Are Doctrines affected by Modern Versions

reformed1689 · Dec 23, 2019

ReChoired said:
Yep, man-centered religion. Rely upon this or that guru to 'show' me what the truth of the matter is. They never simply go to the word of God and allow God to define and tell us.

Psa_118:9 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes.

Psa_146:3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.

Are you in trouble, in doubt as to what is truth?

Psa_60:11 Give us help from trouble: for vain is the help of man.

Psa_108:12 Give us help from trouble: for vain is the help of man.

You obviously don't even know what the book is about, you just made an assumption.

ReChoired · Dec 23, 2019

David Taylor said:
Which, of course, you have no evidence for that. I challenge you to take the TR quiz. TR Quiz - KJV Parallel Bible

False dichotomy. The KJB (the inspired and preserved word of God in English) isn't soley based upon 'TR', and never had to be. God never stated that He would preserve His word solely through what people call 'TR', for God saves by many, few or even just one.

David Taylor said:
The point is, the critical manuscripts do not change any doctrine.

As shown from Hebrews 9:12, etc, yes, they absolutely do, and the textual critics make a big hullabaloo about it. Even the persons 'Westcott and Hort' knew that "their doctrine" would appear out of what they did. Do not think we are fools, as some in this world are.

David Taylor said:
Nothing of significance. In fact, they are VIRTUALLY THE SAME.

That is actually your opinion, but not representative of reality. And 'virtually' is, of course, not 'actually' - ever. Would you desire 'virtually the same Jesus', or have the actually the same Jesus? I hear that there are many Jesus' which are 'virtually identical with the actual Jesus. Surely they are good enough for you also, right? Look at the standards of scales you use, and see if they are not off balance by the sanctuary standard.

David Taylor said:
The idea that they are somehow corrupt is nonsense.

Dean Burgon, Benjamin Wilkinson, etc and numerous others have shown that they (Alexandrian texts) are indeed (in verity) corrupted. Paul even knew of the corruption of texts in his own day, and of false epistles circulating already. We were warned over and over in scripture, even in the OT, that this would take place and now you tell us, it 'ain't so'? Where then are all these corrupted texts we are warned of? Do they exist? Do you think that the NWT is 'virtually the same'? it is based upon the Alexandrian text type, and so says in its preface and notation.

David Taylor said:
And, did you know, that in some verses the TR has LESS words than the critical texts? So how do you use your method there of wanting "all the words, more the better, etc"?

Of course, as the TR is not the argument. That is a strawman argument. The TR has 'less' words in some places than the critical texts (Alexandrian, Vaticanus, Siniaticus, Alexandrinus, papyrii, etc), because false words were 'added' in those text types, and can be shown by the simple fact of the other MSS, and ECF citations before those additions were made.

reformed1689 · Dec 23, 2019

ReChoired said:
False dichotomy. The KJB (the inspired and preserved word of God in English) isn't soley based upon 'TR', and never had to be. God never stated that He would preserve His word solely through what people call 'TR', for God saves by many, few or even just one.

There is no such thing as an inspired English version. Only the original autographs were inspired.

ReChoired said:
As shown from Hebrews 9:12, etc, yes, they absolutely do, and the textual critics make a big hullabaloo about it. Even the persons 'Westcott and Hort' knew that "their doctrine" would appear out of what they did. Do not think we are fools, as some in this world are.

That is merely your opinion. Do you know how many commentaries actually address it? I have yet to find one.

ReChoired said:
Dean Burgon, Bejamin Wilkinson, etc and numerous others have shown that they (Alexandrian texts) are indeed (in verity) corrupted.

Based on?

ReChoired said:
Paul even knew of the corruption of texts in his own day, and of false epistles circulating already. We were warned over and over in scripture, even in the OT, that this would take place and now you tell us, it 'ain't so'? Where then are all these corrupted texts we are warned of? Do they exist? Do you think that the NWT is 'virtually the same'? it is based upon the Alexandrian text type, and so says in its preface and notation.

Citation?

ReChoired said:
ECF citations before those additions were made.

The ECF citations have not shown anything of the such. Try again.

ReChoired · Dec 23, 2019

DNB said:
Almost all Bibles & Manuscripts have been faithfully and devotedly copied and preserved by countless geographies and people, leaving us Christians with an almost impeccable manuscript tradition, that almost any translation, including the KJV, allows us to say that we have 95% of the original text.

How do you know that you have 95% of "the original text"? Have you ever seen the original text? Where is the "original text" to compare to? You mean God didn't preserve that 5%? or is it still to be found in the dusty places of the world?

ReChoired · Dec 23, 2019

David Taylor said:
There is no such thing as an inspired English version. Only the original autographs were inspired....

Inspiration works upon the 'men', not the pen and ink or material written upon. You have a misunderstanding of "inspiration".

We know that Jeremiah was the prophet. He was inspired. Yet Baruch wrote the words [Jeremiah 36:4 KJB]. Who then was worked upon/in by the Holy Ghost? The man Jeremiah, the man Baruch or the paper and pen?

We know that Paul was inspired, even a prophet and Apostle, however, if we look at the book/epistle to the Romans, we find that Paul didn't actually write the letter, but Tertius did [Romans 16:22 KJB]. Therefore, what was inspired, the man Paul, the man Tertius, the paper and pen?

We know that Solomon was inspired, but also that he collected and collated the inspired sayings of others into a single source [Ecclesiastes 12:9 KJB].

We know that Caiaphas was inspired, but he didn't even know it, though being high priest in a year [John 11:49-51 KJB].

Job 32:8 KJB - But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

Job 33:14 KJB - For God speaketh once, yea twice, yet man perceiveth it not.

Job 33:15 KJB - In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, in slumberings upon the bed;

Job 33:16 KJB - Then he openeth the ears of men, and sealeth their instruction,

Nehemiah 9:20 KJB - Thou gavest also thy good spirit to instruct them, and withheldest not thy manna from their mouth, and gavest them water for their thirst.

Isaiah 30:21 KJB - And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left.

Ezekiel 11:5 KJB - And the Spirit of the LORD fell upon me, and said unto me, Speak; Thus saith the LORD; Thus have ye said, O house of Israel: for I know the things that come into your mind, every one of them.

Daniel 4:8 KJB - But at the last Daniel came in before me, whose name was Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god, and in whom is the spirit of the holy gods: and before him I told the dream, saying,

Daniel 4:9 KJB - O Belteshazzar, master of the magicians, because I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in thee, and no secret troubleth thee, tell me the visions of my dream that I have seen, and the interpretation thereof.

Daniel 4:18 KJB - This dream I king Nebuchadnezzar have seen. Now thou, O Belteshazzar, declare the interpretation thereof, forasmuch as all the wise men of my kingdom are not able to make known unto me the interpretation: but thou art able; for the spirit of the holy gods is in thee.

Daniel 5:11 KJB - There is a man in thy kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods; and in the days of thy father light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him; whom the king Nebuchadnezzar thy father, the king, I say, thy father, made master of the magicians, astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers;

Daniel 5:14 KJB - I have even heard of thee, that the spirit of the gods is in thee, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom is found in thee.

The Holy Spirit worked upon and in Daniel. Daniel, the man, was inspired. He then wrote.

Micah 3:8 KJB - But truly I am full of power by the spirit of the LORD, and of judgment, and of might, to declare unto Jacob his transgression, and to Israel his sin.

Zechariah 4:6 KJB - Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.

1 Corinthians 7:40 KJB - But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

Paul was inspired, and then did he not write down what he did, is it now scripture?

1 Corinthians 12:8 KJB - For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

Was not Solomon inspired?

1 Timothy 4:1 KJB - Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

Who was the Spirit speaking to, inspiring? that it was then later written down by the inspired man?

2 Timothy 3:16 KJB - All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

It is the men who are inspired of/by God, and thus the scriptures come through such holy men in their writing, by their having been inspired of/by God to write.

1 Peter 1:11 KJB - Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

1 Peter 1:12 KJB - Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

2 Peter 1:21 KJB - For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Revelation 1:10 KJB - I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

Inspiration works upon the man, even as it did for sister White (who was not a cessationist, nor sensatonalist):

"... The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God’s mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God’s penmen, not His pen. Look at the different writers. Ms24-1886, par. 9

It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions, but on the man himself, who under the influence of the Holy Ghost is imbued with thoughts. But the words and thoughts receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the Word of God. Ms24-1886, par. 10 ..." - Manuscript 24, 1886 - Ms 24, 1886 -- Ellen G. White Writings

You say "Only the original autographs were inspired". Well then, what of the original tables of the Ten Commandments that Moses smashed, and were replaced by new tables? It was a copy made (by God even, who re-wrote the words), was it not "inspired"?

What of the letters that Jeremiah had Baruch write that the king had cut up by penknife and burned in the fire, or later another set of letters were taken and cast into the river? They are long gone, and never to be found ever. Only the "original autographs" are inspired, what then of the copies, and the text we presently have, which came from a copy?

What of the "original" language as spoken by Jesus to Saul/Paul (Hebrew tongue) on the road to Damascus, but was translated and recorded in koine Greek (Acts) by Luke. Which was "inspired", Jesus, or Paul or Luke, the Hebrew or the translation into koine Greek?

reformed1689 · Dec 23, 2019

ReChoired said:
You say "Only the original autographs were inspired". Well then, what of the original tables of the Ten Commandments that Moses smashed, and were replaced by new tables? It was a copy made, was it not "inspired"?

This is not the same thing. God directly dictated the second tablets as well. So yes, they were inspired, they were not merely a copy.

ReChoired said:
What of the letters that Jeremiah had Baruch write that the king had cut up by penknife and burned in the fire, or later another set of letters were taken and cast into the river? They are long gone, and never to be found ever. Only the "original autographs" are inspired, what then of the copies, and the text we presently have, which came from a copy?

If it is the original text as an exact copy in the original language then yes, the text is inspired. But the KJV is not an exact copy of the original text in the original language of the original autograph.

ReChoired said:
What of the "original" language as spoken by Jesus to Paul (Hebre tongue), but was translated and recorded in koine Greek (Acts). Which was "inspired", Jesus, or Paul or Luke, the Hebrew or the translation into koine Greek?

All Scripture, the original autographs, are inspired.

ReChoired · Dec 23, 2019

OzSpen said:
Please demonstrate that is so.

Let me start with a question, in demonstrating.

Did Jesus (our example in all things), in the NT, use the 'critical method' when discussing the word of God, or what they had for texts?

ReChoired · Dec 23, 2019

David Taylor said:
...All Scripture, the original autographs, are inspired.

Now I think you are just responding to write something, to have the appearance of answering. You did not answer the questions as asked. Thank you for your time. We are done.

ReChoired · Dec 23, 2019

A 'modern version' is the NWT (New World Translation), and it comes from the Alexandrian texts, as it says in its own notation and footnotes.

The WTS/JW teach that the Son of God is a created being and not eternal (neither Deity), and their 'modern translation' is their proof of this.

Do 'modern translations' affect doctrine? Yes or no please, based upon this example (others may be given after).

Enoch111 · Dec 23, 2019

David Taylor said:
The truth is this, KJVO turn the KJV into an idol. That is the extent of it.

I have posted an excellent article (in a separate thread and some time back already) which REFUTES this nonsense. But it is obvious that you do not want the truth, since that would mean throwing out all your false ideas and starting afresh.

reformed1689 · Dec 23, 2019

Enoch111 said:
I have posted an excellent article (in a separate thread and some time back already) which REFUTES this nonsense. But it is obvious that you do not want the truth, since that would mean throwing out all your false ideas and starting afresh.

The false idea is that a 400 year old translation is the end all be all for a language that is not the same today as it was 400 years ago. The KJV can easily confuse people with dead words and words that no longer mean the same thing today.

reformed1689 · Dec 23, 2019

ReChoired said:
Now I think you are just responding to write something, to have the appearance of answering. You did not answer the questions as asked. Thank you for your time. We are done.

Now you are just being dishonest. I did, in fact, answer the questions. You just didn't like the answers.

reformed1689 · Dec 23, 2019

ReChoired said:
Did Jesus (our example in all things), in the NT, use the 'critical method' when discussing the word of God, or what they had for texts?

Oh brother....

DNB · Dec 23, 2019

ReChoired said:
How do you know that you have 95% of "the original text"? Have you ever seen the original text? Where is the "original text" to compare to? You mean God didn't preserve that 5%? or is it still to be found in the dusty places of the world?

5,000+ manuscripts between 125ad to 1500 ad, over 1 mil quotes from the early Church theologians, lectionaries, etc.. by any scholarly assessment, should bring us back to 95%+- of the original.
Would you require more testimony than that to know where we stand with our manuscript tradition?
No, the remaining 5% is just uncertain of the exact wording, not that it's lost. i.e. we just don't have a consensus on that part.

DNB · Dec 23, 2019

Enoch111 said:
The truth is always offensive, but the truth remains the truth. Since you have clearly failed to investigate this matter thoroughly, kindly start a serious investigation into the truth behind the *leading textual critics*. There are many books that go into the specifics.

I didn't say that the truth is offensive, the truth is only offensive to depraved people.
I said that your foolishness is offensive, attempting to discredit such scholarly works like the UBS, Nestle/Aland & Westcott & Hort critical Greek publications. The efforts put in to examine each and every manuscript, the familiarity with the Koine Greek, the painstaking comparisons of the variances, emendations, interpolations, redactions, etc. Papyrology, chemical analysis, paleography etc..
And the leading textual critics are Bruce Metzger, Daniel Wallace, FF Bruce, Mike Kreuger, James White, Walter Martin, to only mention a few, but all who denounce KJVO. And there's even Bart Ehrman, who we don't accept his conclusions on inspiration, or integrity of the autographs based on extant MSS, we do accept his recognition of the value of all MSS families (he is a technical scholar in his own right, and agrees that the earliest are the most faithful, irrespective of their lineage).
But in your wisdom, you believe that a handful of manuscripts written no earlier than the 12th century, compiled & redacted by a single scholar, carries more weight than thousands written between 125ad & 1600. There is not a rational argument in the world that can justify your claim.
Like i said, you discredit yourselves by such argumentation. You scream bias on the Alexandrian scripts, but there is not a soul on earth more biased than a KJVO.
Please tell me that you see the point & irony?

ReChoired · Dec 23, 2019

DNB said:
...by any scholarly assessment, should ...

I don't live my life by such a human "if", and neither should you. I have the "sure word of God", and it is 100%.

DNB · Dec 23, 2019

ReChoired said:
I don't live my life by such a human "if", and neither should you. I have the "sure word of God", and it is 100%.

You scare me!

ReChoired · Dec 23, 2019

David Taylor said:
... dead words and words that no longer mean the same thing today.

You mean like 'archaic' words? I do not know of a single Bible that does not use 'dead words', or archaic words, and words that do not mean the same thing as they did when originally given (and that includes the originals, for those 'original only' people), and neither do I know any persons who do not use dead words, or archaic words (even 'rappers' use them) and words that have changed meaning (ie "gay", "dude", "cool", etc).

For instance:

Archaic/dead words? You supposedly mean like these?

abode kernels ancients laden aright lance asunder lusty away with mantle beckon mattock begotten naught bier nurtured bewitched odious bowels osprey calved pangs celestial phylacteries coney plowshare confections rend convince respite cormorant rushes decked soothsayer deride spoil distill suckling dung temperate effect tetrarch estate trafficked forevermore unto fowl usury girdle vaunt hallowed vestments haunt vex heresies wanton infamy yokefellow inasmuch insatiable jeopardy

abase deride heresies pipes temperate abated didst hinds plowshare tenons abode distill importune presbytery teraphim adjure doest impotent principalities tetrarch alms dost inasmuch putrefaction thee ancient doth issue raiment thereon apparel dung jeopardy rampart thine aright effect know ravening thou art eminent laden remission thy asunder engines laud rend timbrel away with estate layer reprobate trafficked backbiting evermore lightness requite travail beget familiar litters riot unto beseech feigned lordly rushes usury bewail fetch lunatic seemly vagabond bewitched firstlings lusty seest valor bondwomen fleshhook mail seethe vaunt bowels footmen maintenance shalt venture breeches forbearance mammon sherd verily brimstone fowl mantle shod vermillion calves fuller maranatha shouldst vex canst gaiety mattock shouldest virtue cleave garners milch smith wanton comely gavest mill solace warp constrains girdle nether soothsayer wayfarers cormorant graven nurtured sore whence couches gross odious speakest wherewith covert guile offscouring stay woof crib handmaid pangs strait wrought dainty harrow paramours suckling yea dearth hast perdition swaddling yonder deck haunt phylacteries tares

abase daubed henceforth principality vestments abode dayspring heresies prognostication vex alms debased immutable psaltery virtue amiss decks impudent quarter visage anise deride inasmuch rampart wanton apparel dispensation issue rid warp aright disquiet jeopardy rifled wayfaring austere distill jot riotous whence away with dung know rushes whereupon backbiters effect laden satiate whet beckoned epistle laud shamefaced winebibber beggarly eventide laver shod woof begot evermore litters smith wrought bemoan familiar lordly soothsayer yea beseech fan lusty spoil yonder bewail feigned mail straits bewitched fetch mammon suckling bittern flanks mantle tares bondwomen flay mattock temperate brimstone footmen mill tenons calves forbearance mite terrestrial carnal foursquare nativity tetrarch celestial fowl offend therein circumspect fuller offscouring timbrel cloven gad omnipotent tittle comeliness godhead or ever unto concourses graven pangs usury confederacy greyhound paramours vagabond convince gross phylacteries valor covert hallowed pipes vehement crib haunts plowshare verity dainties hemlock potentate vermillion

abase disquieted henceforth ravening abate dissembles hoarfrost remission abode distill impudent rend adjuration dromedaries inasmuch riotous alms dung isles rushes apparel effect know sacrilege assuaged enjoined laden satiate asunder ensign lance seethe augment ensues laud sherd away with estate laver sloth backbiting eventide litters smith beget evermore lusty solace beggarly execration mail soothsayer bemoan familiar maintenance stay beseech firmament mantle straits bewail firstling mattock stripling bewitched flagon milch suppliants bier flay mill surfeit bowels footmen naught swaddling calving forbear noontide temperate cleft foursquare obeisance teraphim clemency fowl oblation thereupon comely fuller odious thrice coneys gad or ever timbrel constrains garner pangs trafficked cormorant goodly paramours unshod covert gross perdition crib guile phylacteries dainty hallowed pipes debased haltingly plowshare decked harrow pound delectable haunt rampart

None of those are being cited from the King James Bible [though they exist therein].

Row 1 is the NIV 1973.

Row 2 is the NASB [from revised ASV 1901].

Row 3 is the NKJV 1982.

Row 4 is the NRSV 1999 ["milch"].

The KJB uses some of the very words as found in all so-called 'modern' versions

What was that argument from 'archaic' ("dead") again? Tell me please ... Do you complain about the archaisms in all modern versions, as I hear this whining about the KJB? Use the same scales (of the sanctuary; Psalms 77:13) to judge, and not imbalanced ones.

reformed1689 · Dec 23, 2019

ReChoired said:
You mean like 'archaic' words? I do not know of a single Bible that does not use 'dead words', or archaic words, and words that do not mean the same thing as they did when originally given (and that includes the originals, for those 'original only' people), and neither do I know any persons who do not use dead words, or archaic words (even 'rappers' use them) and words that have changed meaning (ie "gay", "dude", "cool", etc).

For instance:

Archaic/dead words? You supposedly mean like these?

abode kernels ancients laden aright lance asunder lusty away with mantle beckon mattock begotten naught bier nurtured bewitched odious bowels osprey calved pangs celestial phylacteries coney plowshare confections rend convince respite cormorant rushes decked soothsayer deride spoil distill suckling dung temperate effect tetrarch estate trafficked forevermore unto fowl usury girdle vaunt hallowed vestments haunt vex heresies wanton infamy yokefellow inasmuch insatiable jeopardy

abase deride heresies pipes temperate abated didst hinds plowshare tenons abode distill importune presbytery teraphim adjure doest impotent principalities tetrarch alms dost inasmuch putrefaction thee ancient doth issue raiment thereon apparel dung jeopardy rampart thine aright effect know ravening thou art eminent laden remission thy asunder engines laud rend timbrel away with estate layer reprobate trafficked backbiting evermore lightness requite travail beget familiar litters riot unto beseech feigned lordly rushes usury bewail fetch lunatic seemly vagabond bewitched firstlings lusty seest valor bondwomen fleshhook mail seethe vaunt bowels footmen maintenance shalt venture breeches forbearance mammon sherd verily brimstone fowl mantle shod vermillion calves fuller maranatha shouldst vex canst gaiety mattock shouldest virtue cleave garners milch smith wanton comely gavest mill solace warp constrains girdle nether soothsayer wayfarers cormorant graven nurtured sore whence couches gross odious speakest wherewith covert guile offscouring stay woof crib handmaid pangs strait wrought dainty harrow paramours suckling yea dearth hast perdition swaddling yonder deck haunt phylacteries tares

abase daubed henceforth principality vestments abode dayspring heresies prognostication vex alms debased immutable psaltery virtue amiss decks impudent quarter visage anise deride inasmuch rampart wanton apparel dispensation issue rid warp aright disquiet jeopardy rifled wayfaring austere distill jot riotous whence away with dung know rushes whereupon backbiters effect laden satiate whet beckoned epistle laud shamefaced winebibber beggarly eventide laver shod woof begot evermore litters smith wrought bemoan familiar lordly soothsayer yea beseech fan lusty spoil yonder bewail feigned mail straits bewitched fetch mammon suckling bittern flanks mantle tares bondwomen flay mattock temperate brimstone footmen mill tenons calves forbearance mite terrestrial carnal foursquare nativity tetrarch celestial fowl offend therein circumspect fuller offscouring timbrel cloven gad omnipotent tittle comeliness godhead or ever unto concourses graven pangs usury confederacy greyhound paramours vagabond convince gross phylacteries valor covert hallowed pipes vehement crib haunts plowshare verity dainties hemlock potentate vermillion

abase disquieted henceforth ravening abate dissembles hoarfrost remission abode distill impudent rend adjuration dromedaries inasmuch riotous alms dung isles rushes apparel effect know sacrilege assuaged enjoined laden satiate asunder ensign lance seethe augment ensues laud sherd away with estate laver sloth backbiting eventide litters smith beget evermore lusty solace beggarly execration mail soothsayer bemoan familiar maintenance stay beseech firmament mantle straits bewail firstling mattock stripling bewitched flagon milch suppliants bier flay mill surfeit bowels footmen naught swaddling calving forbear noontide temperate cleft foursquare obeisance teraphim clemency fowl oblation thereupon comely fuller odious thrice coneys gad or ever timbrel constrains garner pangs trafficked cormorant goodly paramours unshod covert gross perdition crib guile phylacteries dainty hallowed pipes debased haltingly plowshare decked harrow pound delectable haunt rampart

None of those are being cited from the King James Bible [though they exist therein].

Row 1 is the NIV 1973.

Row 2 is the NASB [from revised ASV 1901].

Row 3 is the NKJV 1982.

Row 4 is the NRSV 1999 ["milch"].

The KJB uses some of the very words as found in all so-called 'modern' versions

What was that argument from 'archaic' ("dead") again? Tell me please ... Do you complain about the archaisms in all modern versions, as I hear this whining about the KJB? Use the same scales (of the sanctuary; Psalms 77:13) to judge, and not imbalanced ones.

Notice every one of those versions is not the current (with maybe an exception being the NKJV as I really don't keep up with that one) version of that translation.

marksman · Dec 23, 2019

Hobie said:
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

What worries me more is the influence of denominations. For example, one church that I was attending needed a formal process to be a member which included reading their doctrinal booklet and agreeing with it. So I read it and found 31 errors in it which were contrary to scripture. Before I got back to them on it they said I couldn't be a member because I did not attend communion enough times. I told them apart from the pastor, I attended communion more times than anyone else in the church. Seems as though they made up the rules as they went along.

Are Doctrines affected by Modern Versions

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

My eldest granddaughter showing the result of her

Similar threads