KJV Only?

[Berserk]

That's a slick satanic trick... when you run across a verse you don't want to accept... just claim someone
back in history add it in so you can get that warm and fuzzy feeling when you attempt to take it out.

You just can't read. It is an ancient Greek NT manuscript--not me-- that claims Aristo of Pella forged the bogus ending of Mark!
The KJV ending of Mark is missing in key early Greek manuscripts. That's just one of the reasons why the evangelical scholarly consensus recognizes 16:9-20 as a later addition to Mark's Gospel. You obviously haven't read a basic book on Text Criticism--the science of determinin g the original text of Scripture. And so, you will say practically anything to avoid dealing with the obvious fact that God's Word teaches that "tongues are NOT a sign to believers (1 Cor. 14:22)."

Let's see how the ol devil tricks you in to explaining all this away:
1 Corinthians 14:2
For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh NOT unto men, but unto God: for NO MAN UNDERSTANDS HIM howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.


You keep confusing tongue as a legitimate spiritual gift with "signs" of the true believer. If you bothered to read my post, you would realize that I'm a happy tongues-speaking Penteocostal

 

[12question]

God's actual Word teaches that "tongues are NOT a sign to believers (1 Cor. 14:22)."

What do you mean by 'a sign'? Or what did Paul mean by using the word 'a sign'?

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

It is an ancient Greek NT manuscript--not me-- that claims Aristo of Pella forged the bogus ending of Mark!

And you have no proof any of that is true. You weren't there to witness it so you are just speculating

And you know the devil would like the great commission removed so he's obviously behind this lie.

Text Criticism--the science of determinin g the original text of Scripture

Actually it's more like listening to the devil and changing God's Word just like that so called higher criticism nonsense

"tongues are NOT a sign to believers (1 Cor. 14:22)."

I just posted that... it's one of the way non believers know we are true Christians because true Christians speak in tongues

 

[Hobie]

Precious friends, which for you?

ONE Unchanging Pure/Preserved Word Of Truth, or:

Over 100 Constantly Changing newer modern "easier-to-read/understand" versions?:

@12question?: "God is not the author of confusion"?:
What think ye?:

bible.ca/b-kjv-only . htm, claims "refuting KJV Only" by feeling that:

"Foremost, we feel that the KJV is an EXCELLENT translation, but not​

the ONLY excellent translation."​

+​

"that the KJV is to be classed as one of several major standards of​

Bible translations including, NASB, RSV, NKJV, ASV, NIV. All these ​

translations are equal in quality and all should be used for Bible​

study."​

So "going By feelings," rather than faith, as KJV Instructs (2Co 5:7),
they do not Deny that KJV Is An "Excellent" Translation, but Do doubt
that It Is God's ONE "Pure/Preserved Book", Alone, Correct?:

So, by faith then, let us prayerfully and Carefully examine the Evidence,
For "the equality of the other Five Different books," Claimed As equal to
The Pure/Preserved Word Of God (KJV), shall we?:

King James Bible 1 John 5:7:
"For There Are Three That Bear Record In Heaven, The Father,
The Word, And The Holy Ghost: And These Three Are One."

Which is Equal?:

NASB 1995
For there are three that testify: Not equal, Correct?
↑ ↑
Different from, or equal to each other {HOW Confusing!, eh?}?:
↓ ↓
NASB 1977
And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
Not equal, Correct?

RSV
And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
Not equal, Correct?

New King James Version "benefit of the doubt"?
If 'bear record' = 'bear witness', then equal? ✔ ✔, yes?:
For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word,
and The Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

ASV
And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
Not equal, Correct?

New International Version
For there are three that testify:

Not equal, Correct?

All ( save one ) removing The Sound Doctrine Of The Triune GodHead?
=================================

Thus far we have: NASB, RSV, NKJV, ASV, NIV still equal, Correct?
Next, let's check further, with ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑, and examine additional "Evidence",
shall we, since we all 'surely' Love The Lord Jesus Christ, Correct?:

KJV "Lord Jesus Christ" (82 verses w/ 85 Occurrences)

nkjv "Lord Jesus Christ" ( 81 / 84 ) Almost? But Not equal, Correct?

KJV 2 Corinthians 2:17
"For we are not as many which corrupt The Word Of God"

nkjv
"peddling the word of God" (like the NIV, NASV and RSV)
Not equal, Correct?

KJV Isaiah 66:5
"Hear The Word of The LORD, ye that tremble at His Word; Your brethren
that hated you, that cast you out for My Name's sake, said, Let The LORD
Be Glorified: but He Shall Appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed."

[This means that the LORD Shall Appear, which shall occur at the
Second Coming of Christ.]

nkjv Not equal, Correct?:

"Hear the word of the LORD, you who tremble at His word: "Your brethren
who hated you, who cast you out for My name's sake, said, 'Let the LORD
be glorified, that we may see your joy.' But they shall be ashamed."

(Like the NIV, NASV, RSV and ASV, the Second Coming is wholly omitted
from This Scripture.) How is that Equality? Not equal, Correct?

----------------------------------------

Thus, More Evidence that confirms we are, by faith, In God!, And In:

His Unchanging Pure/Preserved KJV only/core adherents:​

Even As He Is UNchanging!:

"Jesus Christ The Same yesterday, and to day, and for ever."​

(Hebrew 13:8 KJV)​

Amen.

ps. If this sufficient Evidence Has helped any Christ-lover, then
we invite such to also be Edified And Encouraged In:

Handling The Word Of Life!

The thing is that is not KJV Only, its the Textus Receptus (Majority Text) on which the King James Version as well as most all of the other Bible versions are based before the late 1800's, and those which picked up the Alexandrian manuscripts (Minority Text), the Codex Alexandrian, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus which have been shown to have deleted and changed many parts of the text and are unreliable to say the least and purposely corrupted at some key text. Now for centuries the Textus Receptus was the standard and the KJV along with many others used it as the basis of their version:
"Tyndale New Testament 1526-1530.
"Coverdale Bible 1535.
"Matthew Bible 1537.
"Great Bible 1539.
"Geneva Bible 1560-1644.
"Bishops' Bible 1568.
My Geneva Bible is just as true to what is in the the Textus Receptus so you can go to almost every Bible in any language before the changes incorporated by the Alexandrian and they are fine.

The Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority of manuscripts still in existence. These manuscripts were what was used, and brought together by Lucian, Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and the Elzevir brothers to form this text now known as Textus Receptus. When the Protestant Reformers decided to translate the scriptures directly from Greek into the languages of Europe, they selected Textus Receptus as their foundation Greek document and for good reason.

The Minority Text of the Alexandrian manuscripts were clearly and thoroughly useless because of the outright changes and what can only be called a corruption of the original text. Westcott & Hort picked up the Alexandrian manuscripts and created a version based on them which many of todays versions are now based on. Westcott & Hort picked up on these corrupted Alexandrian texts as they supported views prevalent in their time from Darwinism & secular humanist questioning of the validity of orthodox Christianity, if just a few verse could be altered or brought into question, it would serve their purpose, and it has as we see.

 

[Hobie]

Here is the line of the various versions which followed the reading of the Textus Receptus and you can see why the Waldensians were persecuted and their Bibles and manuscripts burned as they showed that the Roman church was not following the truth.

These versions include: The Peshitta Version (AD 150), The Italic Bible (AD 157), The Waldensian (AD 120 & onwards), The Gallic Bible (Southern France) (AD177), The Gothic Bible (AD 330-350), The Old Syriac Bible (AD 400), The Armenian Bible (AD 400 There are 1244 copies of this version still in existence.), The Palestinian Syriac (AD 450), The French Bible of Oliveton (AD 1535), The Czech Bible (AD 1602), The Italian Bible of Diodati (AD 1606), The Greek Orthodox Bible (Used from Apostolic times to the present day by the Greek Orthodox Church). [Bible Versions, D.B. Loughran]

THE OLD TESTAMENT

The Masoretic Text

1524-25 Bomberg Edition of the Masoretic Text also known as the Ben Chayyim Text

THE NEW TESTAMENT

All dates are Anno Domini (A.D.)

30-95------------Original Autographs
95-150----------Greek Vulgate (Copy of Originals)
120---------------The Waldensian Bible
150---------------The Peshitta (Syrian Copy)
150-400--------Papyrus Readings of the Receptus
157--------------The Italic Bible - From the Old Latin Vulgate used in Northern Italy
157--------------The Old Latin Vulgate
177--------------The Gallic Bible
310--------------The Gothic Version of Ulfilas
350-400-------The Textus Receptus is Dominant Text
400--------------Augustine favors Textus Receptus
400--------------The Armenian Bible (Translated by Mesrob)
400--------------The Old Syriac
450--------------The Palestinian Syriac Version
450-1450------Byzantine Text Dominant (Textus Receptus)
508--------------Philoxenian - by Chorepiscopos Polycarp, who commissioned by Philoxenos of Mabbug
500-1500------Uncial Readings of Receptus (Codices)
616--------------Harclean Syriac (Translated by Thomas of Harqel - Revision of 508 Philoxenian)
864--------------Slavonic
1100-1300----The Latin Bible of the Waldensians (History goes back as far as the 2nd century as people of the Vaudoix Valley)
1160------------The Romaunt Version (Waldensian)
1300-1500----The Latin Bible of the Albigenses
1382-1550----The Latin Bible of the Lollards
1384------------The Wycliffe Bible
1516------------Erasmus's First Edition Greek New Testament
1522------------Erasmus's Third Edition Published
1522-1534----Martin Luther's German Bible (1)
1525------------Tyndale Version
1534------------Tyndale's Amended Version
1534------------Colinaeus' Receptus
1535------------Coverdale Version
1535------------Lefevre's French Bible
1537------------Olivetan's French Bible
1537------------Matthew's Bible (John Rogers Printer)
1539------------The Great Bible
1541------------Swedish Upsala Bible by Laurentius
1550------------Stephanus Receptus (St. Stephen's Text)
1550------------Danish Christian III Bible
1558------------Biestken's Dutch Work
1560------------The Geneva Bible
1565------------Theodore Beza's Receptus
1568------------The Bishop's Bible
1569------------Spanish Translation by Cassiodoro de Reyna
1598------------Theodore Beza's Text
1602------------Czech Version
1607------------Diodati Italian Version
1611------------The King James Bible with Apocrypha between Old and New Testament
1613------------The King James Bible (Apocrypha Removed) (2)

The school in Antioch of Syria in the early Christian church that had the ancient manuscripts pf the Scriptures. The Received Text as the Majority Text (Textus Receptus) was also known, was soon translated into a old Latin version before Jeromes Latin Vulgate and was called the Italic Bible. The Vaudois (later called Waldensians) of northern Italy used the Italic Bible. The Vaudois (Waldenses) the Albigenses, the Reformers (Luther, Calvin and Knox) all held to the Received Text.

Now the "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s AD. The fact is, according to John Calvin's successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s AD and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD. This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc. So we can see where the line was unbroken till Holt and Westcott brought in the Alexandrian corruption...

 

[Berserk]

Many Fundamentalists whine that modern translations take the Trinity out of the NT. This false claim is giggle-worthy
for 2 reasons: (1) Why, then, wouldn't they remove the trinitarian baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19-20?
(2) Ancient scribes often tried to improve on the Greek text when copying NT manuscripts. For example, consider the flagrant interpolation of the trinitarian text of 1 John 5:7-8 into manuscripts of 1 John which are then included in the KJV translation:

"Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript until the 1500s; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either manuscript, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until AD 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant, since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity."

Quoted from the Bible.org article, "The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8"​

 

[BlessedPeace]

Wha

I wonder what version Jesus and Satan quoted to each other when God led His Beloved Son into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan

Jesus was God. He is the original, "word of God".

And Satan? He was a liar from the beginning.