Why we should use the KJV Bible on the Internet.

[Robert Gwin]

The KJV was not translated from the earliest texts. See posts # 6 and #7

You researched well RL. You spurned me to research that more, and what I found agrees with your synopsis. What is your preferred Version of the Bible?

 

[RLT63]

You researched well RL. You spurned me to research that more, and what I found agrees with your synopsis. What is your preferred Version of the Bible?

I like the NKJV but recently purchased the NET Bible Full Notes Edition for the notes. The notes are great and on the verses omitted by modern versions it tells you what was omitted and the reasoning behind it. It's available free online as well.

 

[Jim B]

I also like the NET Bible Full Notes Edition. The 60,000+ notes are great for in-depth understanding. However, because of my age, I have trouble with the small fonts used. Lately, I have been reading the recently-published the NRSVue, using a separate commentary as necessary. The specially-created font is great for my old eyes, and the translation is excellent.

BTW, NRSVue stands for the New - Revised - Standard - Version - updated edition. One wonders what the next iteration will be! NURSV (Newest Updated Revised Standard Version)?

 

[RLT63]

I also like the NET Bible Full Notes Edition. The 60,000+ notes are great for in-depth understanding. However, because of my age, I have trouble with the small fonts used. Lately, I have been reading the recently-published the NRSVue, using a separate commentary as necessary. The specially-created font is great for my old eyes, and the translation is excellent.

BTW, NRSVue stands for the New - Revised - Standard - Version - updated edition. One wonders what the next iteration will be! NURSV (Newest Updated Revised Standard Version)?

I understand that's a great translation. Rest of post deleted

 

[Jim B]

I understand that's a great translation however they caved in to woke culture and removed the references to homosexuality in the NRSVue.

Why do you believe propaganda like that?

a) They did not cave in to "woke culture", a term developed by the far right to divide people. Here are two definitions you should read: 1) Woke is an English adjective meaning "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination" that originated in African-American Vernacular English
2) Woke nowadays refers to being aware or well informed in a political or cultural sense, especially regarding issues surrounding marginalised communities - it describes someone who has “woken up” to issues of social injustice."

b) Here are some verses from the NRSVue...

Leviticus 20:13, "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their bloodguilt is upon them."

Romans 1:26-27: "For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Their females exchanged natural intercourse[e] for unnatural, and in the same way also the males, giving up natural intercourse with females, were consumed with their passionate desires for one another. Males committed shameless acts with males and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

Clearly you are wrong about both "woke culture" and the NRSVue regarding homosexuality.

John 8:31-32, "Then Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”

 

[RLT63]

Why do you believe propaganda like that?

a) They did not cave in to "woke culture", a term developed by the far right to divide people. Here are two definitions you should read: 1) Woke is an English adjective meaning "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination" that originated in African-American Vernacular English
2) Woke nowadays refers to being aware or well informed in a political or cultural sense, especially regarding issues surrounding marginalised communities - it describes someone who has “woken up” to issues of social injustice."

b) Here are some verses from the NRSVue...

Leviticus 20:13, "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their bloodguilt is upon them."

Romans 1:26-27: "For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Their females exchanged natural intercourse[e] for unnatural, and in the same way also the males, giving up natural intercourse with females, were consumed with their passionate desires for one another. Males committed shameless acts with males and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

Clearly you are wrong about both "woke culture" and the NRSVue regarding homosexuality.

John 8:31-32, "Then Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”

I stand corrected. I believe there was an issue with 1Co 6:9 though. Clearly they haven't removed all references as was reported on another forum

An updated version of the NRSV is now available, and Bible students are giving it a lookover. The NRSV was itself an update of the RSV, which was a modernization of the KJV and its American offspring. The new revision does some interesting things to a couple of NT terms relating to homosexuality, softening the edges and making it easier to say that the NT doesn’t condemn same-sex intercourse. For instance, the Greek arsenokoitai has been muted to “men who engage in sexual immorality,” when the actual meaning is “men who have sex with men.” The revisers say the term in the original Greek is unclear; it isn’t. Arsenokoitai was coined by rabbis of Second Temple Judaism (the translators of the Septuagint), and then picked up by Christian teachers. It was coined specifically to refer to behavior that Jews and Christians highlighted as wrong, but which the culture around them treated in more nuanced ways. Likewise, the revisers of the NRSV have rendered the NT Greek malakoi as “male prostitutes,” which locates the basic wrong not in the sexual behavior, per se, but in its being offered for money. And, of course, one may prostitute one’s body with either sex. But malakoi (rendered “Sodomites” in the KJV) means “soft men,” effeminate men, implying men who offer themselves sexually to other men – whether or not money is directly involved.

Beware Liberal NRSVue Bible Translation Update

On homosexuality, the liberal biases of the National Council of Churches show in its NRSVue Bible translation update.

juicyecumenism.com

And an article supporting the NRSVue

NRSV Updated Edition – SMU Perkins School of Theology

blog.smu.edu

The NRSV, published in 1989, has ranked among the most used translations of the Bible, behind the King James and the New International Version. The NRSV updated edition (NRSVue), the most respected Bible among English-speaking scholars and mainline churches, was sponsored by the National Council of Churches, with its 38 member communions. The Society of Biblical Literature, which developed the mandate for the updated edition in collaboration with the National Council of Churches, recruited the translators and managed the editorial process for the NRSVue.

With some 20,000 changes, the NRSVue incorporates recent biblical archaeology and research that has deepened scholars’ understanding of many texts. According to the publisher, Friendship Press, the NRSVue “is the most extensively updated English-language Bible translation available on the worldwide market to date.”

 

[Jim B]

I stand corrected. I believe there was an issue with 1Co 6:9 though. Clearly they haven't removed all references as was reported on another forum

An updated version of the NRSV is now available, and Bible students are giving it a lookover. The NRSV was itself an update of the RSV, which was a modernization of the KJV and its American offspring. The new revision does some interesting things to a couple of NT terms relating to homosexuality, softening the edges and making it easier to say that the NT doesn’t condemn same-sex intercourse. For instance, the Greek arsenokoitai has been muted to “men who engage in sexual immorality,” when the actual meaning is “men who have sex with men.” The revisers say the term in the original Greek is unclear; it isn’t. Arsenokoitai was coined by rabbis of Second Temple Judaism (the translators of the Septuagint), and then picked up by Christian teachers. It was coined specifically to refer to behavior that Jews and Christians highlighted as wrong, but which the culture around them treated in more nuanced ways. Likewise, the revisers of the NRSV have rendered the NT Greek malakoi as “male prostitutes,” which locates the basic wrong not in the sexual behavior, per se, but in its being offered for money. And, of course, one may prostitute one’s body with either sex. But malakoi (rendered “Sodomites” in the KJV) means “soft men,” effeminate men, implying men who offer themselves sexually to other men – whether or not money is directly involved.

Beware Liberal NRSVue Bible Translation Update

On homosexuality, the liberal biases of the National Council of Churches show in its NRSVue Bible translation update.

juicyecumenism.com

And an article supporting the NRSVue

NRSV Updated Edition – SMU Perkins School of Theology

blog.smu.edu

The NRSV, published in 1989, has ranked among the most used translations of the Bible, behind the King James and the New International Version. The NRSV updated edition (NRSVue), the most respected Bible among English-speaking scholars and mainline churches, was sponsored by the National Council of Churches, with its 38 member communions. The Society of Biblical Literature, which developed the mandate for the updated edition in collaboration with the National Council of Churches, recruited the translators and managed the editorial process for the NRSVue.

With some 20,000 changes, the NRSVue incorporates recent biblical archaeology and research that has deepened scholars’ understanding of many texts. According to the publisher, Friendship Press, the NRSVue “is the most extensively updated English-language Bible translation available on the worldwide market to date.”

As you undoubtedly know, the purpose of any good translation is to communicate the words of the Bible to the culture reading them as they were understood by the original hearers. There are many differences between the source languages -- Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine Greek (and other later languages found in ancient texts) -- and the receptor language (in this case, 21st Century English). It is impossible to do so perfectly, as there are too many differences in the meaning of the words, verb tenses, idioms, etc. to create a "perfect" translation. Many decisions must be made by the committee of translators regarding how best to translate the words and meaning. The NRSVue committee has made an extraordinary effort (as have most translation committees) to create a Bible that communicates as clearly as possible the message of the ancient writings to our modern minds.

I always react when people say, without valid reasons, that a particular translation, especially one created by a committee of scholars from across the ecumenical community, is biased, invalid, etc. I sincerely believe that those people do their best to give us a Bible that communicates the words, thoughts, and ideas of the ancient authors. In the case of the NRSVue, I believe that they succeeded.

 

[RLT63]

As you undoubtedly know, the purpose of any good translation is to communicate the words of the Bible to the culture reading them as they were understood by the original hearers. There are many differences between the source languages -- Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine Greek (and other later languages found in ancient texts) -- and the receptor language (in this case, 21st Century English). It is impossible to do so perfectly, as there are too many differences in the meaning of the words, verb tenses, idioms, etc. to create a "perfect" translation. Many decisions must be made by the committee of translators regarding how best to translate the words and meaning. The NRSVue committee has made an extraordinary effort (as have most translation committees) to create a Bible that communicates as clearly as possible the message of the ancient writings to our modern minds.

I always react when people say, without valid reasons, that a particular translation, especially one created by a committee of scholars from across the ecumenical community, is biased, invalid, etc. I sincerely believe that those people do their best to give us a Bible that communicates the words, thoughts, and ideas of the ancient authors. In the case of the NRSVue, I believe that they succeeded.

You know more about it than I do I have never read that version. That's why I tried to post something from both sides. I'll take your opinion as a recommendation for the NRSVue and will try to learn more about it before I incorrectly judge it like I did in my earlier post. Thanks for setting the record straight.

 

[GEN2REV]

List of New Testament verses not included in modern English translations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also: List of major textual variants in the New Testament
The New Testament verses not included in modern English translations are verses of the New Testament that exist in older English translations (primarily the King James Version), but do not appear or have been relegated to footnotes in later versions, such as the New International Version (NIV). Scholars have generally regarded these verses as later additions to the original text.

Although many lists of missing verses specifically name the NIV as the version that had omitted them, these same verses are missing from the main text (and mostly relegated to footnotes) by the Revised Version of 1881 (RV), the American Standard Version of 1901,[1] the Revised Standard Version of 1947 (RSV),[2] the Today's English Version (the Good News Bible) of 1966,[3] and several others. Lists of "missing" verses and phrases go back to the Revised Version[4] and to the Revised Standard Version,[5] without waiting for the appearance of the NIV (1973). Some of these lists of "missing verses" specifically mention "sixteen verses" – although the lists are not all the same.[6]

The citations of manuscript authority use the designations popularized in the catalog of Caspar René Gregory, and used in such resources (which are also used in this remainder of this article) as Souter,[7] Nestle-Aland,[8] and the UBS Greek New Testament[9] (which gives particular attention to 'problem' verses such as these).[10] Some Greek editions published well before the 1881 Revised Version made similar omissions.[11]

The criterion for the editorial decision about excluding these passages was never religious doctrine or sentiment, but always whether the tangible evidence indicated the passage was probably in the original New Testament text or was a later addition. The removal or relegation of these verses was done in keeping with the principle of critical editing, as articulated (but not originated) by what Rev. Samuel T. Bloomfield wrote in 1832, "Surely, nothing dubious ought to be admitted into 'the sure word' of 'The Book of Life'."[12] A movement called King James Version Only (KJVO), which believes that only the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible (1611) in English is the true word of God, has sharply criticized these translations for the omitted verses.[13][14]

In most instances another verse, elsewhere in the New Testament and remaining in modern versions, is very similar to the verse that was omitted because of its doubtful provenance. These are mentioned to show that the omission of the doubtful verse did not cause the loss of the teaching it expressed.


Contents
1 The sixteen omitted verses
1.1 (1) Matthew 17:21
1.2 (2) Matthew 18:11
1.3 (3) Matthew 23:14
1.4 (4) Mark 7:16
1.5 (5 & 6) Mark 9:44 & 9:46
1.6 (7) Mark 11:26
1.7 (8) Mark 15:28
1.8 (9) Luke 17:36
1.9 (10) John 5:3–4
1.10 (11) Acts 8:37
1.11 (12) Acts 15:34
1.12 (13) Acts 24:6–8
1.13 (14) Acts 28:29
1.14 (15) Romans 16:24
1.15 (16) 1 John 5:7–8
2 Some other omitted verses
2.1 Matthew 20:16 (b)
2.2 Mark 6:11 (b)
2.3 Luke 4:8 (b)
2.4 Luke 9:55–56
2.5 Luke 23:17
2.6 Acts 9:5–6
2.7 Acts 13:42
2.8 Acts 23:9 (b)
3 Not omitted but boxed
3.1 Mark 16:9–20
3.2 John 7:53–8:11
4 Other English translations
5 Versification differences
5.1 Romans 14 and 16
5.2 2 Corinthians 13:14
5.3 3 John 15
5.4 Revelation 12:18
6 See also
7 References


I’m sure you know that NIV was published by Zondervan but is now OWNED by Harper Collins, who also publishes the Satanic Bible and The Joy of Gay Sex.
The NIV has now removed 64,575 words from the Bible including Jehovah, Calvary, Holy Ghost and omnipotent to name but a few…
The NIV and ESV and other versions have also now removed 45 complete verses. Most of us have the Bible on our devices and phones.

Try and find these scriptures in NIV or ESV on your computer, phone or device right now if you are in doubt:
Matthew 17:21Open in Logos Bible Software (if available), 18:11Open in Logos Bible Software (if available), 23:14Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); Mark 7:16Open in Logos Bible Software (if available), 9:44Open in Logos Bible Software (if available), 9:46Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); Luke 17:36Open in Logos Bible Software (if available), 23:17Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); John 5:4Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); Acts 8:37Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)
…you will not believe your eyes.
Let’s not forget what the Lord Jesus said in John 10:10Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) (King James Version)
THE SOLUTION
If you must use the NIV or ESV
BUY and KEEP AN EARLIER VERSION OF the BIBLE. A Hard Copy cannot be updated. All these changes occur when they ask you to update the app. On your phone or laptop etc. Buy and KEEP EARLIER VERSIONS AND STORE THEM.
There is a crusade geared towards altering the Bible as we know it; NIV and many more versions are affected.

List of New Testament verses not included in modern English translations - Wikipedia

And besides the many verses that are completely removed, there are many they did not remove that have been altered so severely as to change the meaning of the verse altogether.

One of my favorite examples is Proverbs 18:1.

The point of the verse is to say that separating oneself, in order to study and gain wisdom, is a good thing. Interestingly, all of the altered versions make a point to say just the opposite.

Here is the original KJV version with the correct wording.
"Through desire a man, having separated himself, seeketh and intermeddleth with all wisdom."

Here is the NIV.
"An unfriendly man pursues selfish ends; he defies all sound judgment."

Whaaat??

Even the NKJV distorts this verse unrecognizably from the original. (One reason I don't use the NKJV anymore - it used to be my 2nd favorite to the KJV.)
"A man who isolates himself seeks his own desire; He rages against all wise judgment."

Pretty clear that the enemy doesn't ever want us to separate ourselves from the evil world.

Especially in light of God's specific Commandment to do so in many places in Scripture.

"Therefore, come out from among unbelievers, and separate yourselves from them, says the LORD. Don't touch their filthy things, and I will welcome you."
2 Cor. 6:17 KJV

 

[Jim B]

You know more about it than I do I have never read that version. That's why I tried to post something from both sides. I'll take your opinion as a recommendation for the NRSVue and will try to learn more about it before I incorrectly judge it like I did in my earlier post. Thanks for setting the record straight.

You're welcome. Some people are very quick to judge a new translation, probably because they think their favorite translations are somehow more accurate. I go the other way, not because I think that earlier versions are less accurate, but because I think that new translations sources are based on a) better sources as more documents are discovered, b) a better understanding of the ancient languages, and c) most important, make an effort for the meanings of the text to be understood by the culture that we live in.

For example, the NRSVue translates 1 Corinthians 6:9 as "Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes,[a] men who engage in illicit sex,[b]". Footnotes [a] and both read "Meaning of Greek uncertain". In other translations, these are translated as "nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind" (KJV), "nor effeminate, nor homosexuals" (NASB 1995), "passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals" (NET), "nor men who have sex with men" (NIV), "nor homosexuals, nor sodomites" (NKJV), "nor sexual perverts" (RSV).

Obviously the meaning of the Greek cannot be precisely translated into English or there wouldn't be so many variations. I strongly believe that the translation committees try to communicate the indefinite meanings as well as they can, yet some people think they are involved in deception and "political correctness". To me, their attitude is a knee-jerk reaction to what they have been led to believe in the politically-charged climate that we live in, rather than a Christian trust of the ecumenical translation committees.

 

[RLT63]

You're welcome. Some people are very quick to judge a new translation, probably because they think their favorite translations are somehow more accurate. I go the other way, not because I think that earlier versions are less accurate, but because I think that new translations sources are based on a) better sources as more documents are discovered, b) a better understanding of the ancient languages, and c) most important, make an effort for the meanings of the text to be understood by the culture that we live in.

For example, the NRSVue translates 1 Corinthians 6:9 as "Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes,[a] men who engage in illicit sex,[b]". Footnotes [a] and both read "Meaning of Greek uncertain". In other translations, these are translated as "nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind" (KJV), "nor effeminate, nor homosexuals" (NASB 1995), "passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals" (NET), "nor men who have sex with men" (NIV), "nor homosexuals, nor sodomites" (NKJV), "nor sexual perverts" (RSV).

Obviously the meaning of the Greek cannot be precisely translated into English or there wouldn't be so many variations. I strongly believe that the translation committees try to communicate the indefinite meanings as well as they can, yet some people think they are involved in deception and "political correctness". To me, their attitude is a knee-jerk reaction to what they have been led to believe in the politically-charged climate that we live in, rather than a Christian trust of the ecumenical translation committees.

Well the notes in that example show that there wasn't bias and by providing those notes it enables the readers to draw their own conclusions

 

[RLT63]

And besides the many verses that are completely removed, there are many they did not remove that have been altered so severely as to change the meaning of the verse altogether.

One of my favorite examples is Proverbs 18:1.

The point of the verse is to say that separating oneself, in order to study and gain wisdom, is a good thing. Interestingly, all of the altered versions make a point to say just the opposite.

Here is the original KJV version with the correct wording.
"Through desire a man, having separated himself, seeketh and intermeddleth with all wisdom."

Here is the NIV.
"An unfriendly man pursues selfish ends; he defies all sound judgment."

Whaaat??

Even the NKJV distorts this verse unrecognizably from the original. (One reason I don't use the NKJV anymore - it used to be my 2nd favorite to the KJV.)
"A man who isolates himself seeks his own desire; He rages against all wise judgment."

Pretty clear that the enemy doesn't ever want us to separate ourselves from the evil world.

Especially in light of God's specific Commandment to do so in many places in Scripture.

"Therefore, come out from among unbelievers, and separate yourselves from them, says the LORD. Don't touch their filthy things, and I will welcome you."
2 Cor. 6:17 KJV

I like the NKJV. I didn't know about that verse.

 

[GEN2REV]

I like the NKJV. I didn't know about that verse.

I like it too, but yeah, there are other verses within it that are purposely twisted as well.

Just use a KJV alongside it when you study.

 

[Robert Gwin]

I like the NKJV but recently purchased the NET Bible Full Notes Edition for the notes. The notes are great and on the verses omitted by modern versions it tells you what was omitted and the reasoning behind it. It's available free online as well.

May I ask RL what appeals to you in the NKJV?

 

[RLT63]

May I ask RL what appeals to you in the NKJV?

The NKJV does not omit the verses that modern versions omit and the modern language makes it easy to read

 

[Robert Gwin]

The NKJV does not omit the verses that modern versions omit and the modern language makes it easy to read

It is definitely easier to read, I fully agree. Verses that have been added or subtracted from what was originally written definitely should either be there or not for sure.

I peered into it, and see that they still altered God's name for the most part. In light of Romans 13:13 do you consider that a wise thing RL?

 

[RLT63]

It is definitely easier to read, I fully agree. Verses that have been added or subtracted from what was originally written definitely should either be there or not for sure.

I peered into it, and see that they still altered God's name for the most part. In light of Romans 13:13 do you consider that a wise thing RL?

Do you think the KJV is accurate when it renders YHWH as LORD?

 

[Jim B]

The NKJV does not omit the verses that modern versions omit and the modern language makes it easy to read

This is nonsense. a) Modern versions? There are a number of different modern translations. It is ridiculous to lump them under a single phrase, making them seem identical (which they aren't). One might as well say that all older translations are the same.

Verses are not omitted. The ancient manuscripts are carefully studied and compared, and there is sufficient evidence that some verses that appear in the KJV and other translations were added to the earliest texts. They are included in the modern versions as footnotes or with explanatory notes. Two that come to mind are the ending of Romans 8:1 and the "intermediate" and "long" endings of Mark.

I agree that the NKJV as well as other modern translations are easier to read because they are written in modern English. This is a big step toward eliminating "now what this really means", which allows the person to reinterpret Scripture.

 

[RLT63]

This is nonsense. a) Modern versions? There are a number of different modern translations. It is ridiculous to lump them under a single phrase, making them seem identical (which they aren't). One might as well say that all older translations are the same.

Verses are not omitted. The ancient manuscripts are carefully studied and compared, and there is sufficient evidence that some verses that appear in the KJV and other translations were added to the earliest texts. They are included in the modern versions as footnotes or with explanatory notes. Two that come to mind are the ending of Romans 8:1 and the "intermediate" and "long" endings of Mark.

I agree that the NKJV as well as other modern translations are easier to read because they are written in modern English. This is a big step toward eliminating "now what this really means", which allows the person to reinterpret Scripture.

I like the NET Full Notes Edition because of the detailed notes. I don’t always agree that the omitted verses were added later. John 5:4 for example. The passage makes no sense without verse 4 . Read verse 7. Why was the lame man trying to get in the pool? What troubled the water? Another example is Mark 1:2 he quotes Malachi but modern versions attribute the quote to Isaiah. Just because a text is the oldest doesn’t mean it is the best. I like to know what was omitted and why that’s why I like the NET Also see posts #6 and #7

 

[Jim B]

I like the NET Full Notes Edition because of the detailed notes. I don’t always agree that the omitted verses were added later. John 5:4 for example. The passage makes no sense without verse 4 .

I like it also. I bought it as soon as it was published, and bought a newer addition. It is an excellent, well-researched, well-documented translation. For general reading I like the recently published NRSVue.