Kjv Only-ism Justified?

[random person]

Would you take a magic marker to your Bible and cross out words from passages?

Welcome to the Amazing Westcott and Hort Magic Marker Binge!

The chart below illustrates what was done when the text used by Christianity for 1800 years was replaced with a text assembled by Brook Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort in the nineteenth century and used as the basis for the English Revised Version, which nearly all modern translations closely follow.

The text shown here is the King James Version. Words, sentences, or entire verses in strikethrough illustrate portions that have been removed from the text underlying the KJV New Testament. Not all modern versions are the same. Sometimes the ESV will include a word the NIV doesn't, or the NASB might omit a phrase the NIV and NRSV both retain, etc... but for the most part, the examples below represent nearly all of the popular modern versions. (Psudeo-KJV versions such as the NKJV are far more subtle and are a different case. See the articles section for NKJV examinations.)

Compare your modern version and see what the KJV has that yours doesn't. This list is not comprehensive, it is just a sample! The modern critical text that forms the basis for nearly all modern versions omits the equivalent of the entire books of 1st and 2nd Peter.

Critics commonly charge that the traditional Bible text used by believers for 1800 years adds material, and that we should be thankful for Westcott and Hort who came along in the 19th century to restore the text of the New Testament that had been corrupt for 1800 years and during the entire reformation. This charge is of course made against evidence to the contrary, as you will find if you research the text lines (read other articles on this website). Further, it is interesting to note that one of these verses is this:

Romans 13:9: For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

The phrase "thou shalt not bear false witness" is missing from the modern critical text (and therefor most modern versions). Now I ask you: is it reasonable to assume that a scribe added a self-incriminating phrase to the passage? Isn't it more likely that "those who corrupt the word of God" (2 Cor. 2:17, KJV) removed the phrase which indicted them?

Now on to Westcott and Hort's Magic Marker Binge!

FROM MATTHEW TO JOHN: Westcott and Hort's Magic Marker Binge (1/2)

FROM ACTS TO REVELATION: Westcott and Hort's Magic Marker Binge (2/2)

The NIV, NASB, ESV, NET and other Vatican Versions reject the Hebrew Texts
[bless and do not curse]

Part One - Genesis through Psalms
"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." Deuteronomy 4:2.

"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." Proverbs 30:5,6.

"If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book; And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Revelation 22:18, 19.

The Old Testament scriptures, except for a few chapters of Aramaic, were written in Hebrew - not Greek or Syriac or Latin. The Lord Jesus Christ said in Matthew 5:18 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Jots and tittles refer to the Hebrew scriptures.

Likewise the apostle Paul states: "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." Romans 3:1,2.

The Hebrew Masoretic scribes were used of God to preserve His inspired words in the Old Testament. Of the Bible versions widely used today in the English language, only the King James Bible consistently sticks to the Hebrew text. The NKJV departs at least 10 times I have found so far, the NASB over 40 times and the NIV, ESV reject the Hebrew Masoretic text well over 80 times, and most of these are openly admitted to in the footnotes of the NIV and ESV. The NASB departs from the Hebrew but they don't tell you when they do this in their footnotes.[bless and do not curse] The modern Catholic bible versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the Catholic New Jerusalem Bible of 1985 often reject the same Hebrew texts in the same places and ALL these versions have virtually the SAME New Testament "interconfessional" text created by a joint effort of the Vatican and the infallibility denying, apostate 'Evangelicals" called the UBS (United Bible Society) or Nestle-Aland critical Greek text.[bless and do not curse]

http://brandplucked.webs.com/nivnasbrejecthebrew.htm

 

[random person]

NIV, NASB, ESV, NET and other Vatican Versions Reject the Hebrew[bless and do not curse] - Part Two
[bless and do not curse]

Proverbs through Malachi
Proverbs 30:5,6 "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

Proverbs 7:22-23 KJB - Speaking of a young man void of understanding who is deceived by a strange woman: "He goeth after her straightway, as an ox goeth to the slaughter, or as A FOOL TO THE CORRECTION OF THE STOCKS; till a dart strike through his liver; as a bird hasteth to the snare, and knoweth not that it is for his life."

This is the meaning found in such versions as Coverdale, Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, Webster's, the NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, Young's, Spanish Reina Valera, Darby, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, and the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936 and 1998.

However, the NIV says: - "like an ox going to the slaughter, LIKE A DEER STEPPING INTO A NOOSE." Then the NIV footnotes: Syriac; Hebrew - a fool.(It comes right out and tells us that the Hebrew says "a FOOL", NOT "a deer"). Then the NIV says to see the LXX. However the LXX is little help because it says: "as a DOG to bonds or a hart shot in the liver with an arrow." Likewise the Syriac is of no help either. Lamsa's translation of the Syriac says here: "as an ox to the slaugher, or A DOG TO BE MUZZLED." The NIV reading is most like the Catholic St. Joseph New American bible of 1970 that reads: "like an ox is led to the slaughter; LIKE A STAG THAT MINCES TOWARD THE NET." But the Catholic New Jerusalem of 1985 has: "ox to the slaughterhouse, LIKE A MADMAN ON HIS WAY TO THE STOCKS."

The NKJV gives the same translation to this verse as do the King James Bible and many others, but then footnotes that the Greek Septuagint, Syriac and Targum read "as A DOG to bonds" and that the Vulgate reads: "as A LAMB...to bonds".

The Catholic Douay version is of interest in that it does follow the Vulgate to a degree, but then agrees with the KJB and others in the remainder of the verse. It says: "Immediately he followeth her as an ox led to be a victim, and AS A LAMB PLAYING THE WANTON, and not knowing that he is drawn LIKE A FOOL TO BONDS."

Other corrupted versions are the RSV, NRSV, ESV and the Holman Standard. The ESV reads: "as an ox to the slaughter, or AS A STAG IS CAUGHT FAST." Then it footnotes: "Probable reading; See Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate." But as we have seen, neither the Septuagint nor the Syriac read anything like what is found in the NIV or the ESV. The Holman also joins this mess and says: "like a deer bounding towards a trap", then footnotes - "TEXT EMENDED - Hebrew obscure - "like shackles for the discipline of a fool".

Daniel Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary, does his usual goofball translation and commentary on this verse in his NET version. He has: "Suddenly he went after her like an ox that goes to the slaughter, like A STAG PRANCING INTO A TRAPPER'S SNARE." Then he footnotes: "The translation is Scott’s . This third colon of the verse would usually be rendered, “fetters to the chastening of a fool.” But there is no support that[bless and do not curse] (’ekhes) means “fetters.” It appears in Isaiah 3:16 as anklets. The parallelism here suggests that some animal imagery is required. Thus the versions have “as a dog to the bonds.”

Aren't scholars funny? Dr. Wallace neglects the clear fact that all Hebrew texts here read "fool" and not "stag", but then goes into some length to give us his personal opinion that the other Hebrew word has no support for being rendered as "stocks" or "fetters", even though scores of other Bible translators, with just as much learning as he has, have done this very thing. It looks like the faculties of most modern seminaries have lost their faculties.

Folks, the Hebrew reading is not obscure at all. The phrases "as an ox to the slaughter, or as a fool to the correction of the stocks" simply means that the fool is doing something that will lead to his being punished. It is not that hard to figure out.

http://brandplucked.webs.com/nivnasbrejecthebrew2.htm

 

[random person]

Bible Versions and the Preeminence of Christ

This table compares various verses in the KJV, NIV, NASB, and NWT. The term "OMITTED" is used when either the phrase or word in question is omitted. This is just a small sample of over 200 verses.

Related article: Preeminence Of Christ, The.

Some people have objected to me comparing the NWT with the NIV and NASB. They complain that the NWT is an "obvious" corruption of Scripture on the part of the Jehovah's Witness cult. Instead of complaining about the comparison, they should be wondering why the NIV and NASB so frequently agree with the NWT.

I have noticed that in some cases, different editions may not treat a verse the same way. This table represents the verses as I have them in my printed editions (NIV 1984, NASB 1977, NWT 1984).

Bible versions and the preeminence of Christ

 

[random person]

Various Contradictions and Omissions in Bible Translations

This table compares various verses in the KJV, NIV, NASB, and NWT. The term "OMITTED" is used when either the phrase or the verse in question is omitted. This table is a very small sampling of contradictory verses, not an exhaustive one.

Some people have objected to me comparing the NWT with the NIV and NASB. They complain that the NWT is an "obvious" corruption of Scripture on the part of the Jehovah's Witness cult. Instead of complaining about the comparison, they should be wondering why the NIV and NASB so frequently agree with the NWT.

I have noticed that in some cases, different editions may not treat a verse the same way. This table represents the verses as I have them in my printed editions (NIV 1984, NASB 1977, NWT 1984).

Various Contradictions and Omissions in Bible Translations

 

[KNOWLEDGE BOMB]

It's really quite simple to make a case of the kjv against any bible...

KJV
2nd Timothy 2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God

now we only have to read the first word to understand that reading and studying Gods word shows us approved by God because we go from milk to the meat of the word no longer babes...


No other bibles I know say study, but aren't all bibles done for the purpose of making it EASIER to understand... Ofcourse but what could be more clear than the word study?

Nothing.... But what do you other bible touting Christians bible say?


Be diligent..... Now that can mean any and everything..... It's for sure study means one thing and one thing only and the word is what makes us mature christians...

See only the devil through man would change the word in such a way...
But most Christians don't bat an eye that their bibles have been changed
And in oh so many ways.....

 

[Keachian]

I suggest researching into the development of the Text us Receptus, it is much less rigorous than the development of W&H with a smaller MSS base and that's just the beginning of the problems with comparing the two on an equal and fair ground W&H only loses because it is not the text of the previous 400 years worth of tradition

 

[Archie the Preacher]

The OP implies that any deviation from the KJV wording is a change from the inspired and authentic message of God.

Silly.

 

[random person]

The OP implies that any deviation from the KJV wording is a change from the inspired and authentic message of God.

Silly.

No I am concerned with omissions than anything.

Like the Johannine Comma:

1 John 5:7 (Johannine Comma) - "These Three Are One"

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

Including the KJV, only ten other translations include the Johannine Comma:

Amplified Bible
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
1599 Geneva Bible
Jubilee 2000 Bible
King James 21st Century
New King James Version
New Life Version
Worldwide English Bible
Wycliffe Bible
Young's Literal Translation

1 John 5:7 - Bible Gateway

 

[Radagast]

No I am concerned with omissions than anything.

Like the Johannine Comma

This would be the verse that Erasmus added to the Greek text?

 

[ananda]

Would you take a magic marker to your Bible and cross out words from passages?

How are you sure those verses belong there in the first place?

 

[KingCrimson250]

The immense absurdity of KJV Onlyism is best illustrated through the fact that just about every verse cut from the KJV expresses a sentiment found elsewhere in the Bible. Romans 13:9 is not the only verse that condemns false witness, and if someone wanted to carve out the parts of Scripture that support the Trinity, they'd have to axe 90% of the New Testament, not just the Johannine Comma (which, as has been expressed above, is almost certainly an addition, albeit a benign one, of Erasmus).

The concept of people getting rid of these passages in an attempt to silence God's Word is demonstrably and empirically false and has no place in rational thought. These passages have been removed based purely on textual considerations.

 

[tchgrl]

I find the KJV to be very difficult to understand, with all the old English words and phrases, even passages that just do not make any sense. Even after praying for understanding I still fine it very difficult to understand and thus I do not receive the full meaning of God's word from reading the KJV. Currently I am reading the NIV bible and it is very understandable and put in modern English terms that make sense. I believe as long as you are reading God's word on a daily basis and doing his will, that is most important and not which version you are reading.

 

[FerventDisciple]

Would you take a magic marker to your Bible and cross out words from passages?

Welcome to the Amazing Westcott and Hort Magic Marker Binge!

The chart below illustrates what was done when the text used by Christianity for 1800 years was replaced with a text assembled by Brook Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort in the nineteenth century and used as the basis for the English Revised Version, which nearly all modern translations closely follow.

The text shown here is the King James Version. Words, sentences, or entire verses in strikethrough illustrate portions that have been removed from the text underlying the KJV New Testament. Not all modern versions are the same. Sometimes the ESV will include a word the NIV doesn't, or the NASB might omit a phrase the NIV and NRSV both retain, etc... but for the most part, the examples below represent nearly all of the popular modern versions. (Psudeo-KJV versions such as the NKJV are far more subtle and are a different case. See the articles section for NKJV examinations.)

Compare your modern version and see what the KJV has that yours doesn't. This list is not comprehensive, it is just a sample! The modern critical text that forms the basis for nearly all modern versions omits the equivalent of the entire books of 1st and 2nd Peter.

Critics commonly charge that the traditional Bible text used by believers for 1800 years adds material, and that we should be thankful for Westcott and Hort who came along in the 19th century to restore the text of the New Testament that had been corrupt for 1800 years and during the entire reformation. This charge is of course made against evidence to the contrary, as you will find if you research the text lines (read other articles on this website). Further, it is interesting to note that one of these verses is this:

Romans 13:9: For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

The phrase "thou shalt not bear false witness" is missing from the modern critical text (and therefor most modern versions). Now I ask you: is it reasonable to assume that a scribe added a self-incriminating phrase to the passage? Isn't it more likely that "those who corrupt the word of God" (2 Cor. 2:17, KJV) removed the phrase which indicted them?

Now on to Westcott and Hort's Magic Marker Binge!

FROM MATTHEW TO JOHN: Westcott and Hort's Magic Marker Binge (1/2)

FROM ACTS TO REVELATION: Westcott and Hort's Magic Marker Binge (2/2)

The NIV, NASB, ESV, NET and other Vatican Versions reject the Hebrew Texts
[bless and do not curse]

Part One - Genesis through Psalms
"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." Deuteronomy 4:2.

"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." Proverbs 30:5,6.

"If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book; And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Revelation 22:18, 19.

The Old Testament scriptures, except for a few chapters of Aramaic, were written in Hebrew - not Greek or Syriac or Latin. The Lord Jesus Christ said in Matthew 5:18 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Jots and tittles refer to the Hebrew scriptures.

Likewise the apostle Paul states: "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." Romans 3:1,2.

The Hebrew Masoretic scribes were used of God to preserve His inspired words in the Old Testament. Of the Bible versions widely used today in the English language, only the King James Bible consistently sticks to the Hebrew text. The NKJV departs at least 10 times I have found so far, the NASB over 40 times and the NIV, ESV reject the Hebrew Masoretic text well over 80 times, and most of these are openly admitted to in the footnotes of the NIV and ESV. The NASB departs from the Hebrew but they don't tell you when they do this in their footnotes.[bless and do not curse] The modern Catholic bible versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the Catholic New Jerusalem Bible of 1985 often reject the same Hebrew texts in the same places and ALL these versions have virtually the SAME New Testament "interconfessional" text created by a joint effort of the Vatican and the infallibility denying, apostate 'Evangelicals" called the UBS (United Bible Society) or Nestle-Aland critical Greek text.[bless and do not curse]

NIV, NASB reject Hebrew - Another King James Bible Believer

The NKJV doesn't omit anything, it's translated from the TR just as the KJV is.

 

[FerventDisciple]

It's really quite simple to make a case of the kjv against any bible...

KJV
2nd Timothy 2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God

now we only have to read the first word to understand that reading and studying Gods word shows us approved by God because we go from milk to the meat of the word no longer babes...


No other bibles I know say study, but aren't all bibles done for the purpose of making it EASIER to understand... Ofcourse but what could be more clear than the word study?

Nothing.... But what do you other bible touting Christians bible say?


Be diligent..... Now that can mean any and everything..... It's for sure study means one thing and one thing only and the word is what makes us mature christians...

See only the devil through man would change the word in such a way...
But most Christians don't bat an eye that their bibles have been changed
And in oh so many ways.....

The newest update to the KJV, the MEV (Modern English Version) which is being released in September has study in 2 Tim 2:15.

Accurate :: Modern English Version

 

[FerventDisciple]

I suggest researching into the development of the Text us Receptus, it is much less rigorous than the development of W&H with a smaller MSS base and that's just the beginning of the problems with comparing the two on an equal and fair ground W&H only loses because it is not the text of the previous 400 years worth of tradition

The TR was from a relatively small number of MSS but they are generally representative of many more, far more than the Critical Text. That's why the TR agrees with the Majority Text so well.

 

[Keachian]

The TR was from a relatively small number of MSS but they are generally representative of many more, far more than the Critical Text. That's why the TR agrees with the Majority Text so well.

As the introduction to the MEV states there are differences. The reason that the Majority Text is the way it is, is easily seen in History, West turns to Latin, Alexandrian region is taken over by Islam and the Greek speaking church is confined to the area around Constantinople and Greece, ie the place where we find the Byzantine readings. The problem isn't what the majority of texts read but what the Apostles wrote.

 

[FerventDisciple]

As the introduction to the MEV states there are differences. The reason that the Majority Text is the way it is, is easily seen in History, West turns to Latin, Alexandrian region is taken over by Islam and the Greek speaking church is confined to the area around Constantinople and Greece, ie the place where we find the Byzantine readings. The problem isn't what the majority of texts read but what the Apostles wrote.

That is a way of determining what they wrote.

 

[Keachian]

That is a way of determining what they wrote.

No it's not considering the factors that I outlined in my previous post, rather than the spread of manuscripts we see in the early Church over a short period of time the majority text in many ways represents the work of the Scriptoriums of Byzantium and while I have nothing against Byzantium I don't think looking at one source for the MSS is a valid way to get back to the Apostle's words.

 

[abysmul]

Wow, I have to say I'm shocked! Shocked I say! For the first time ever a JK-only person has come to the forums and cut and pasted huge walls of text from av1611.com! This is a first!

(sadly, I'm just kidding)

 

[FerventDisciple]

No it's not considering the factors that I outlined in my previous post, rather than the spread of manuscripts we see in the early Church over a short period of time the majority text in many ways represents the work of the Scriptoriums of Byzantium and while I have nothing against Byzantium I don't think looking at one source for the MSS is a valid way to get back to the Apostle's words.

That's exactly what the Critical Text scholars do! They ignore the Byzantine or Majority Text and choose the readings in their text based on a very small number of unreliable Alexandrian manuscripts. The ending of Mark's gospel for example is said not to be original because of it's deletion from 2 very unreliable manuscripts that have numerous discrepancies with one another.