Read the King James Bible only. The New-age Bible translations have perverted God's Holy Bible by omitting verses, deleting key words and phrases in order to diminish God's power, confuse Christians and redefine what sin is. See the link document for details. God bless you.
(files.catbox.moe)
🗣️ DISCUSSION 💬
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (262)
sorted by:
Sorry, OP, but even the KJV is a version.
I have been in church all my life, and I can't get on board with you here. Not that I have issues with KJV. It's a good Bible, but it's still one translation. One needs to be a Hebrew scholar to get the real, untranslated stuff. Even the Septuagent is a translation.
What I have issues with, is the way Christians make themselves into cliquish circular firing squads all the time, by imposing these types of "thou shalts" on each other and those who are seeking, and being dismissive of anything that doesn't match. The church has been woefully bad at communication in general, and even worse about carrying out Christ's mission, because of over-judgementalism. I'm guilty of this as well. God is the judge, but many Christians assume this role for themselves, and it pushes people away in the same way that over-liberalism pushes people away.
My personal experience is that God speaks in any way He sees fit to. Through music, through signs and wonders, through relationship, through business. We just need to listen.
Although the mainstream English translations are all very close to one another and all sufficient to convert the lost and edify the believer, I would only mention that the KJV is the only English translation (other than Geneva Bible) that is based on the Byzantine text type (which are the Bible texts preserved by Greek speakers). All other English translations are based on the critical text which is primarily based on two manuscripts more recently found which are older than all Byzantine texts. The critical text is a scholarly undertaking compiled by non-Christians. They basically say those two older texts are best because they are old. Even though they were basically shelved, or thrown away and forgotten.
The place this is most notable in critical text translations (ESV, NIV, etc.) Is they leave out the end of Mark and the John Comma, among many other verses. Except they don't actually leave them out, they put asterisks on them and tell you they don't belong in the Bible in a footnote.
Personally I like NKJV. I think the Byzantine text type is better and less polluted by non-Christians and NKJV is easier to read.
They say certain passeges don't belong in the Bible, or they say something like older manuscripts don't include certain verses? Be honest here. There is a difference.
What makes you so certain that the very brief sections you described are actually part of the original text?
Do you want to be unaware that there is a possibility that the text may have been altered over time?
You tell me why they cut out the end of Mark. they believe it's unreliable and a later addition from the original author. They don't think it belongs.
My belief that the Bible is complete and inerrant are based on faith and I believe the history of the byzantine text type is evidence of this fact. The Greeks and Masoretes preserved the best texts and nothing was lost or altered in way in which meaning was lost.
The end of Mark is not cut out. Be honest about this. It is simply noted that all manuscripts do not contain this section, and that earlier-dated manuscripts, which are usually considered to be more reliable, do not contain those verses.
What evidence do you have that the issue is subtraction rather than addition?