Group wall: Biblical Discussions§↻

FinalAsgard, You said that the old English is hard to understand because we don't speak a lot of those word. But thou art wrong a bit when it comes to that. If you do some research, you will find that the "old" KJV is known to be easier to understand than newer translation, simply because it is authentic.
When you say we need new material because it is old, don't you think that it is a bit of a compromise? Nothing against newer stuff, but our modern, newer world isn't getting better is it? New philosophies, new cults, new trends, bad is good and good is bad...many things are not getting better because they are getting newer.

Also, what's wrong with Sinaiticus.net and Chick.com?

FinalAsgard, I have found that after switching from other versions to the KJV, my walk with the Lord and effectiveness for Him has improved substantially.

I am sure that everyone on this site wants to be closer to the Lord and more effective for Him.

And yes, there are major theological differences at stake, the Trinity being one of them. (eg. 1 John 5:7)
It's important to know that God himself, as God the Son, experienced life and suffered for us.
So He understands how difficult things are as humans.
Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Also, if you talk to any JW (who don't believe in the Trinity) about having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, they won't have one and usually don't want one because the don't believe Jesus Christ is God.
They don't know Jesus as their Lord and Saviour and this stems from their faulty Bible "Translation".

I use the standard 1769 KJV which is close to modern English, and far easier to read than the 1611 version.

Sure, you have to learn the meanings of a few archaic words, but this small inconvenience is outweighed by all the benefits, and I won't list all of those here.

I guess the real question in all of this discussion… why does it matter? Theologically, doctrinally, what really changes between reading the KJV vs a modern translation?

Other than the fact that the KJV is much more difficult to understand because it uses a 400 year old version of English that nobody today speaks.

The Bible does not change, but our language does, so we need a Bible that is understandable today, that teaches God’s Word in its entirety today.

Ask this arguing over how we are only allowed to use one version of the Bible that is difficult to read… stop getting in the way of people reading and understanding God’s word.

Chick.com sounds like an excellent reputable source for researching the truth of God’s word and how translations are treated.

With a little research I came across something interesting today.
Have you heard that Codex Sinaiticus may be a fake?
On this page:
https://www.chick.com/information/article?id=sinaiticus-wastebasket-story
Is the ‘World’s Oldest Bible’ a Fake?
"...it is clear that someone stained all the Sinaiticus pages that Tischendorf brought to Cairo in 1859, and that Tischendorf never said a thing about it. They were all witnessed as white before then (and the Leipzig CFA pages still are), but after that the 1859 pages were stained and aged-looking.

You can see the actual pages here:
http://www.sinaiticus.net/other%20mss.html

The Codex Vaticanus is kept at the Vatican and not available for observation.

The Byzantine type (KJV) manuscripts are far more numerous, and collectively are a strong testament to the accurate preservation of the Word of God.

Onfire, I do sympathise with your opinion as you're in the academic mindset where I was 15 or more years ago.
And I'm well aware that my KJV preference would be unpopular in most Theological colleges today.
However, I'm encouraging you and others to reconsider the KJV as the best version for English speakers.

It's not for my own benefit, it's for yours.
As God's Word is a lamp to our feet, and a light to our path, we want the best light.
My comments are meant to bring light, not heat.

I have many friends who are Bible Translators and they are among the nicest, most sincere people I know.
As I mentioned, they have good motives, but they
believe the Alexandrian line of texts is better, simply because that's what they were taught.

When I was referring to people who seem to have deliberately introduced changes (corruptions) to the text, I'm referring to Westcott and Hort - of whom you can assess their character from their own words in the link I provided, and of course the nameless people who produced the Alexandrian line of texts and other variants.

As you would know, Codex Sinaiticus is the oldest complete manuscript and this is of the Alexandrian text family.
However, it's still very late in the scheme of things, dated in the 4th century.
So there was plenty of time prior to this for people with less-than-holy intentions to make modifications.
There is a gap of several hundred years where we don't have the copies of the original autographs.
And the copies of the copies.
So this is where academia fails.

God did preserve His word through the Byzantine line of manuscripts which were copied accurately and extensively until the time of Erasmus, from whose work the KJV was derived.

God knows the truth about all of this.
I made the mistake of trusting academic scholars and not asking the Lord.
I'm encouraging people not to make the same mistake I did, because I want the best for them, and the KJV is the best.
I love you all and am trying to help you.

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find.
Matt 7:7.

As long as we don't get angry and start tearing each other down, then the discussion is good and healthy. But sometimes things can get more fired up than what is safe. More heat than light, I think I saw someone say earlier.

@onfire247, You pretty much answered my question. I know some people that believe or hold to the Lost Gospels. One lady was explaining that Judas Iscariot was commanded to betray Christ. I don't believe so. She said in the Gospel of Judas, he tells that Jesus begged him to betray himself. I don't believe any of that. That is not how our loving savior works. Personally, I believe that the Lost Gospels are, like you said, historical finds, but were never meant to be put in the Bible. If they were supposed to, Almighty God would have put them in.

Thank you for your time, all of you guys, I am sorry if I have started a debate that never should have been started. I was just curious what others opinions are, but it got a little out of hand.

I agree, FA. We break fellowship so easily in the Church! One of my favorite pastors in the Word of Faith movement (Keith Moore) is King James only, and that is fine. Pick a subject and most Christians disagree on it. I mean, even Jesus, the harshest critic of the Pharisees, was himself theologically a Pharisee in most areas (I feel the stones coming out!). You should look at how fiercely Rabbis argued in Israel throughout history.

As long as we don't tread on the "non-negotiables" we can disagree and still be in fellowship. Here are my non-negotiables (a modifed form of 1 Cor 15:3-4), btw:

1. That Christ is the pre-existent Son of God.
2. That Christ came to the earth in the form of a human.
3. That Christ was fully God and fully man in that human form.
4. That Christ died on the cross for the sins of humanity.
5. That Christ rose again on the third day and ascended into heaven.
6. That Christ will come again someday to judge the living and the dead.

Of course, I hold to the Nicene Creed as well.

"I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen."

That is a great question, Jappel! It would be necessary to define what you mean by "believe." You would also have to define which gospels you mean. Do you mean books like the Gospel of Thomas, or do you mean the Q, M, L, (etc.) sources?

Do I believe there may have been some lost gospel accounts destroyed by the ravages of time? Sure. 99% of all historical documents from that time frame are lost or destroyed. Most are lost forever, such as the Gospel of the Hebrews, which I would love to see! Others, such as the Gospel of Thomas, are Gnostic gospels that never made it into the Canon. When you read these gospels you find out why.

Those books are useful for archaeological, historical, or textual purposes for sure. Indeed, our understanding of Greek and Hebrew language mechanics have increased greatly from books outside of the Bible! Are they useful for determining how to live one's life? I don't believe so. To be sure, there may be some value in the Apocryphal books. At least most of them do not appear to be Gnostic. Catholics seem to like them, and that's fine. I would not put them or any other book outside the standard sixty-six books above what's in the Bible already.

The canon was set long ago. If we assume that God is the Caretaker of his Word, we must also assume that the finalized sixty-six book Canon is sufficient to accomplish his works. And if that is the case, the rest of the books are extras at best.

I apologize if I have come across as liberal. I am neither theologically liberal or conservative. I believe that the truth of most situations lies closer to the middle than on the fringes.

That's ok. I was just wondering. That is all.

And I agree with you FA, there are people that are mad about being KJV only, and they break up relationships because of that. I will say that I am KJV only. But I'm not going to shove it down someone's throat. I will just give the reasons why I believe it to be the right translation, and give info saying that others are not quite right. I am open to others saying the exact opposite, that is why I made this group. To give you reasons and back them up by sometimes putting down others.

If you don't think this is something you should be of, that is fine, I won't criticize your decision, because that is your right.

onfire247 Thank You, sincerely, for taking the time to share this. I know that many online arguments between two people never produce the fruit we intend it to (to convince the other person we're talking to of the validity of our points), however, there is a lot of fruit that can be gained by those watching the conversation from the sidelines, who may have questions related to the subject but not enough knowledge to ask or research or dive in.

My father is KJV only. We've had friends that are/were KJV only and it's sad to see how they let that one issue break fellowship with friends and family. Sometimes out of sincere belief, and other times out of a desire to be part of the "know it all" club that has special information that others don't. It's sad...

@Jappel, I did not see anything in onfire247's response that would lead to thinking that they believed in the "lost gospels".

I want to ask you a question, onfire247. Do you believe in the Lost Gospels?
If you think this is too personal, don't answer. But your comment seems to indicate toward it.

I debated on whether to respond further on this topic. It was my hope that it would just die down and we could all get back to memorizing whatever version of the Bible we so choose to use. Sadly, that did not happen and I am now compelled to respond. Saintman (and others), I hope you will not take what I am about to say as a personal attack. I do not mean it as such. I have great respect for you, Saintman. Your accomplishments on here are unparalleled. I stand taller in the memorization world because I have your shoulders to stand on. You have a passion for the Word and clearly are doing your best to do the work of the Kingdom, and for that you should be honored.

Saintman, I say this with great respect: you hold the minority position on the KJV being the only valid translation. Nearly every established scholar for the last two hundred years has held that the documents you essentially call trash are both authentic and extremely useful for both salvation and how to live a godly life. Indeed, at this very moment there are millions of people in heaven who have gotten there through the hard work of scholars like Westcott and Hort. We owe them a debt of gratitude and today they have received their heavenly crowns for their hard work. You state that "I am not suggesting that modern translators have deliberately created a corrupt translation" but in effect that is exactly what you are saying by the rest of your threads, and that is a shame.

I respect that you've been to a Bible college and received a Masters in Theology. I also respect that you've spent time studying this and other aspects of Bible translation outside of college. You have a wealth of knowledge and it comes out every time you speak. You do not, however, appear to have training that focused exclusively on textual studies of ancient documents. Here are three examples:

1. You state multiple times that the Alexandrian text is trash because it was found in a trash bin. The Alexandrian text, by the way, is not a document but a set of documents containing papyri fragments, uncials, minuscules, and a large selection of Codices (mostly complete copies of the Scripture). The Codex you are referring to is Codex Sinaiticus, which some speculate that it was found in the trash. As a side note, it was not found in the trash. Tischendorf, found parts of the manuscript about to be burned on his first visit in 1844. The reason why those slated to be burned was because they were "mouldered by time", or were in rough shape. The monks, sadly, did not know what they had in their library. It was Tischendorf's excitement that led them to reconsider burning any part of the Codex. They did not trust him on the first visit, so they would not show him the Codex itself. They did, however, preserve it from that point. Tisch returned to Sinai again in 1853 to find the actual Codex rather than just fragments, but he could not locate it. Finally, he returned a third time in 1859 and found the document wrapped in cloth in the steward's room. He asked to borrow it to copy it from cover-to-cover in Cairo, but the steward declined. Tisch went over his head and appealed to the prior a few days later, who consented. Tischendorf documented this extensively in his writings which are available for viewing. As one can see, this document was obviously not trash. Some pages were aged, perhaps, but there is no indication that the entire Codex was to be burned. Regardless, once the monks found out what a treasure they had, they preserved it. God used Tisch to keep the monks from burning it, and we are all blessed because of it.

2. You make assertions that the texts modern scholars use have been edited and thus should not be used. I hate to break this to you, but almost every ancient document has been edited or written over. If we throw out every ancient document that was edited or written over, we would have few documents left at all! Textual scholars do not shy away from these revisions. Rather, they explore why those changes have occurred and translate accordingly. Indeed, we are blessed in the modern age to have technology to explore those changes at an even deeper level. In my school, we saw technology that could scan the ancient manuscripts to reveal every change that has ever been made to a document. I can't wait to see the new translations that come out that have access to all the cool modern technology!

3. Bible translations are not made on one document or one set of documents. They are built on a large collection of documents. To be sure, they may lean heavily on certain documents (or classes of documents), but they are not used exclusively in most modern translations. Additionally, every translation decision is documented, and most of those decisions are viewable. Have you looked at the translators notes online or for purchase? Future versions will have even more tools at their disposal. In Accordance right now I can look at any verse in the Bible and see which of the thousands of fragments contain all or part of a verse. I can also view the actual Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, Tischendorf, Vaticanus, and many many (many!) other manuscripts and papyri fragments right now as we speak. The rest are available online right now as well.

I am saddened by the necessity of this conversation. I am saddened that I must spend three hours defending the hard work that all these textual scholars have given over the years to enrich my life instead of just spending time memorizing the Word on here as I intended today. I am saddened that you and other KJV-only proponents are so adamant that there is only one valid translation, ignoring the fact that there are literally millions of people in heaven who got there through those same modern translations you seem so willing to throw on the trash heap.

The KJV is a beautiful translation worthy of the accolades it has received, but it should not be lifted up as some idol worthy of worship. God uses many ways to get his Word across to the world, and the KJV is but one of them. Those who use other translations (even the Message) should not be made to feel as if their choice of Bible somehow diminishes them.

Exactly Saintman, When you mentioned Wescott and Hort, it jogged my memory of an illustration my Youth Leader gave concerning the KJV vs. WaH versions.

"Say that I went to a youth conference, and I met a girl that I KNEW was the ONE. (Go ahead and laugh but it does get serious) Only thing was, she is French, so she only speaks French. Well I get her address and send her a letter, months later (again, she lives in France) I get a letter from her. I am ecstatic, but I can't read it. But a buddy of mine knew French like the back of his hands. It is his second language you could say. Well I give it to him and he interprets it word for word and then gives it back to me."

That is the KJV, a direct interpretation of a non-corrupted letter. Back to the story:

"Well I send her another letter and wait for a response. Another letter comes, only it got stuck at the P. O. and I had to go get it from there. While the letter was at the P. O. a girl that I know that works there, saw the letter, and got jealous, because she like me too. She knows French too, and she changes some things in the letter (I know, horrible) She than puts the letter back in the envelope, puts everything back into place, and puts it on the counter waiting for me to arrive. When I finally get the letter, I still need an interpreter. My buddy is out on vaca, but I meet a guy that knows French (He only took a year of it though) He interprets it, but not word for word, he just interprets it according to what he thinks works best. I get the letter back, and life goes on.

This is and illustration of the Wescott and Hort versions. They are and indirect interpretaion of a corrupt letter.

I think that it fits perfectly. The thing is, people want something that is a bit less demanding, that is newer, and that fits with what THEY want.
You think of the Jefferson's Bible. Would you call it the Bible when it only has what a certain person wants to hear.

I know, long winded, but I think this is very appropriate to what we are discussing.

There are some other important considerations to bear in mind regarding KJV vs other versions.
KJV is public domain and thus free of copyright.
Other versions hold copyright and require payment to publishing companies for use of quotations (in certain circumstances).
These publishing companies make hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue.

Do you think it's right for an owner of a publishing company to be making money this way?

Another thing to consider is the character of those behind the new versions.
For example, you can easily find quotes from people such as Eugene Peterson, the author of the "Message" (which is very popular and I've seen used in Churches).
https://www.dennyburk.com/eugene-peterson-will-always-exist/

And the infamous Westcott and Hort, who created the Greek text upon which many modern versions are based:
https://www.bibleready.org/westcott-and-hort

"Opening up a can of worms" is a pretty good description when you delve into these details!

Sticking with the KJV avoids all these problems.

Thanks for that Final Asgard.
He certainly sounds confident in his assertions, but doesn't provide any references to back them (and I might take the time to read them if they were provided).
Whole books have been written about many of his statements which either argue for or against such claims.

He has chosen to present the claims of one point of view (which happens to be the most popular view in modern day scholars).
These kinds of talks remind me of my Bible College days where well-educated and convincing speakers cast doubt on the strength of the KJV.
Since I now know better, I don't just accept what someone says, but seek the truth for myself.
As Jesus said, "Seek and ye shall find."

Mike Winger did a thorough and excellent look into Bible translations.

https://youtu.be/BCPoKIE5y1U If you are interested. It’s long but it’s a deep subject.

Hi Janet and welcome!
I just found this publication on this topic which you can read for free here:
https://fdocuments.net/document/the-providential-preservation-of-the-preservationpdfprovidential-preservation.html?page=1

It's a great explanation of the history of Bible texts and it strengthens our faith that God has faithfully preserved His Word since it was first written by the apostles and prophets.
It also explains why the Majority Text (over 90% of discovered NT manuscripts) represent the original autographs and how these match the copies that Erasmus was working with when he translated the Greek into English (which was used in the KJV).

I think any time spent studying this subject (and even learning Greek to arrive at an informed conclusion) is worthwhile and spiritually beneficial.

15 years ago, I was using other versions and that was because it was the best of my knowledge at the time.
But since then, I've learned more and encourage others to also keep learning about the subject, which is truly fascinating.

glad to be in the group. very interesting discussion

Yes, Jappel, I agree, the KJV has amazing power!

Are we allowed to discuss the word corrupt?
If comprehensive analysis of all available Greek texts shows that hundreds of deletions and "variations" suddenly appeared in one line of texts, wouldn't it suggest that it was done deliberately and not by accident?
And if it was done deliberately, how does it not qualify as corruption?
Take a look at this list and ask, "Were these changes made by accident, or deliberately?"
https://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/various.html
Also, which one is the Word of God?

I am not suggesting that modern translators have deliberately created a corrupt translation.
I would like to think that they are all doing the best they can with the knowledge they have been taught.
And they have been taught the Alexandrian texts are the most reliable.
However, if you read the link I supplied, the Alexandrian texts were found in a rubbish bin in a monastery by Tischendorf in the 1800s.
The Monks were using it as fire kindling, as they knew it wasn't a trustworthy text and because of its content and origins.
Most Christians are completely unaware of these important historical facts which have a direct bearing on which versions to read.
I'm just sharing what I've learned for the benefit of others and I deeply care for every precious believer who uses this site.

Forgive me. I was in the wrong. But you see, according to your story, Satan hates the KJV, meaning that it has amazing power.

I will share a very interesting story which is relevant to the discussion.
Recently, I tried to share the gospel with one of my neighbours. He's a quiet man who lives alone and always seems deep in thought.
When I tried to share the value of knowing the Lord, through the Bible, he said he wasn't interested.
He was willing to explain why:
When he was younger he dabbled with Shamanism and acquired a "Spirit Guide". (For those who don't know, these are deceptive demons posing as helpers).
His Spirit Guide told him not to trust the King James Version, the book of Revelation, or to believe in Jesus Christ as God, or the existence of heaven, or the Tree of Life.
He had never read the Bible, and didn't know about any other versions of the Bible.
He thought the KJV was the only Bible.

Since it was clear that he was being deceived away from the eternal life through Jesus Christ which I was attempting to offer, I didn't push the issue, but left with the following information:
Demons hate the KJV, the book of Revelation and Jesus Christ.

I went home and doubled down my efforts on memorizing Revelation in the KJV!!

Hi Jappel,
I cannot see anywhere I said the KJV is corrupt. I am putting forth an argument to say the KJV is reliable.
I said the New World Translation is corrupt, and can supply plenty more information to support that.
Also I said the Alexandrian texts were corrupted and gave a reference link for supporting information.
I'm sorry you misunderstood my points.

And I also apologize if I opened a bigger can of worms that I thought I would.

These are great statements. Obviously you have done a lot of study in this subject. Saintman, please be careful, I have set this group up to discuss, not attack. Please forgive me for being a bit defensive when you out rightly said the KJV is corrupt. I agree that we should be in search of the truth, and Onfire said that well.

I will put up a reminder that this group is for discussion, not aggression towards other versions.

The reason I chimed in on this discussion is because it is important to figure out what the best available English version is (and to do that you need to research the best Greek versions).
And because I care about you, my friends, and perhaps my comments will lead someone to have a stronger relationship with God.

I used to hold the position that the ESV was superior to the KJV, based on what I learned at Bible College.
However, I've come to humbly accept that I was wrong, and now only read and memorize the KJV exclusively.

OnFire, I think your point #6 is one of the best you've made there.
And I believe that if you ask the Lord to show you the truth on this and are willing to accept it, He may even tell you.

On the point about learning Greek - well, I did that at Bible College, however, it's not practical to memorize for a few reasons:
1. It takes a LOT of work to learn and keep the vocabulary fresh in your mind, as you won't be using these words in conversation.
2. You can't quote Greek to people.

I live in an English speaking culture and so I need to know God's Word in English to reach people.
Fortunately, good men such as Erasmus sought to accurately translate the Greek to English, and they did a wonderful job, and used the best manuscripts.

There were others who sought to corrupt the Word of God and did this in the early centuries (Greek manuscripts - eg. Alexandrian), and recent times (New World Translation is an obvious example).

Yes, I used to believe the Theological differences were small, however, if you take just one issue, such as the Trinity, you find there are many verses that were changed or even deleted to try to remove Jesus Christ from the Godhead.
eg. 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.
You'll find most of the modern versions have deleted it.
That's why JWs love the modern versions, because they won't accept that Jesus Christ is God.

I just want to encourage you all to keep researching this, and asking the Lord to show you the truth.
I probably can't convince you of anything, but God can.

I have found the choice of version to have a big impact on me and my relationship with the Lord, and thus how effective I can be for Him.

If anyone else has had the same experience, I would be interested to hear about it.

FA, you are correct that the best translations are the original languages copies. For that reason, when I study I use the original writings AND the different modern translations. There is such a richness in study of the Word the deeper you go!

It is not that simple, however, because some scholars (such as Burgon mentioned in Saintman's link below) view certain original texts as corrupt. That in essence is the heart of the "KJV vs. the world" dispute: the KJV uses the "uncorrupted" versions of the Greek manuscripts while the rest use "corrupted" versions.

A lot of ink has been spilled on this topic, and most of the discussions end up producing more heat than light. Feel free to explore further if you desire. In my opinion, doing so is to follow a rabbit hole that only leads to atheism or agnosticism because it sows a distrust in the Word of God.

At some level we have to have enough faith in God that he has already worked through all these issues to give us the texts we need to reach him. This seems like a small thing for a "Being" that can produce the universe from four words.

Ah, the classic Alexandrian vs. Antioch arguments pop up yet again! This is one of the reasons I hesitated to even answer Jappel's question. I feel like any response I have will either dishonor you, Saintman, or dishonor the KJV, neither of which I am interested in doing. I will answer your last question, however.

1. We, as believers, always start from a position of "seeing through a glass darkly" until we meet Jesus face to face (1 Cor 13:12).
2. Because of this, we must always be humble as we work out our understanding of God with fear and trembling (Phil 2:12).
3. God has watched over his Word as it has been handed down over the generations, so the versions we have now are the ones he wants us to have (Jer 1:12).
4. He has given us every tool we need to receive the teaching we need to reach him (2 Pet 1:3).
5. If our understanding of the Word is completely corrupted, which I deny, the Holy Spirit will still correct us to keep us on the path of righteousness (John 16:13).
6. The most important thing for us is to live in the light of the Scripture that we know and to be open to the promptings of the Holy Spirit going forward (John 9:41).

If we do these things, it will all work out for us in the end.

I'll just add one comment... If you are worried that we should not be reading and memorizing a "corrupted" version of scripture, then the only version of scripture that you should be reading and memorizing from is the original language.

That's the only perfect one. All other translations are flawed in some form or another. Luckily those flaws are infinitesimal and do not change the meaning of any major or core doctrine of Christianity.

https://www.preservedword.com/content/the-unreliablitity-of-the-alexandrian-manuscripts/

Anyone who wants to know the truth about this subject needs to dig deeper, much deeper than Seminary level academia.
In my Masters of Theology they all praised the Alexandrian text (mentioned below), however, I have since found that it IS corrupt.
The KJV is derived from a completely different line of manuscripts, the Byzantine ones.
And yes, Erasmus was the translator in 1516, a brilliant man.
He didn't add Acts 8:37, as it's found in codex Laudianus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Laudianus
Dated 550 AD.

There are good reasons why this most reliable translation doesn't appear in even older manuscripts.
The flawed assumption taught in Bible College is that older=more reliable.
However this is not the case.
If you want to know why, just ask me.

Also, do you think God cares if we read or memorize a corrupted version of Scripture?

sorry onfire247 ... I shouldn't have mentioned you're long posts, because I too am longwinded. My wife will confirm that fact. My apologies.

Thanks for making me aware of this group. Sadly, there is no such thing as a "right group" for having a conversation on this website as all posts are public. Also, I was not planning on getting into a protracted discussion about the KJV, but I guess I'm committed now. (And yes, joosep, I am longwinded most of the time =D)

Let me begin by saying my goal is not to stop you or anyone else from using the KJV. If you like it, use it. It is a good translation and beautifully written. I believe I can answer your question, however. This discussion may get a bit technical, and I apologize for that.

I can see that it concerns you that verse 37 is missing from Acts. I can understand why seeing a verse missing (especially one confessing Jesus Christ) could cause consternation. After all, are we not instructed to not add or take away from the words of God? I can see how it can be perceived as some rogue translator (in this case, almost every translator) trying to weaken the Word of God. That is not the case here, however.

[As a side note, whenever you see anything indicating the "Word of God" in the NT, you need to understand that the author means the Old Testament. While some of Paul's letters were circulating shortly after the death of Jesus, none of the other books were written within the first 30 years of the death of Jesus. Indeed, the disciples thought Jesus was coming back "immediately" after he ascended. It was not until they were getting close to dying off that they realized they were wrong and started writing things down to preserve the faith. The NT as we know it was not even finalized until five centuries later. Regardless, you shouldn't add to the NT either. That was just a point of clarification.]

The reason why that verse is missing in nearly every modern translation is because while a few ancient copies have that verse (the highly respected Alexandrian text , for example), the vast majority of the earliest and most respected documents do not. This is one of those situations were translators have to make a judgment call, which is never fun. The authors of the KJV did not have to make the judgment call, however, because they did not have access to the older documents. They just translated what they saw in the Greek, which is what all translators do. Someday, we may find an original of Acts hidden somewhere in a cave in Iraq. If that happens, the newer translations will have to address any discrepancies they find. Wouldn't that be a mess!

So why is verse 37 missing? Most translators suspect that Erasmus added this verse to his Greek NT translation sometime around the 2nd Century because he felt that the passage needed clarification. In other words, he felt that it was inadequate for Philip to offer baptism to the eunuch without extracting a confession first, so he added it here for clarification. Perhaps he believed it belonged there and that a scribe carelessly left it out. If Erasmus had access to the texts we have now, perhaps he would have left it out as well. This is all speculation of course. We can't go back and talk with Erasmus and we have no originals to confirm whether it exists or not.

So what is lost if we exclude verse 37 for the modern believer? Look at the narrative in question. Philip and the eunuch are riding in the chariot (v. 36). The eunuch sees water and says, "hey, why not baptize me here now?" So they stop the chariot and Philip baptizes him (38). That narrative flows. Is the forced confession "with one's whole heart" required here? Will the whole understanding of the necessity of confession of Jesus Christ with one's heart fall apart in Acts if we exclude it? No. Confession and acceptance of Jesus Christ in one's heart is all over Luke and Acts.

[Luke and Acts used to be one book, btw. It was separated because having both books in a scroll you roll up was too difficult to read from. You should look up the Luke-Acts scrolls. They were huge!]

So what is the takeaway from this discussion? If the omission of verse 37 is concerning to you, don't use the modern translations. Like I said before, the KJV will help get you into heaven just as well as other translations will. There is no "right" translation of the Bible. It was all written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Just use the one that makes you feel comfortable.

But know this, Bible translation is hard work (there's an understatement if there ever was one!) with little to no pay. Indeed, no one gets rich off of translating Greek and Hebrew. It is a slow, painful slog if there ever was one. For those who do it, it is a ministry of service to God and the people who will hopefully believe in him as a result of their hard work. The authors of the ESV, NASB, etc., like the writers of the KJV, have a tremendous respect for the words of God and do their very best to stay true to what the authors intended from the documents they have access to. These translators should be honored because someday, they will hear "Well done, good and faithful servant." May God use us all in such a way!

hi Jappel think you might have a setting problem with group . unable to join

My preferred translation is the King James Version. One reason I will give now, unless asked for more, and that is a certain verse that is not found in most other versions. Here is Acts 8:34-39 as found in the KJV.

34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

I ask you to look in the version you use, and see if verse 37 is in there. Thank you for your time for those that have read this.