When KJV loyalists accuse new versions of removing verses from the bible, are they being disingenuous?

Question

Recently I was listening to a discussion on Bible translations on Jimmy Swaggart's channel.
The most common argument for KJV sacredness that they put up was by citing a verse in a new version... Lets say, the ESV or NIV... And then quoting the KJV form of that verse. Pointing out that the verse in the newer version is 'missing' some words or phrases, they'd raise alarm and exclaim that the new version is 'corrupted' or has deliberately 'removed' verses. They would not bother explaining why a discrepancy exist and the strengths and weakness of the textual bases from which the KJV and the newer version is drawn. They don't even superficially address the basic manuscripts differences such as these http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major_textual_variants_in_the_New_Testament

but will simply say... The KJV says this, that version doesn't, therefore it's corrupt.

They also beg the question by assuming, without sufficient justification, that the KJV must be the Version used as the standard. Before you can say an addition or omission to 'the bible' has been made, you have to have a standard 'the bible' to gauge the assessment by. KJV onlyists want everybody to accept the KJV as that 'the Bible' but don't bother justifying why, or explaining what the standard 'the bible' was before 1611.

Answer 1

.



I could never have convinced my Mother that the KJV was NOT the "original" Bible.



Many older people really DO think that it was the "first Bible".



Swaggart is a money grubber who knows that the older people are the ones who will support his ministry, so he panders to them to get their donations.



I would hate to be him on judgment day!



.

Answer 2

The only verse which is closest to the concept of ‘trinity’, is the 1st Epistle of John, Chapter No.5, Verse No.7, which says… ‘For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the word and the holy ghost, and these 3 are one.

But if you read the Revised Standard Version, revised by 32 scholars… Christian scholars, of the highest eminence, backed by 50 different co-operative denominations, they say… ‘This verse of the Bible - 1st Epistle of John, Chapter 5 Verse No.7 is an interpolation, is a concoction, is a fabrication’ - It was thrown out of the Bible.

Answer 3

I like to compare verses, I like the way the NIV is layed out with paragraph headings, but I like to refer back to the KJV to try to understand a verse fully.

I'm a bit wary of the NKJV because of the satanic symbols on the cover.

Yes I do sometimes wonder how some scriptures stayed and some were not included in "the Bible", but I think of it as just another miracle.

Answer 4

Yes, they are all delusional since none of it is worth the paper that people print and publish it on.

Answer 5

The Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible first appeared in 1952. The editors claimed in the preface that it went to the "most ancient manuscripts" of the Bible. By "most ancient" they mean those that date 200 to 300 years after Jesus. "Ancient" manuscripts on the other hand, on which the King James Version was based, date 400 to 600 years after Jesus. All scholars agree that none of the originals of any of the manuscripts exist. All we have are "most ancient" and "ancient" copies.

The preface to the RSV says that it was produced by thirty two scholars of "the highest eminence", backed by "fifty cooperating denominations (of Christianity)." Historically, since the RSV goes back to the "most ancient" manuscripts it is more accurate than the KJV. About halfway down the preface of the RSV, on page one, these fifty-two scholars unanimously declare:

The King James Version has grave defects and that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for a revision (1952:1)



The Grave Defects:

A look at the New Testament section of the RSV, we see that the only "proof" from the Bible that the Christian fundamentalists had of the concept of the Trinity has been removed. The "most-ancient" manuscripts never had this passage (1st Epistle of John 5:7). However, as Christianity got Romanized and moved away from pure monotheism, the elite who possessed authority on what becomes doctrine shoved this statement in:

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one." (New Testament, 1John 5:7)



Not only the RSV but also all modern versions of the Bible do not contain this statement anymore. It has been unceremoniously thrown out. By doing this the scholars are not only bringing Christianity closer to Islam, they are confirming the part of the Koran that says:



"And do not say Trinity, desist from this, it will be better for you, for God is one God (Waahid in Arabic)." (QURAN 4:171)



Another thing that we notice in the RSV, that goes to the "most-ancient" manuscripts is that the word "begotten" in the famous verse in John (3:16) has been taken out. John 3:16, in the King James Version (KJV) reads:"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son"(New Testament, John 3:16)

By removing the word "begotten" from this verse, the scholars of Christianity are once again coming closer to Islam. The Koran states that God doesn't adopt or beget sons or daughters. The concept of "son" and an uncreated, eternal "God" are mutually exclusive, logically speaking. God represents one who received life from no one, while son signifies one who got existence from another source. In the literal sense of the word, no one can claim to be God and son at the same time.



In the language of the Jews however, the word "son" has a metaphoric meaning as well. Thus, the term "son of God" is used in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments to signify good, righteous people. Jesus himself is quoted as saying, "Blessed are the peace-makers for they shall be called sons of God." (Matthew 5:9).



The word that was causing difference in John 3:16 was the word "begotten". The scholars "of the highest eminence" are informing us that this was an interpolation, a later addition to the text of the statement.

"In their relentless search for "the historical Jesus," various Biblical Scholars argue that the Gospel stories of the empty tomb and Jesus' post-resurrection appearances are fictions devised long after his death to justify claims of his divinity." (Rethinking the Resurrection, Newsweek. April 8 1996, page 42)



"While believers through the ages have echoed Peter's faith-filled declaration, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," some modern scholars say that historical evidence reveals a much different portrait of Jesus than the one in Christian creeds." (In search of Jesus, U.S.News & World Report, April 8 1996, page 47)



In the 1952 version of the RSV, the first eleven verses of the 8th chapter of the Gospel of John have been removed. The chapter now begins at verse 12. The scholars explained that these eleven verses were interpolations, later additions to the manuscript of John. As a result they are now in the footnote and not the text of the 1952 RSV. Also taken out are the only two references in the gospels to the ascension of Jesus (Mark 16:19 and Luke 24:51). They are taken out as interpolations as well.



In 1971 they revised the RSV, and this time due to pressure from certain denominations, they added back the eleven verses of the 8th chapter of John that were taken out. This "game" of adding and taking out has been going on for centuries. The construction of "God's word" has also been a prosperous industry. It is precisely for this reason that the Koran warns us:



Woe unto those who write the book with their own hands and then say, "This is from God," that they may trade it for some miserable gain. Woe to them for what their hands do write and woe to them for what they earn with it." (Koran 2:79)



According to the doctrine of most Christian denominations, the first five books of the Bible, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy were "written" by Moses and are called the "Books of Moses". However, scholars don't attribute any of these books to Moses at all. Internal evidence in these books makes it clear that Moses could not have written these words. In the 34th chapter of the Book of Deuteronomy, we read:



"So Moses the servant of the lord died and He (i.e. God) buried Him and there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses." (Deuteronomy 34:5-10)



Moses could not have written these words, written in the past tense, after he died! Also the word "since" in the verse clearly shows that whoever is writing this lived long after Moses had died. All through these five books, the structure of the sentence as well as the "third-person" reference to Moses and to God shows that neither God nor Moses wrote these words. Sentences, repeated hundreds of times, "God said unto Moses and Moses said unto the Lord," in these five books, clearly shows that a third person, someone other than God and Moses is writing these words.