Are Doctrines affected by Modern Versions

[CharismaticLady]

The verses weren't "taken out" of the bible. The 1611 isn't the standard, the mss are. It is the KJV that actually added things that were not there.

Wrong. How could a verse be quoted a hundred years BEFORE the Alexandrian manuscripts were created. They were subtracted.

 

[Willie T]

The verses weren't "taken out" of the bible. The 1611 isn't the standard, the mss are. It is the KJV that actually added things that were not there.

Amen to that! What an insulting slap in the face to countless Christians who lived before 1611, (and to God) to pretend God withheld His word from the world until the publication of that 'so-called' "authorized" book.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Amen to that! What an insulting slap in the face to countless Christian who lived before 1611, (and to God) to pretend God withheld His word from the world until the publication of that 'so-called' "authorized" book.

As I said to Preacher4Truth, a verse that was supposedly added after the Alexandrian codices were created, was quoted 100 years before the Alexandrian codices existed. No, they subtracted verses, possibly because of doctrinal issues. I'll stick with the NKJV.

 

[reformed1689]

Lets compare one verse, 1 John 4:3:

NIV - but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

RSV - and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.

ASV and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.

KJV - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

We see here in 1 John 4:3 that the NIV takes out the whole point in the text, "NIV leaves out the fact that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh--yet another swipe at the divinity of Christ." https://mundall.com/erik/NIV-KJV.htm

Such dishonesty. Read verse 2 in the modern translations. Guess what is there? Jesus coming in the flesh. This is an ignorant OP.

 

[reformed1689]

Capitalizations, KJB vs NKJV:

Subtil non-capitalizations:

More ignorance. The original manuscripts didn't have capital vs non capital. You do know that right?

 

[reformed1689]

I came across a few verses that have been taken out or partially deleted in new versions which are interesting...

Matthew 18:11 New Versions take out "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."

Luke 9:56 New Versions take out "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."

Acts 8:37 New Versions take out "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."

I John 5:7-8 New Versions take out "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth,"

Can anyone guess why they took the verses out as these are just a few, there seems to be a pattern here..

More dishonesty. The new versions do include them in the footnotes to say SOME MANUSCRIPTS include, and then reads the entire verse.

 

[ReChoired]

Amen to that! What an insulting slap in the face to countless Christians who lived before 1611, (and to God) to pretend God withheld His word from the world until the publication of that 'so-called' "authorized" book.

That is actually a caricature (straw man) of the real position. Of course the Bible was in existence before 1611. It (your response) is also non-sequitur to the point of OP and material presented subsequent.

 

[John Caldwell]

I think it is often the other way around. Doctrines are not necessarily affected by modern versions (most who develop doctrines know that our English bibles are translations and study beyond the translated words).

The biggest concern, IMHO, is how much our doctrines affect and have affected various translations.

 

[ReChoired]

More dishonesty. The new versions do include them in the footnotes to say SOME MANUSCRIPTS include, and then reads the entire verse.

Ha. Like the NIV on Mark 16:9-20?

[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]

9 When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons.

'earliest' - right and 'some'

Please read this:

https://brandplucked.webs.com/mark16920.htm

 

[ReChoired]

More ignorance. The original manuscripts didn't have capital vs non capital. You do know that right?

The ignorance is upon the part of the Preface (NKJV) writers, not mine own. Mss (codices, palimpsests, papyrii, etc) came in miniscules (lower case only), majescules/Uncials (all capitals), and script (like a cursive), and some shorthand. The point made was not about the original mss (which no one alive on earth among the human family today has ever seen, we only have distant copies of copies and fragments of copies), but about what the Preface writers stated as "intent" on lowercase and capitals in their translation (NKJV, under scrutiny).

 

[Willie T]

That is actually a caricature (straw man) of the real position. Of course the Bible was in existence before 1611. It (your response) is also non-sequitur to the point of OP and material presented subsequent.

Nope, I'm sorry, but most KJV adherents say that they believe that either the KJV is the only word of God, or that God ceased making His word known after publishing that specific book. To them, a "true" Bible (whatever THAT means) has to have the exact words of the KJV... no more, no less, and expressed the same way..... even the Thee's and Thou's. (As if God speaks that way.)

This isn't me saying this. Those are the very words they use.

 

[ReChoired]

...The biggest concern, IMHO, is how much our doctrines affect and have affected various translations.

This is a great point actually, and a good chance to see the flipside of the distortion that goes on. They are two parts of the same coin, as it were.

 

[ReChoired]

Nope, I'm sorry, but most KJV adherents say that they believe that either the KJV is the only word of God, or that God ceased making His word known after publishing that specific book. To them, a "true" Bible (whatever THAT means) has to have the exact words of the KJV... no more, no less, and expressed the same way..... even the Thee's and Thou's. (As if God speaks that way.)

This isn't me saying this. Those are the very words they use.

Sigh. No. Even Ruckman didn't teach that.

 

[Truther]

Exactly! Sad thing is the kjvo cultists won't concede. Ironically they are always arriving at their errant teachings by missing the context. Same thing in this case.

The word of God cannot be changed and still be the word of God.
Some think the NWT is the word of God too.
The NIV is only a commentary

 

[ReChoired]

Such dishonesty. Read verse 2 in the modern translations. Guess what is there? Jesus coming in the flesh. This is an ignorant OP.

Unfortunately in removing the part in verse 3, the idea is separated about antichrist and the flesh:

NIV 1 John4:2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

As I stated before, it's not about removing the Deity here, but about swapping flesh, fallen for unfallen as Roman Catholicism does.

 

[Willie T]

Sigh. No. Even Ruckman didn't teach that.

Granted, I'm sure some people didn't teach that.... the Bible doesn't either.... but that doesn't change the fact that you will hear (IF you choose to listen....) literally thousands of people confessing they believe that way.

Ruckman, BTW, was known for his position that the King James Version constituted "advanced revelation" and was the final, preserved word of God for English speakers.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

Amen to that! What an insulting slap in the face to countless Christians who lived before 1611, (and to God) to pretend God withheld His word from the world until the publication of that 'so-called' "authorized" book.

One of my congregations when questioning me during candidacy asked: "Are you only going to preach from the 1611?" Of course there were a few KJVO cultists in the mix who weren't upfront with me. I invited everyone there to open their Bibles to see that they didn't have a "1611" they had a 1769 KJV. Some looked like they saw a ghost. Ignorance is bliss they say.

Nevertheless, I told them I would preach from that version but not about that version. The KJVO'er cult group wanted me gone, and as they are typically divisive and sow discord (as some on here show to be true) they lied and slandered behind the scenes. In fact, one deacon got in front of the congregation when I was gone and said: "I don't care what our preacher thinks, if you use anything other than the 1611 you're going to HELL!" One solid deacon told me of the incident.

Hmmm. All this time I thought it was Christ alone. Now it's Christ and a 1611? Paul and the other apostles must be burning in hell right about now.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

Sigh. No. Even Ruckman didn't teach that.

He most certainly did. He also taught the KJV corrected the Greek, was double inspired.

The word of God cannot be changed and still be the word of God.
Some think the NWT is the word of God too.
The NIV is only a commentary

Baloney. There are several ways of translating each book and still retain the intentions of God and His word.

So, it's only the Word of God in the Queen's English in the 1611?

 

[101G]

GINOLJC, to all.
Addressing the OP. yes, many translation have tried, and tried, and tried to corrupt the word of God, and failed. these things we call a bible or manuscripts of Ink and Wood, (paper), is not what's written on your heart. these things what we call a bible is only a reference guide/aide of the closest manually "RECORDED" record/a book, we have of what God has conveyed to man in a language that we can read by sight. that's why one need the Holy Spirit to interpert theses guides/aides/books. for the Holy Spirit said it best through his prophet Jeremiah 8:8 "How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain".

what's in any translation is made manifested by the COMFORTER, hence his name, because he gives us comfort in the scriptures. he knows what is correct and what's incorrect. he will expose all corruptions, and I have seen many different translations exposed. but trust and follow him, is my advice.

but let me say this by permission. any translation is helpful if handle in a correct manner. but when it changes a word, or words to manipulate other scriptures to support a doctrine look out it's a false translation. meaning, it must say the same thing here as over there in another place of scripture. I myself, via the Holy Spirit, have caught many translation in a error, or falsehoods, even the KJV 1611 which I use exclusive. yes, even the trusted 1611 I use.

only in my oponion, the KJV 1611 is the best so far in accuracy, the best in built in dictionary of itsel, and the best mistake catching, and self correcting translation out there, that is mannually printed with ink and wood, as a witness, or record of the truth. but is it the best translation? that's for you to decide. as said, one needs the HOLY SPIRIT to guide us and to teach us in "ALL TRUTH". these things what we call a bible is only an "aide", to the Spirit which is "TRUTH". he's the best "witness", God himself. SO I SUGGEST WE LISTEN, AND FOLLOW HIS LEAD.

PICJAG.

 

[reformed1689]

Unfortunately in removing the part in verse 3, the idea is separated about antichrist and the flesh:

NIV 1 John4:2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

As I stated before, it's not about removing the Deity here, but about swapping flesh, fallen for unfallen as Roman Catholicism does.

Apparently you can't read in context because it does no such thing.