter]

If you're saying that new is better than old, please replace your KJV with an ESV or CSB.

If you're saying that old is better than new, please replace your KJV with the Greek and Hebrew.

The Modern Translations are actually based on the supposedly older and better manuscripts (The codex Sinaiticus and codex Vaticanus). One manuscript was brought forth from an Orthodox monastery, and the other from a Catholic vault. Then it was translated under the guidance of two men (Westcott and Hort) who were into the occult. The occult new age agenda can be subtly seen in Modern Bibles.

I don't believe it is a coincidence that the the first Modern Translation to meet with success and or popularity (the NIV in 1973) also just happened to line up with the an explosion of the New Age movement in the 70's. In other words, when men moved away from the authority of God's Word (the KJV), things got more dark spiritually.

The King James is in the New Language (English) and not in the old dead languages (Biblical Hebrew, and Biblical Greek). But there are those who say the old is better.

 

[Radagast]

I know of nobody today who thinks that the chapters are actual real chapter breaks intended by the original authors.

I do see the chapter and verse numbers as placed by divine inspiration.

You don't seem to realise that there is a contradiction between those 2 sentences.

And I've clarified my own view in post #58.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You don't seem to realise that there is a contradiction between those 2 sentences.

And I've clarified my own view in post #58.

It's not a contradiction. What the author's intended while under the inspiration of God (men of God, like Moses, and the apostle Paul) is different than what God intends to do later on. The chapter and verse numbers came waaaay later. In the 1550's, Robert Estienne (Robert Stephanus) came up with the chapter and verse numbers. But I believe God guided his thinking and his hand for the purpose of their use today for us Christians. This purpose is to help us to find the different places in His Holy Word. I also believe they are there to show that His Word is divine and holy, too. I do not believe the chapter and verse breaks were placed into the Bible to affect doctrine.

I believe God is progressive in the way He does things.
For our God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I prefer a Bible that has section headings, small verse numbers, and paragraph formatting. Like so:

The Word Became Flesh
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.

I do not like this (which many copies of the KJV do) with large verse numbers and each verse on a new line. That emphasises the non-inspired numbering as well as de-emphasising the inspired logical structure:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

Actually, it would be more hard for a believer to find a verse in a study group or in church if you decided to de-emphasize the verse numbers. Also, many Modern Translations still follow the KJV pattern in their print versions, and even online with others. So it is not a unique characteristic to the KJV. It also does not affect doctrine or influence wrong thinking on the text, either. They are just numbers that fade away into the background when we are reading the text. Only people who are seeking to justify a wrong belief will stick to reading only one verse out of context to do so. This is not the fault of the chapter and verse numbers, but it is the fault of the reader not looking at the whole of Scripture. The chapter and verse numbers are primarily handy references for the believer. In view of Biblical Numerics: I also believe chapter and verse numbers play a part in showing that His Word is divine, too.

 

[Radagast]

Actually, it would be more hard for a believer to find a verse in a study group or in church if you decided to de-emphasize the verse numbers.

In my blue example it's difficult to start reading at John 1:4. But that's exactly what you shouldn't be doing.

Also, many Modern Translations still follow the KJV pattern in their print versions, and even online with others. So it is not a unique characteristic to the KJV.

Exactly. Which is why I've said repeatedly that it would have been better if the OP had never mentioned the KJV.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

In my blue example it's difficult to start reading at John 1:4. But that's exactly what you shouldn't be doing.

I don't see the problem in reading at verse 4. The point by a Pastor could be made about how life is in Christ with verse 4. This is not at the expense of the context or the surrounding verses. I still do not see the problem here. A person can jump in at reading any part of Scripture. I believe the early church could have done this (without chapter and verse numbers) with them having only copies of the manuscripts in Biblical Hebrew, and Biblical Greek.

The number is primarily there to help the reader find their place in the Bible. It's not added as a means to affect doctrine. The arrangement of these numbers does not affect doctrine whether you de-emphasize them or you emphasize them in a straight line. Like I said, these numbers fade away into the background automatically when a person reads the text.

Exactly. Which is why I've said repeatedly that it would have been better if the OP had never mentioned the KJV.

Agreed. But I disagree with folks having a problem with the verse numbers being emphasized in a straight line. I believe it is more beneficial because it helps a person to more quickly find a place in the Bible in a Bible study, at church service, etc.

 

[pescador]

This is not an issue in my view. It is not difficult to understand a passage or where to start or end. There are natural divisions in the Epistles as they typically contain an introduction or greeting, a statement of purpose, details on various issues, wrapup and a farewell. So it is not a number of verses or a even chapters but a complete thought or complete explanation. I maintain it is not difficult if one is an experienced reader. If one is not then with reading and with understanding you will become quite adept at it. Even with that no individual verse, chapter, or book can be taken alone when considering what God is speaking to man. The entirety of scripture must be considered to fully understand what God is revealing. Failure to take a holistic approach results in many false teachings. It is why fundamental statements regarding faith and core doctrines are not based on any particular passage but on an overarching understanding of God's Word. It is also why they have lasted as the core beliefs of Christians since the early centuries of the church and why some have taken centuries for those that follow Christ to agree. Today's new teaching, which most likely is not new, becomes tomorrows discarded heresy at worse and mistake at best.

And the teaching that you recommend is..? God continues to give revelation to all who believe regardless of what date it is.

"Today's new teaching, which most likely is not new, becomes tomorrows discarded heresy at worse and mistake at best." is heresy.

 

[Radagast]

I don't see the problem in reading at verse 4. The point by a Pastor could be made about how life is in Christ with verse 4. This is not at the expense of the context or the surrounding verses.

Well, but to get context, you should start reading at a paragraph boundary: verse 1 in this case.

The arrangement of these numbers does not affect doctrine whether you de-emphasize them or you emphasize them in a straight line.

It does if you take verses out of context.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Well, but to get context, you should start reading at a paragraph boundary: verse 1 in this case.

No. You don't have to read verse 1 if you are already familar with verse 1 in what it says.

You cannot read any random portion of Scripture with this kind of thinking. In your view: You cannot jump in anywhere in the Bible unless you read the whole book from the beginning in order. But we should already be aware of the surrounding context of the book and know it when reading and or quoting a verse. We are supposed to study to shew thyself approved unto God already.

How could Jesus quote just pieces of Scripture?
Did he just refer to God's Word out of context?
Surely not.

It does if you take verses out of context.

You can take the verse out of context without or without the verse numbers. The numbers are primarily there for convenience of finding a place in the Bible. It does not affect doctrine.

 

[Radagast]

But we should already be aware of the surrounding context of the book and know it when reading and or quoting a verse.

We shouldn't be "quoting verses." We should be quoting sentences.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

We shouldn't be "quoting verses." We should be quoting sentences.

17 “And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down.”
(Luke 4:17-20).

Yet, if you will notice the quote (by Jesus) is not the whole sentence in Isaiah 61.

1 “The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;” (Isaiah 61:1-2).

Jesus did not quote, “and the day of vengeance of our God;...” (Isaiah 61:1).

He left that part of the quote out for a reason.

In other words, Jesus did not quote the whole sentence.
However, was Jesus quoting the Scriptures out of context because he left words out of the sentence of Scripture that He quoted?

Surely not.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

We shouldn't be "quoting verses." We should be quoting sentences.

Also, give your Bible to a new Christian that does not have the chapter and verse numbers and he will have a hard time trying to find what place in the Bible the Pastor is talking about and most likely he will be lost as to what he is talking about. He will have less of chance in being able to find quickly those references for his own study. So yes. We should be quoting verses unless you don't want nobody to follow along in the Bible in a Bible study or discussion on the Scriptures. Unless you want it to be like the ole days where Catholics kept the Word of God away from the common man and only the special select few holy “yes” men had the knowledge of the Scriptures (from their slanted viewpoint). Note: No offense if anyone here is Catholic.

 

[DamianWarS]

The King James Bible and other versions divide the text into verses and chapters. This erroneous division of Scripture leads to many false interpretations and causes people to quote the Bible text message incorrectly, thereby distorting its meaning.

Below is an excellent description of the problems that have been created. Source: blueletterbible.org

There Were No Chapter or Verse Divisions in the Original

When the books of the Bible were originally written, there were no such things as chapters or verses. Each book was written without any breaks from the beginning to the end. Consequently, there are a number of important observations that need to be made about the present chapter and verse divisions that we find in Scripture.

The Books Have Been Divided into Chapters and Verses for Convenience

The chapter and verse divisions were added to the Bible for the sake of convenience. There is no authoritative basis for the divisions we now find. For the greater part of human history, there have been no chapter or verse divisions in Scripture.

The Chapter Divisions Can Cause Problems

The chapter and verse divisions are convenient for reference and quotation purposes. They make it easier to find certain statements and accounts in Scripture.

It must always be remembered that the divisions into chapters and verses are human-made. They are sometimes arbitrary, and they sometimes interfere with the sense of the passage. The first step in Bible interpretation is to ignore the modern chapter and verse divisions.

The Verse Divisions Can Also Cause Problems

Dividing the Bible into verses can also give the impression that the Scripture consists of a number of maxims or wise sayings. For example, Paul wrote to the Colossians:

Don’t handle, don’t eat, don’t touch! (Colossians 2:21 NLT)
This verse, by itself, gives the impression that Scripture encourages some type of physical self-denial. Yet just the opposite is true. In context, Paul is actually teaching against this type of behavior. His argument is as follows:

You have died with Christ, and he has set you free from the evil powers of this world. So why do you keep on following rules of the world, such as Don’t handle, don’t eat, don’t touch! (Colossians 2:20-21 NLT)
The next verse emphasizes that such restrictions are human commandments—not commandments from God:

Such rules are mere human teaching about things that are gone as soon as we use them. (Colossians 2:22 NLT)
When we read the verse in context, it says the following:

You have died with Christ, and he has set you free from the evil powers of this world. So why do you keep on following rules of the world, such as, “Don’t handle, don’t eat, don’t touch.” Such rules are mere human teaching about things that are gone as soon as we use them. These rules may seem wise because they require strong devotion, humility, and severe bodily discipline. But they have no effect when it comes to conquering a person’s evil thoughts and desires. (Colossians 2:20-23 NLT)

Therefore, this one verse, when read on its own, gives the wrong impression of the biblical teaching. This is one of the problems with the Bible divided into verses—people will isolate the verses from the rest of the context.

Many more examples could be listed. Indeed, one could argue that the Bible teaches atheism:

There is no God... (Psalm 14:1 NIV)
Of course, the complete verse reads as follows:

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. (Psalm 14:1 NIV)
Others could contend that Jesus taught cannibalism! The Gospel of John records Jesus saying the following:

So Jesus said to them, “I assure you: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life in yourselves. Anyone who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day, because My flesh is true food and My blood is true drink. The one who eats My flesh and drinks My blood lives in Me, and I in him.” (John 6: 53-56 HCSB)
This is why it is important to read each particular verse in context. Otherwise, one can make the Bible say things that it does not want to say.

Dividing the Bible into verses can also give the impression that the Scripture consists of a number of maxims or wise sayings. For example, Paul wrote to the Colossians:

Don’t handle, don’t eat, don’t touch! (Colossians 2:21 NLT)
This verse, by itself, gives the impression that Scripture encourages some type of physical self-denial. Yet just the opposite is true. In context, Paul is actually teaching against this type of behavior. His argument is as follows:

You have died with Christ, and he has set you free from the evil powers of this world. So why do you keep on following rules of the world, such as Don’t handle, don’t eat, don’t touch! (Colossians 2:20-21 NLT)

Chapters and Verses Are Not What the Authors Intended

The original authors of Scripture did not intend that their writings be divided up into chapters or verses. They intended that the books be read straight through from the beginning. A number of the books of Scripture can be read through in one sitting. This is the best way to discover what the author is trying to say.

Dividing up the Scripture into chapters and verses encourages people to read only small parts at a time. This is not always helpful. This is why the Bible should be read the same way as the original authors intended it to be read.

is this not a flaw with all translations that use chapter/verse separations? why wag the finger at the KJV?

 

[Andrewn]

This is why it is important to read each particular verse in context. Otherwise, one can make the Bible say things that it does not want to say.

Absolutely. I reached the same conclusion when I was 9 y/o.

 

[pescador]

That said, you then get the problem where people think that the section headings are the inspired word of God, and read them out in church.

Better that than thinking that the verses are all separate statements, breaking up the logical thought process.

 

[pescador]

is this not a flaw with all translations that use chapter/verse separations? why wag the finger at the KJV?

No. The King James divides up the Biblical text in a way that was never meant to be. Each verses is printed as a separate statement, like..

1) the Bible texts were not written
2) in separate
3) verses that mislead the reader.

So, verse 1 says the Bible texts were not written. Obviously wrong!
Verse 3 says that verses mislead the reader. So the Bible is false!?

Not only were the original documents not broken up in this manner but it is a serious distortion to chop up the early texts to give each verse a separate meaning.

Modern Bibles make a serious effort to break up the source documents into meaningful parts based on the logical text divisions. Bibles that don't do this, including the KJV, seriously distort the Bible.

 

[CaspianSails]

And the teaching that you recommend is..? God continues to give revelation to all who believe regardless of what date it is.

"Today's new teaching, which most likely is not new, becomes tomorrows discarded heresy at worse and mistake at best." is heresy.

I recommend teaching reading comprehension.

 

[CaspianSails]

Chapter and verse division only confuses those who are already confused in my view. They are lazy in regards to studying the Word of God in truth. They do not want to read the whole of the book in context because they are looking to justify some kind of wrong outside belief or teaching (eisegesis). Even changes on certain words made in Modern Translations make this mistake and it has to do with their not reading the context and not believing words plainly in what they say in the King James (Which was the Bible that existed long before the Modern Translations showed up). But the old autographs or manuscripts are better they say. But Jesus said,
“No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.” (Luke 5:39). God offered us the new continued Word (His Word translated into English with the King James Bible). But some say the old is better.

My point is that one needs to be able to read and not rely on chapter and verse, they are merely tools. If you don't like the tools ignore them. It makes remembering something that struck you or you investigated easier to find again. It also makes it easier to compare versions. If you don't look for context you may be missing the point.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

My point is that one needs to be able to read and not rely on chapter and verse, they are merely tools. If you don't like the tools ignore them. It makes remembering something that struck you or you investigated easier to find again. It also makes it easier to compare versions. If you don't look for context you may be missing the point.

So every Pastor today is not looking at the context because they had chapter and verse numbers in their Bible?

 

[Radagast]

So every Pastor today is not looking at the context because they had chapter and verse numbers in their Bible?

Let me say this again. This is helpful to comprehension:

The Word Became Flesh
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.​

This has the problems noted by the OP:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.​