Featured Are Doctrines affected by Modern Versions?

The Jews had fixed the Canon of the OT books by time of Jesus, and the early Church only used and recognized the NT canon books now in the 66!

 

The extra books added to the 66 show no evidence of being inspired, as they have doctrines against the canon books within them!

 

I do not grant any ECF equal authority to the Apostles of Christ!

 

You are clearly talking out of your hat and making this up as you go.

Modern rabbinical Judaism is descended from the practices of the Pharisees, who fixed the Hebrew canon after the development of Christianity and in response to Christianity.

Greek-speaking Jews used the Septuagint, but so many converted to Christianity that Greek-speaking Judaism ceased to exist not long after the time of the apostles. The canon of the Catholic Old Testament is a Jewish canon; it is the canon of Jews who accepted Christ. In contrast, Protestants have chosen the Old Testament canon of Jews who rejected Christ.

Ironically, Protestant Bibles like the NIV had to refer to the Septuagint to correct certain portions of their translations from the Tanakh to match the Christological meaning!

 

You are here making the BIG assumption that what you called the received text actually best reflects the originals though!

 

Hobie, the KJVO myth is entirely MAN-MADE. It's FALSE because there's no SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for it.

Another thing is that the KJV changes God's word as much as you accuse newer versions of doing, with its many goofs & booboos, such as "Easter" in Acts 12;4. (The Greek word Luke used here, 'pascha', meant only PASSOVER in Luke's time.)

The KJV ADDS "and shalt be" to Rev. 16:5. Try finding the SOURCE for those words in any ancient Scriptural manuscript !

The KJV OMITS "through our Lord Jesus Christ" from Jude 25, words which are found in most ancient mss. of Jude.

The KJV mistranslates Ex. 20:13 as "thou shalt not KILL insteada the correct "murder".

I could go on all day with KJV goofs & booboos, but these should make the point.

And something that shows us you're an amateur & uninformed KJVO is your use of the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" in trying to justify your KJVO myth. In the AV 1611, the ORIGINAL KJV, there's a marginal note for the 2nd them in V7. That note reads, "Heb.him, I. euery one of them." That note proves the AV makers knew that verse is about PEOPLE. They subbed the plural, gender-neutral "them" for "I" & added that note to show their substitution, as they knew the verse is about people, plural, & not just one person.

That "thingie" comes straight outta SDA official Dr. Wilkinson's 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, the 'foundation book" of the current KJVO myth.

And again, the KJVO myth's LACKA SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT renders it false !

 

The Kjv also called the Holy Spirit 'it" 4 times, and does not see Jesus as being indicated by peter and Paul as being both great God and our savior!

 

You seem to be uninformed and misinformed concerning the actual manuscripts used in the making of the varying Textus Receptus editions, and you do not demonstrate that you apply the same exact measures/standards to them. Erasmus added some readings from the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate to his edited Greek NT which remained in later TR editions. Erasmus and Beza introduced some conjectures found in no known Greek NT manuscripts in their printed editions, and there were also some errors introduced by the printers. You ignore the definite issues with the varying, imperfectly printed TR editions.

There were actual textual differences and even textual errors in the Greek NT manuscripts used in the making of the TR editions.

You continue to ignore the actual facts that proved your claims about the Waldensian Bibles to be incorrect.

 

The claim really makes no sense and is misleading. In 1 John 4:2-3 the NIV states:

"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, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. Bible Gateway passage: 1 John 4:2-3 - New International Version

It appears your source purposely left out important information in order to give a false impression.

If the NIV was trying to take a swipe at the divinity of Christ and removed or change doctrines, the NIV word have removed the clause in verse 2 as well.

 

Your everybody must refer to those holding to KJVO, as even those who prefer the MT or bzt Greek test would acknowledge that the Critical Greek text is still valid!
Which TR text is the right one to use? Which Kjv version? Did inspiration go just to 1611, or carry onto other revisions?
The Nkjv used same source texts as kjv, is it a reliable translation to use?

 

I know of no major doctrines that are ignored or changed in any of the reliable Modern translations....

 

Neither do I. However what I can't understand is why makes someone would make demonstrably false claim "NIV leaves out the fact that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh--yet another swipe at the divinity of Christ" (See OP). The NIV states:

"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, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God."

Moreover if the NIV was trying to remove the divinity of Christ, it does not make sense the NIV would translate John 1:18 "monogenes God."

 

it keeps coming back around to KJVO on this, as those holding to that must have the Kjv as shown as being only legit translation.

 

I could not agreed more.

 

The KJVO movement came out of a Sda pastor, so more bad fruit from that church!
Even their patron saint of textual criticism, Dean Burgon, would have disagreed with KJVO!

 

I don't know who you are reading but that is not correct. The truth is most scholars favor the Alexandrian text type over the others. Nevertheless, the fact is no two manuscripts are 100% identical, no matter the text type, not even the Byzantine text type.

 

Except the Byzantine text type can be established with over 99% certainty, which cannot be said for any other text type. Thus the eclectic nature of the critical text.