Question for KJ only crowd

[ June 10, 2005, 08:54 PM: Message edited by: dianetavegia ]

 

[ June 10, 2005, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: dianetavegia ]

 

The KJV MUST be God's inspired Word because the Devil always seems to send his minions out of the wood work to attack it.

 

1Tim. 3:16 "God was manifest" is changed to "He was manifest." The reference is to Christ manifest in the flesh, etc. The MAJORITY Text tells us that this Christ was God. There are 252 copies of Paul's Epistles which have "God" and only 2 copies which have "he." The MINORITY Text leaves us in doubt as to who "he" is. The doctrine of the Deity of Christ is greatly harmed here by the corrupt text.

 

And yet the NIV uses the 2 copies that use he. Now isn't that strange for people that are trying to translate a more correct bible.

Hmmmm----------

Selah,

Tam

 

Col 1-14 in the NIV leaves out "the blood".

John 3-16 in the NIV says "one and only son", when reality, Adam was called Gods son. The CORRECT redering is only begotten son.

whats your answer to those??

Peace,

Tam

 

Take a look at the context:

The KJV
1 Timothy 3:13-16 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

14 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:

15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

The ASV
1 Timothy 3:13-16 For they that have served well as deacons gain to themselves a good standing, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

14 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly;

15 but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.

The antecedent is a person. It goes back to verse 13. If I were reading along I most definitely would think that "He" would refer to the person of Jesus Christ in verse 13, not to "church of the living God" where church is the the subject of a prepostional of phrase, and God is only part of that prepositional phrase. The subject there is church, not God. One must go back to verse 13 to find out that the last person referred to is Jesus Christ.
Thus the He takes away from the deity of Christ. When it plainly says God, there is no doubt who Christ is: God come in the flesh. There is no argument by anyone--not the J.W.'s, the Mormons, or any other cult. "He" waters down that point considerably.
DHK

 

No, one can demonstrate the deity of Christ using other Scripture. That is true. But this is one of the most clear cut verses that states the deity of Christ in such a forth-right manner.

It is like Acts 20:28:
Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
It was God that purchased the church with his own blood, not just Christ, but God himself. How much more clearly can it be said that Christ is God.
But to get around the denial of the deity of Christ, the New Word Translation, without any warrant whatsoever translates the end of this verse this way:
"with the blood of his own son."

The same kind of thing is done in 1Tim.3:16. It waters down the deity of Christ, and makes it harder to prove his deity to cults. As one man put it: "Using the KJV you cannot disprove the deity of Christ to me," he said to a J.W. He was right.
DHK

 

John 3-16 in the NIV says "one and only son", when reality, Adam was called Gods son. The CORRECT rendering is only begotten son.

The NIV also uses "one and only son" in John 1:14,18; 3:18 and 1 John 4:9. Begetting is a male parent procreating or generating offspring. "Begat" the archaic past tense of beget is used extensively in the OT of humans procreating and probably best not be used to depict God's super natural impregnation of Mary and birth of Jesus.

Only begotten is correct because God(Holy Ghost)did not cause anyone else to become pregnant. Only Mary. So Jesus didn't just happen, he was begotten!!

John 1-12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

We become sons of God too, so you see, "one and only son" is not correct!!

Luke 2-33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.


The NIV says"The childs father and mother". That is not correct because Joseph was NOT the father of Jesus!

Selah,

Tam

 

The rendering "unicorn" in the earlier pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV is likely from the influence of the Latin Vulgate's rendering "unicornis" or the Greek Septuagint's rendering "monokeros" [one horned].

Concerning this word, the 1895 SUNDAY SCHOOL TEACHERS' BIBLE [KJV] pointed out: "The LXX
translation has passed into our A. V., but is erroneous, as the mention of two horns on one reem (Deut. 33:17) proves."

Likely following the Greek LXX or Latin Vulgate, the early English Bibles (Wcliffe's, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Taverner's, Geneva, and Bishops') all had 'unicorn' [singular] at Deut. 33:17. The KJV changed this noun that was singular in number in the Hebrew Masoretic text and in all the earlier English Bibles to a plural.

 

I could give more examples, and you could come back with your sometimes weak rebuttels, but in the end, we would both stand by what we believe.

My contention is that the NIV taken as a whole, waters down the gospel. When a new Christian starts reading the NIV, they could come out with a whole "new" gospel, that leaves more room for sin, and a lot of other things.

Selah,

Tam

 

While I don't recommend the NIV, to be fair to it
the following information about Luke 2:33 should be noted. Several of the earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision have "his father" at Luke 2:33. Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, 1557 Whittinghams, and 1568 Bishops' Bible have "his father"
because some editions of the Greek Textus Receptus
have this reading. Luther's German Bible also has "Vater" [father] at Luke 2:33. The 1560 Geneva Bible is the only one that has "Joseph"
before the 1611 KJV. Would you claim that the KJV is a revision of earlier English Bibles that
weakens or tones down the gospel or the virgin birth?