King James Bible

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
23,460
7,188
113
No! Because God only lives English speaking folks particularly Americans.
You know Jesus gave the sermon on the mount from the KJV.
americans are weird about the KJV You'd think they would be NASB ONLY.
Or what about the Jefferson Bible, who cut out all the supernatural and Jesus miracles cos he thought they didnt happen, that they'd been added in. LOL
 

Dirtman

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2022
1,151
441
83
americans are weird about the KJV You'd think they would be NASB ONLY.
Or what about the Jefferson Bible, who cut out all the supernatural and Jesus miracles cos he thought they didnt happen, that they'd been added in. LOL
Americans are weird about a lot of things. We have a massive Dunning Kruger effect issue.
 

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
9,386
5,725
113
Spanish Bibles French bibles they are not good?
Of course they are. I would highly recommend a native Spanish speaker to have a Spanish Bible.
If I spoke Spanish or French I would certainly have a Bible in those languages. I have a German Bible because
I am more familiar with that language.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,111
3,687
113
Of course. Here you go.

CSB
Some mss include v. 11: For the Son of Man has come to save the lost.

NIV
Some manuscripts include here the words of Luke 19:10. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.’

NASB
Late mss add (traditionally v 11): For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost

NET
The most significant mss, along with others (א B L* Θ* ƒ1, 13 33 892* e ff1 sys sa), do not include 18:11 “For the Son of Man came to save the lost.” The verse is included in D Lmg N W Γ Δ Θc 078vid 565 579 700 892c 1241 1424 M lat syc,p,h, but is almost certainly not original, being borrowed from the parallel in Luke 19:10. The present translation follows NA28 in omitting the verse number as well, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.

My faith is not so weak that it can be destroyed by knowing some manuscripts differ.
I like the honesty and reality printed in the versions above because I study The Bible.
Looks like you posted the footnotes. Are footnotes the pure, holy words of God?
 

Dirtman

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2022
1,151
441
83
Like I said, the New King James is probably the best English translation we have. I think its better than the NASB because its readable, where the NASB reads rather awkward.
The NKJV corrects many of the errors of the OKJV .
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,111
3,687
113
Inspiration without preservation is non-sense. God not only inspired his word, he perfectly preserved it. Why did God choose the English language to preserve his word? The fullness of time had come. It was the perfect time in history and the Lord knew that English was about to explode.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,111
3,687
113
Like I said, the New King James is probably the best English translation we have. I think its better than the NASB because its readable, where the NASB reads rather awkward.
The NKJV corrects many of the errors of the OKJV .
You do know that the NKJV uses the corrupt manuscripts. It’s not the KJV with updated language. That’s a lie from the old serpent.
 

Wansvic

Well-known member
Nov 27, 2018
5,251
1,106
113
But we have seen what you posted ad nauseam. It is not truth as you claim. It's KJV ONLY propaganda.
Misleading & false accusations. A witch hunt. An attack on English bibles, on translators & on manuscripts.
There is no love in it. Only devisive religious fanaticism.


God's word is preserved without the KJV.
As I mentioned in post #55, the list of modifications I shared was confirmed via the actual bibles referenced. Your accusation of my being a liar can easily be disproven upon review of the list.
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,291
3,607
113
You do know that the NKJV uses the corrupt manuscripts. It’s not the KJV with updated language. That’s a lie from the old serpent.
What corrupt mss. does the NKJV use? Can you site an example of where the use of said mss. has significantly altered the meaning?
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,111
3,687
113
Are chapter & verse numbers added in the 16th century AD the pure and holy words of God?
Are they part of the English text? Why can’t they be? Is anything possible with God? New versions make the reader doubt what they are reading.
 

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
9,386
5,725
113
Are they part of the English text? Why can’t they be? Is anything possible with God? New versions .
You attempt to make the reader doubt what they are reading. You have failed again & again.
My Bible gives me faith not doubt.
 

Wansvic

Well-known member
Nov 27, 2018
5,251
1,106
113
I have looked at this issues very in-depth and had many tell me every angle of it over the years. To "prove" (for example) that the disputed verses in Mark 16 were or were not in the original text is a difficult task. No one has the original manuscript so technically it is impossible to prove. No one is alive who saw the original manuscript. We have lots of manuscripts and lots of circumstantial evidence but nothing that "proves" it beyond reasonable doubt. Well, of course some will say it is beyond reasonable doubt that it was not there. But there are some on the other side who say that it was there!

Does it matter? Well, of course that section in Mark 16 has some deep implications about miracles, but really - to me at least - whether that section of verses was or was not in the original manuscript makes no difference in what the Bible teaches about salvation and really little difference in my view of miracles. We have plenty of other texts that are clear that God can and does do miracles.
You may find this information helpful:

There are a few early extant copies of the Bible containing the Gospel of Mark which do NOT include the Long Ending of Mark 16:9-20:
Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus—-300’s.
Syriac Sinaitucus—late 300’s
Codex Bobiensis—c. 300-400’s
Armenian Version Manuscript—411-450
Miniscule 304—1100’s

There are, however, very early evidences for the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20 which precede in time the above Bibles from the 300’s to 1100’s by several hundred years.

Irenaeus (c. 130-202), a very early writer, was a Christian theologian and minister who spent his adult life defending orthodoxy and fighting heresies, writes in Against Heresies 3.10.6:“Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel Mark says: ‘So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God’ (Mark 16:19) confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on My right hand, until I make Your foes Your footstool.’ (Psalm 110:1) Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein.”

Clearly Irenaeus, living about 200 years before Sinaiticus or Vaticanus were copied, KNEW the Long Ending of Mark and quotes a verse from it.

Justin Martyr (c. 100-165), one of the first and best apologists for the faith, in his First Apology uses words in Mark 16:20 as a fulfillment of Messianic prophecy in his examination of Psalm 110. His pupil Tatian the Syrian (c.120-180), writer and theologian, in his Diatessaron (Harmony of the Gospels) incorporates material from all the four Gospels and includes Mark 16:9-20.

Hippolytus (170-235 A.D.) was a contemporary of Irenaeus. He was bishop of Portus near Rome from 190-227 A.D. In his writings in one of the fragments he quotes Mark 16:17,18 and when speaking of Christ has reference to Verse 19.

Irenaeus, Justin, Tatian and Hippolytus were very early Christian men (100’s) who were born and raised when some who had heard/seen Jesus as youngsters or teens and some of the Seventy Disciples were still alive. It is very persuasive that all four of them, born in the 100’s AD, KNEW AND CITED the Long Ending of Mark, the ending that has been traditionally in the New Testament. The book by Irenaeus quoting Mark 16:19 is OLDER than the earliest manuscripts we have of the Gospel of Mark. These four attestations of the Long Ending being included in Mark pre-date any edition of any other early Bibles.

Writers in the 200’s long before the Codex Vaticanus, also, used the Longer Ending of Mark: Porphyry (234-305 AD) did and in the De Rebaptismate (On Re-baptism) by an unknown author included The Longer Ending. The other manuscripts and fragments of Mark 16:9-20 being extant and used over the early centuries are too numerous to mention. In the c. 300’s or earlier in the Calendar of Greek Church lessons they used Mark 16:9-20 as the verses to be read on Ascension Day and on St. Mary Magdalene’s Day.

Vincentius (died c. 304 AD), Bishop of Thibori, at the 7th Council of Carthage held under Cyprian in 256 in the presence of the 87 assembled African bishops, quoted Mark 16:17,18 which was recorded in the minutes.

Ambrose (374-397 A.D.), Archbishop of Milan, quoted from the Long Ending of Mark’s Gospel. In the late 300’s Ambrose cites Mark’s Gospel verse 15 some 4 times: Verses 16, 17, 18 each 3 times: Verse 20 once.

Jerome (331–420 A.D.). At the request of Pope Damasus I for a Latin revision of the Bible, Jerome produced the official Catholic version of the Bible called the Latin Vulgate. Jerome consulted several manuscripts, all of which contained the The Long Ending. His confirmation of Mark 16:9-20 is seen in the Vulgate….

As can be seen, The Long Ending in Mark included in Mark’s Gospel the verses 16: 9-20 for hundreds of years in the Early Church. This is a strong refutation of “scholarly speculations” 1,600 years AFTER Mark wrote his Gospel.—Sandra Sweeny Silver https://earlychurchhistory.org/beliefs-2/long-or-short-ending-in-mark/
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,111
3,687
113
What corrupt mss. does the NKJV use? Can you site an example of where the use of said mss. has significantly altered the meaning?
In many places, the nkjv ignores the writing of the KJV in favor of the perverted new versions. The first example of this error in the NKJV is found in the first verse. "In the beginning God created the HEAVEN and the earth." Notice it is heaven - singular. However the NKJV, RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, Youngs, and the Holman Standard have the HEAVENS - plural.
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,291
3,607
113
In many places, the nkjv ignores the writing of the KJV in favor of the perverted new versions. The first example of this error in the NKJV is found in the first verse. "In the beginning God created the HEAVEN and the earth." Notice it is heaven - singular. However the NKJV, RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, Youngs, and the Holman Standard have the HEAVENS - plural.
I'll just use an example from one of Wansvic's lists: 2 Timothy 3:3. The KJV says: "Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,"

The NKJ version says: "unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good,"

Now, the Textus Receptus and UBS Nestle-Aland Greek text agree exactly:

TR:

ἄστοργοι, ἄσπονδοι, διάβολοι, ἀκρατεῖς, ἀνήμεροι, ἀφιλάγαθοι,

UBS-NA:

ἄστοργοι, ἄσπονδοι, διάβολοι, ἀκρατεῖς, ἀνήμεροι, ἀφιλάγαθοι,

So we don't see the use of a corrupted manuscript but simply a difference in translation. For a KJV onlyist this might be a problem, since any variation from the KJV language is a corruption. But you said the NKJV uses corrupt mss. I'm just wondering where the evidence is for that.
 
Mar 4, 2020
8,614
3,691
113
The modern translations were created using different manuscripts than the KJV. I attached an image that references this. Also included is a link to a thread that includes 22 pages listing verse modifications in the versions you mention. In many cases the changes distort the meaning of the original scripture; such as the deity of Jesus, existence of hell, etc.

https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...ersion-scripture-changes.207529/#post-4922290
Is that a picture from the Rose Book of Bible Charts, Maps, and Time Lines? If so, I have it too. Highly recommended, btw.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,111
3,687
113
I'll just use an example from one of Wansvic's lists: 2 Timothy 3:3. The KJV says: "Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,"

The NKJ version says: "unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good,"

Now, the Textus Receptus and UBS Nestle-Aland Greek text agree exactly:

TR:

ἄστοργοι, ἄσπονδοι, διάβολοι, ἀκρατεῖς, ἀνήμεροι, ἀφιλάγαθοι,

UBS-NA:

ἄστοργοι, ἄσπονδοι, διάβολοι, ἀκρατεῖς, ἀνήμεροι, ἀφιλάγαθοι,

So we don't see the use of a corrupted manuscript but simply a difference in translation. For a KJV onlyist this might be a problem, since any variation from the KJV language is a corruption. But you said the NKJV uses corrupt mss. I'm just wondering where the evidence is for that.
The nkjv sides with the new versions throughout. The new versions uses corrupt manuscripts. Same difference.
 

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
9,386
5,725
113
As I mentioned in post #55, the list of modifications I shared was confirmed via the actual bibles referenced. Your accusation of my being a liar can easily be disproven upon review of the list.
I have looked at this issues very in-depth and had many tell me every angle of it over the years. To "prove" (for example) that the disputed verses in Mark 16 were or were not in the original text is a difficult task. No one has the original manuscript so technically it is impossible to prove. No one is alive who saw the original manuscript. We have lots of manuscripts and lots of circumstantial evidence but nothing that "proves" it beyond reasonable doubt. Well, of course some will say it is beyond reasonable doubt that it was not there. But there are some on the other side who say that it was there!

Does it matter? Well, of course that section in Mark 16 has some deep implications about miracles, but really - to me at least - whether that section of verses was or was not in the original manuscript makes no difference in what the Bible teaches about salvation and really little difference in my view of miracles. We have plenty of other texts that are clear that God can and does do miracles.
I can't disagree with anything you've said here.
Unfortunately smear campaigns against modern English bible translation goad us to counter the false claim that
Mark 16 is "missing verses"

I have found it difficult to locate a translation that has excluded those verses. (9-20)
None of these translations are "missing" verses 9-20 as is often the charge. NRSV, NIV, ESV, CSB, WEB, NKJV, NASB, NET.
They all have vs 9-20 included in the main text with footnote explanations about the differing early manuscripts.
I can't speak for every translation under the sun but those that are used most widely in churches don't excluse the verses.