King James Version Only...?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

CharismaticLady

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2019
7,784
3,150
113
76
Tennessee
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Let me give you 2 important examples of how corrupt the KJV's later Greek manuscripts are:

(1) Mark originally ended at 16:8 without a resurrection appearance of Jesus. So various new endings were invented and added to fill this void, one which became the KJV ending. No modern scholar considers that ending original. Its style is completely different from Mark's and one manuscript of Mark even identifies the hoaxer as Aristo of Pella (c. 165 AD)!

(2) Origen from Alexandria (c. 220 ad) and later Caesarea in Israel visited possible sites for Gospel events. When he visited the Jordan River to learn where John baptized Jesus, the Christians there told him they didn't know where "Bethany beyond the Jordan" (John 1:28) was' and they speculated that the real place of baptism was nearby "Bethabara," an Aramaic term for "house of the crossing," and so, the Greek text on which the KJV was based changed the reading to "Bethabara." But Origin admits that early manuscripts of John in his possession read "Bethany" instead! "Bethany" can mean "house of the ferry boat" and rope ferries were used instead of bridges to cross the Jordan. We know this from ancient maps of the area. So John likely baptized Jesus near a rope ferry 50 miles north of where Origen visited, so that people from both sides of the Jordan can conveniently attend his services. There was a rope ferry near "Aenon near Salim" 50 miles north where John stayed with his disciples (
John 3:23).

What in the last 12 verses of Mark is especially abhorrent to you?
 

rockytopva

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Dec 31, 2010
5,160
2,360
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Personally, I want all the Words of God I can get, and modern translation, though easier to read, do not have all the words and even verses that are in the KJV. It is not learning old English, it is the amount of God's Word.
Wonderful posting! Thanks for sharing! And.... I agree!
 

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,996
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
By what authority? Just asking.
Documentary authority. The MAJORITY of Greek manuscripts, all other ancient translations, the Lectionaries of the Greek Orthodox Church, the writings of the Early Church Fathers, all confirm the genuineness of The Last Twelve Verses of Mark. Invest in the book by that title written by Dean John William Burgon in the 19th century (and still totally valid).
 

CharismaticLady

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2019
7,784
3,150
113
76
Tennessee
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
A Freewill Baptist church presented me with a Thomas Nelson KJV Open Bible for teaching a year of Sunday School and fellowship. I long ago wore it out and had to buy a second copy!

The Open Bible | KJV Reference Bible | The Open Bible NKJV

In 1985 I bought the Thomas Nelson NKJV Open Bible. It is still the only Bible I take to church, though I have just about every version in print. I can't get a new one, because of all my notes
 
  • Like
Reactions: rockytopva

prism

Blood-Soaked
Jan 24, 2011
1,895
834
113
So. Cal
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No modern scholar considers
I was with you until this. The problem with most 'modern scholars' is that they have a horrendous track record at holding to the basics, e.g. the deity of Christ, the full plenary inspiration of Scriptures, miracles, the bodily resurrection of Christ to name a few.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GRACE ambassador

prism

Blood-Soaked
Jan 24, 2011
1,895
834
113
So. Cal
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I am not KJVO at all I think other translations are good with a few exceptions like the liberal ones. I do like the KJV and my Church reads from the NKJV. I had a KJV when I was a kid that was had blue covers and blue page edges, I been trying to find one like that again forever. :)
Try evangelicalbibledotcom. They are a bit pricey/quality but they do have them.
 

prism

Blood-Soaked
Jan 24, 2011
1,895
834
113
So. Cal
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@LC627 these made my day :)

"Why do bad things happen to good people? That only happened once, and He volunteered." - R.C. Sproul
“Everything we receive other than eternal damnation is more than we deserve.” - John MacArthur
"Salvation is not a reward for the righteous, it is a gift for the guilty." - Steve Lawson
+Solus Christus ~ Sola Gratia ~ Sola Fide ~ Sola Scriptura ~ Soli Deo Gloria+

"The moral of Noah's Ark is that God wants you to have a yacht!" - Prosperity Go$pel Theology.

Especially the last one.
 

Eternally Grateful

Well-Known Member
Feb 27, 2020
14,470
8,189
113
58
Columbus, ohio
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There is no question that the last twelve verse of Mark are genuine. Just ignore the naysayers and ALL modern bible versions. They are all corrupt, bar none.
The King James is
Not perfect. And the last part of mark is a major issue as it can not be trusted. And is definitely not true
 

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The King James is
Not perfect. And the last part of mark is a major issue as it can not be trusted. And is definitely not true
correct, the KJV is not Perfect, but it's the best we have today. and what makes it the choice of reading material is when one read it with the Holy Ghost who correct any imperfection it might have. so far it's the best on the market as to understanding the history of God and his creation. as for the old English language, I suggest get an old English dictionary like the Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary of American English. it help in understanding the Old English Language. a few other things I like about the KJV, it have a build in commentary, and a built in dictionary also, right in the scriptures themselves. it also give us the answer of context within itself. and it never contridicts itself. these newer translation contridict their ownself, even within a single chapter sometimes, which is a giant red flag. with the KJV, if there is an addition that was added or removed, somewhere else in the KJV will reveal it, or bare it out. that's why I recommend highly, NOT THE KJV ITSELF, NO, BUT THE HOLY SPIRIT TO LEAD YOU IN YOUR READING OF THE KJV. I have look at the NKJV, it have gone the way of the other translation, no good... remember this is my own opinion.

PICJAG.
 

Jane_Doe22

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2018
5,241
3,442
113
116
Mid-west USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Out of all the theological ideas and topics that I've come across over the years, the issue of KJV only is one that I have not encountered until recently. I do appreciate the KJV and have a few Bibles in that translation, but to say that it is the only true word of God in English seems to be a far stretch. Also, this opens up a can of worms.

a) Do missionaries that travel to foreign countries where English is not the language require the people to learn old school English in order to have God's true Word?

b) Is English the only language that the Bible must be in?

c) What about all the Bible translations before the 1611 KJV?

Those are just a few questions I have regarding this topic. I'd like to ask the members here, what are you thoughts on the subject?
My denomination uses KJV for English congregations, primarily for consistency. In congregations that speak Spanish, there's one Spanish translation used, again for consistency. Same with French, Mandarin, etc.

1) No. Spanish congregations use a Spanish version, etc.
2) No, obviously.
3) They exist... not sure what you want me to say here.
 

YeshuaFan1

Active Member
Jul 22, 2020
346
96
28
63
Macomb Mi
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Older manuscripts have been found since 1611 KJV translation was published. The older the manuscripts the more reliable they are. The verses that are "missing" from modern translations were not found in the oldest manuscripts. So, in reality, nothing is missing at all.
Those who say that the modern versions cut out the scriptures are assuming that the TR was the original!
 

YeshuaFan1

Active Member
Jul 22, 2020
346
96
28
63
Macomb Mi
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Let me give you 2 important examples of how corrupt the KJV's later Greek manuscripts are:

(1) Mark originally ended at 16:8 without a resurrection appearance of Jesus. So various new endings were invented and added to fill this void, one which became the KJV ending. No modern scholar considers that ending original. Its style is completely different from Mark's and one manuscript of Mark even identifies the hoaxer as Aristo of Pella (c. 165 AD)!

(2) Origen from Alexandria (c. 220 ad) and later Caesarea in Israel visited possible sites for Gospel events. When he visited the Jordan River to learn where John baptized Jesus, the Christians there told him they didn't know where "Bethany beyond the Jordan" (John 1:28) was' and they speculated that the real place of baptism was nearby "Bethabara," an Aramaic term for "house of the crossing," and so, the Greek text on which the KJV was based changed the reading to "Bethabara." But Origin admits that early manuscripts of John in his possession read "Bethany" instead! "Bethany" can mean "house of the ferry boat" and rope ferries were used instead of bridges to cross the Jordan. We know this from ancient maps of the area. So John likely baptized Jesus near a rope ferry 50 miles north of where Origen visited, so that people from both sides of the Jordan can conveniently attend his services. There was a rope ferry near "Aenon near Salim" 50 miles north where John stayed with his disciples (
John 3:23).
Yes, as many believe that there were copiers and scribes who desired to finish and smooth off the end of mark, so added onto all known examples of what Apostles actually did do! So while the long ending not written by mark, it did reflect what the Apostles were able to do!
Another case would be 1 John 5:7. as there is virtually no attesting to that was known, except by Eramus, and even that was not seen in his first 2 greek tr!
 

YeshuaFan1

Active Member
Jul 22, 2020
346
96
28
63
Macomb Mi
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Pretty sure the NKJV omits phrases, verses, too, compared to KJV. The truth by-and-large can be gleaned from small portions of Scripture. Waldensians or Albigenses (I can't remember which) constantly smuggled pages of Scripture sewed inside their garments at their life's peril before the reformation. Having the entire word of God is a luxury we take for granted, I think. The more plenteous something is, the more human beings devalue it.
Thought the Nkjv team used same sources as kjv 1611 did?
 

Eternally Grateful

Well-Known Member
Feb 27, 2020
14,470
8,189
113
58
Columbus, ohio
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
correct, the KJV is not Perfect, but it's the best we have today. and what makes it the choice of reading material is when one read it with the Holy Ghost who correct any imperfection it might have. so far it's the best on the market as to understanding the history of God and his creation. as for the old English language, I suggest get an old English dictionary like the Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary of American English. it help in understanding the Old English Language. a few other things I like about the KJV, it have a build in commentary, and a built in dictionary also, right in the scriptures themselves. it also give us the answer of context within itself. and it never contridicts itself. these newer translation contridict their ownself, even within a single chapter sometimes, which is a giant red flag. with the KJV, if there is an addition that was added or removed, somewhere else in the KJV will reveal it, or bare it out. that's why I recommend highly, NOT THE KJV ITSELF, NO, BUT THE HOLY SPIRIT TO LEAD YOU IN YOUR READING OF THE KJV. I have look at the NKJV, it have gone the way of the other translation, no good... remember this is my own opinion.

PICJAG.
I disagree

it is written in an outdated language someone who is not versed in that language would be hard pressed to understand what it says

the NKJV is what I use. But it is because I am used to it. I grew up with the old KJV and even remember memory verses from it. But when my mom passed away I got her bible. Which is an original KJV. When I try to read it. It is very hard to read and confusing. I need my NKJV to sometimes remind myself what it was trying to say

most KJV only people Even say the NKJV is Corrupt so They would get on me for even doing that
 

YeshuaFan1

Active Member
Jul 22, 2020
346
96
28
63
Macomb Mi
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There is no question that the last twelve verse of Mark are genuine. Just ignore the naysayers and ALL modern bible versions. They are all corrupt, bar none.
Kjvo is bogus, as there are few reputable textual critics that would subscribe to it!
Even the patron saint of the Kjvo, dean Burgeon, would not hold to it!
 

YeshuaFan1

Active Member
Jul 22, 2020
346
96
28
63
Macomb Mi
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Modern = Good, then? I don't think so. Modern scholars run the gamut of fidelity to God's ability to preserve His word. Some of the most popular modern Biblical "scholars" are practically skeptics.
Think all that were involved on the nas/Esv/Niv affirmed Verbal plenary inspiration!