Are Doctrines affected by Modern Versions

[ReChoired]

And how is the doctrine ACTUALLY impacted?

Jesus Christ didn't ascend to the Most Holy Place, but to the Holy Place, where He ministered therein until the time prophecy came to pass (Daniel 8:13-14,26; Revelation 9:13-15, etc). Revelation 1-5 shows where Jesus ascended to, the Holy Place and not the Most Holy Place. So it not only affects doctrine, it also places a contradiction into scripture (NKJV). Also, there is not a single MS (etc, in any language, koine Greek, Latin, etc) on earth which says Most Holy Place in Hebrews 9:12. It also disagrees with the OT texts, and types.

 

[Truther]

IN THE "NEW KJV," THERE ARE

22 omissions of "hell",
23 omissions of "blood",
44 omissions of "repent",
50 omissions of "heaven",
51 omissions of "God",
66 omissions of "Lord".....



A Deadly Translation - The "New" KJV


Good read about the NKJV.
Terrible translation.

 

[Willie T]

The joke of all this is "omissions" from what? They are supposedly "omissions" from a book a king ordered printed because he wanted his own Bible. Who knows WHAT was added or omitted from something done that way.

 

[Truther]

The joke of all this is "omissions" from what? They are supposedly "omissions" from a book a king ordered printed because he wanted his own Bible. Who knows WHAT was added or omitted from something done that way.

The NKJV is pretending to be a KJV.

 

[reformed1689]

Jesus Christ didn't ascend to the Most Holy Place, but to the Holy Place, where He ministered therein until the time prophecy came to pass (Daniel 8:13-14,26; Revelation 9:13-15, etc). Revelation 1-5 shows where Jesus ascended to, the Holy Place and not the Most Holy Place. So it not only affects doctrine, it also places a contradiction into scripture (NKJV). Also, there is not a single MS (etc, in any language, koine Greek, Latin, etc) on earth which says Most Holy Place in Hebrews 9:12. It also disagrees with the OT texts, and types.

Yeah, I don't see how this changes anything at all. Because it doesn't.

 

[OzSpen]

Did Paul say that about everything he wrote? Somethings he said were not the Lord, but his own opinion. What do we do with those?

CL,

Second Peter 3:16 is not Paul speaking. It is Peter speaking God-breathed Scripture.

We have this example from 1 Cor 7:

​

In 7:10, Paul wrote: “But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband.”

However, 2 verses later (7:12) he wrote: “But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her” (emphasis added).

Is Paul teaching in the first statement the instructions of the Lord, but in the latter verse gives his own opinion?

Read an explanation in, 'God’s Word or Paul’s Personal Opinion?'

​

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

You assume a lot. You think ancient translators are not as smart as modern ones.
That is non explainable.

The older the translators, the closer to the scripture.

The greatness of the 1611 translation is the election process.

All other ancient translations were single translators.

Modern translations are biased and coming out yearly. They all differ by about 50,000 words per copyright laws.

They don’t register as the word of God at all, but mere commentary books for the KJV.

Don't you understand that the original Word of God comes in the original documents and NOT any translation, whether KJV or NIV or NLT?

 

[CharismaticLady]

CL,

Second Peter 3:16 is not Paul speaking. It is Peter speaking God-breathed Scripture.

We have this example from 1 Cor 7:

​

In 7:10, Paul wrote: “But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband.”

However, 2 verses later (7:12) he wrote: “But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her” (emphasis added).

Is Paul teaching in the first statement the instructions of the Lord, but in the latter verse gives his own opinion?

Read an explanation in, 'God’s Word or Paul’s Personal Opinion?'

​

Oz

I'm not saying his opinions are not good, just that they are not God-breathed. Let's say in verse 12 the unbelieving spouse took a lover on the side and committed adultery? According to Jesus the innocent Christian IS allowed to divorce. Paul says no. What do you think? Should we listen to what Jesus said, or Paul?

 

[OzSpen]

The KJV is clearly correct on who God is.
The KJV does not say God has a human nature.
Thank God for the KJV.

So, is the 1611 edition of the KJV the standard by which you judge all other translations?

 

[OzSpen]

I'm not saying his opinions are not good, just that they are not God-breathed. Let's say in verse 12 the unbelieving spouse took a lover on the side and committed adultery? According to Jesus the innocent Christian IS allowed to divorce. Paul says no. What do you think? Should we listen to what Jesus said, or Paul?

Do you conclude that the epistles of Paul are not God's inspired (God-breathed) Scripture?

 

[CharismaticLady]

Do you conclude that the epistles of Paul are not God's inspired (God-breathed) Scripture?

Read what Paul said. He tells us when it is God-breathed, and when it is his own opinion. It is not all or nothing. That is not what I said, nor him.

 

[OzSpen]

The KJV is clearly correct on who God is.
The KJV does not say God has a human nature.
Thank God for the KJV.

Truther,

Why isn't the Masoretic Text of the OT the correct document for the doctrine of God?

Why have you relegated the text that espouses the doctrine of theology in the NT to the KJV rather than the Textus Receptus or Nestle-Aland Greek texts?

Is the KJV the supreme document for ALL Bible teaching, including the doctrine of God?

Oz

 

[Willie T]

The NKJV is pretending to be a KJV.

It isn't considered "a corrected KJV?"

 

[ReChoired]

It isn't considered "a corrected KJV?"

No, it (NKJV) is considered a 'corrupted' (2 Cor. 2:17) KJB.

 

[ReChoired]

Yeah, I don't see how this changes anything at all. Because it doesn't.

It (KJB; Hebrews 9:12) demonstrates that what Seventh-day Adventists teach is correct, while others are in error, but the NKJV alters this, and makes the Seventh-day Adventist in error (Hebrews 9:12), and everyone else in the light, and it has been used this way, by such persons as Walter Martin (and John Ankerberg. etc), who was grossly in error about the koine Greek text and mss on this. I can cite directly this blunder of his and his misuse of the text to attempt to prove the Seventh-day Adventist doctrine in error, while all the time he (Martin) was in the error - demonstrably so.

To simply say that "I don't see", speaks to your ability (or rather lack thereof), not others to correctly understand the issues at stake.

 

[Willie T]

No, it (NKJV) is considered a 'corrupted' (2 Cor. 2:17) KJB.

Gosh I didn't know King James gave his Bibles away, for free. That was commendable of him.
BTW, In 1611 England, a farmer could buy a cow for 1 shilling. The KJV cost 10 shillings in loose-leaf.... and 12 Shillings as a bound book.
(A small herd of cows for one book.)

 

[reformed1689]

It (KJB; Hebrews 9:12) demonstrates that what Seventh-day Adventists teach is correct, while others are in error, but the NKJV alters this, and makes the Seventh-day Adventist in error (Hebrews 9:12), and everyone else in the light, and it has been used this way, by such persons as Walter Martin (and John Ankerberg. etc), who was grossly in error about the koine Greek text and mss on this. I can cite directly this blunder of his and his misuse of the text to attempt to prove the Seventh-day Adventist doctrine in error, while all the time he (Martin) was in the error - demonstrably so.

To simply say that "I don't see", speaks to your ability (or rather lack thereof), not others to correctly understand the issues at stake.

Considering I consider 7th-Day Adventist as a cult that makes sense. The reality is there is not much difference between the two. The holy place, the most holy place. It's talking about the same place. It is the throne of God, the holy of holies, the true holy of holies, to make the supreme sacrifice that saves mankind from their sin. This does not in any way alter any actual doctrine of the Bible.

 

[ReChoired]

Gosh I didn't know King James gave his Bibles away, for free. That was commendable of him.

I do desire you to be serious, not sarcastic, and on topic. The reply is unhelpful in our discussion and study together. King James I of England never stated that he 'owned' the word of God. Ever. The topic of the OP is about 'modern' versions and their differences in comparison to the AV (aka KJB, common peoples bible , etc), not King James the man, which is non-sequitur to that OP. King James himself is not among the official list that we have for the translation. What we do know, is that the enemy of all souls, tried to not only kill King James, but to stop and destroy the translation work.

 

[ReChoired]

Considering I consider 7th-Day Adventist as a cult that makes sense. The reality is there is not much difference between the two. The holy place, the most holy place. It's talking about the same place. It is the throne of God, the holy of holies, the true holy of holies, to make the supreme sacrifice that saves mankind from their sin. This does not in any way alter any actual doctrine of the Bible.

Actually, no, it is not the "same place". The "Throne of God" as found in the Holy Place is represented by the Table of Shewbread (see Rev. 5, etc). The "Throne of God" as found represented in the Most Holy Place is the Ark of the Covenant. We see in several Bible texts God moving from one 'place' to the other, with the Son following after.

You may consider us (Seventh-day Adventists) what you like, it doesn't change the text Hebrews 9:12 KJB), as some attempt to do (Hebrews 9:12 NKJV) that they may feel satisfied in their own error.

The doctrine is indeed changed. If Jesus Christ ascended to the Most Holy Place from Olivet, He is not our Great High Priest, for He will never have ministered in the "daily" of the Holy Place, as required in Leviticus 23, and Hebrews.

 

[reformed1689]

Actually, no, it is not the "same place". The "Throne of God" as found in the Holy Place is represented by the Table of Shewbread (see Rev. 5, etc). The "Throne of God" as found represented in the Most Holy Place is the Ark of the Covenant. We see in several Bible texts God moving from one 'place' to the other, with the Son following after.

You may consider us (Seventh-day Adventists) what you like, it doesn't change the text Hebrews 9:12 KJB), as some attempt to do (Hebrews 9:12 NKJV) that they may feel satisfied in their own error.

The doctrine is indeed changed. If Jesus Christ ascended to the Most Holy Place from Olivet, He is not our Great High Priest, for He will never have ministered in the "daily" of the Holy Place, as required in Leviticus 23, and Hebrews.

Please give the exact citation where there is a daily requirement of the high priest to give sacrifice.