Doctrines Changed in Modern Versions

One charge leveled against Modern Versions by KJO advocates is that MV's change/leave out, etc important doctrines.

Can any KJO advocate provide an example of a doctrine that is NOT present in a Modern Version
that is present in the KJV? Or a doctrine that is present in a MV that isn't present in the KJV?

In order to be valid (for this thread), this "doctrine" must not be taught anywhere in the MV. It isn't enough to say "Lord" is left out in some places and state Christ's deity is denied in the MV (when it is taught all over the place).

Comparing Scripture with Scripture, is there any doctrine that is left out by the MVs?

Originally posted by kman:
Comparing Scripture with Scripture, is there any doctrine that is left out by the MVs?

Click to expand...

I look forward to the responses (or lack thereof! ) on this thread. However, the wording of the question ("left out") sort of implies that even if something was brought up, it was "left out" which may not be the case - maybe it was "added" to the KJV.

What the KJVO crowd generally does is point out that a theologically significant verse is not included in the text of a modern version (although it is usually present as a footnote).

What they often fail to do is point out that, even though that verse or portion of a verse may not be included, several other verses that make the same point usually are.

As a result, I'd like to modify your challenge a little bit. Can anyone from the KJVO crowd name a single doctrine that is present in the KJV that is not present anywhere in the modern versions.

Joshua

Originally posted by Rev. Joshua Villines:
What the KJVO crowd generally does is point out that a theologically significant verse is not included in the text of a modern version (although it is usually present as a footnote).

What they often fail to do is point out that, even though that verse or portion of a verse may not be included, several other verses that make the same point usually are.

As a result, I'd like to modify your challenge a little bit. Can anyone from the KJVO crowd name a single doctrine that is present in the KJV that is not present anywhere in the modern versions.

Joshua

Click to expand...

Agreed. That is what I was trying to say in all that babbling above

kman...actually, you made your point quite clearly. I misread it, as a consequence of talking on the phone and reading at the same time.

Of course, it never hurts to repeat something a couple different ways in this particular discussion .

Joshua

No takers yet. I read through some KJO literature last night trying to find anything that could apply. The only thing I've found so far:

1) IF you happen to believe (which I don't) in Snake Handling (I forget the name of this bunch..but I saw them on a movie in a college religion class once..tossing rattlesnakes around in church..) perhaps you'd lose your main text (since it is located in the last 12 verses of Mark):

Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

I don't think that verse applies the way they interpret it though.

2) Some question what an "only begotten God" is
(John 1:18).

(KJV) No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

(NASB) No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

Pastor Waite says: "They take away the word, 'Son', and change it to 'God'. This is pure HERESY! This is an example of the Gnostic error that teaches Christ was only one of the many 'gods' that were mere 'emanations'. You MUST have an 'Only Begotten Son' to be doctrinally correct."

I don't know if there are any false theological implications that could be derived from an "only begotten God" or not..since I'm not a theologian.
Seems like it could be a good proof text for the Deity of Christ.
???

peace,
kman

[ August 20, 2002, 08:13 AM: Message edited by: kman ]

Well, Luke 2:33(KJV)"And Joseph and His Mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of Him." The good ole MV's have it as,"The Child's FATHER and mother marvelled at what was said about him." Childs FATHER???? Was Joseph Jesus's Father?? does this not deny the virgin birth?? is this NOT a Doctrine? (see also Luke 2:43.)

Originally posted by Japheth:
Well, Luke 2:33(KJV)"And Joseph and His Mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of Him." The good ole MV's have it as,"The Child's FATHER and mother marvelled at what was said about him." Childs FATHER???? Was Joseph Jesus's Father?? does this not deny the virgin birth?? is this NOT a Doctrine? (see also Luke 2:43.)

Click to expand...

If anybody had a question as to whether father refered to natural father or father in another sense all they have to do is compare scripture with scripture. It is clear from Luke 1:34-35
that the Child was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
and not Joseph. Therefore we can safely say
"father" doesn't mean natural father. If you adopt
a child, you would be his father..albeit not in
the "natural" sense of the word.

Luk 1:34-35 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Does that make sense?

[ August 20, 2002, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: kman ]

Kman:

I am KJV only because it works for me. I am not aware of any doctrines that have been totally eliminated in the MV's. The great counterfeiter/ deceiver Satan found it more effective to simply make hundreds of subtle changes which would dilute and weaken the effectiveness of the fundamental doctrines of our faith.

It is working too. More and more we are seeing evangelical, fundamental churches lining up with churches that, at one time, they would not affiliate with. Apostacy in our churches is running rampant as Muslims and Buddhists are now permitted to speak at many evangelical fundamental churches, the ecumenical movement is creeping in. Doctrine doesn't matter to many any more, the only important thing is that we love Jesus (ie: Promise Keepers)

Membersip is not as important as it once was. Water baptism is now practiced only by the very dedicated who are interested in obedience. The Lord's Supper has become a very mundanerouting practice with little or no meaning to those who partake.

To go along with our modern easier-to-read, waterd-down modern versions we are singing modern choruses which never mention the name of Jesus, the cross, the blood or salvation. They could be sung to whatever God you happen to be worshipping that day in whatever church you find yourself in. No one must be offended.

As the world moves closer to a one-world government and a one-world church we will soon have a Bible which will be useable in any church and it will not offend anyone by naming the one true God, the God of the tried, tested, proven and prevailing KJV.

Everett C Fowler in his 1981 book, Evaluating Versions of the New Testament notes 40 phrase eliminations, word changes, deletions in strategic places which weaken, dilute and make less effective the very doctrines that our Baptist faith has been built upon over the centuries. These are not differences which downgrade our Lord and Saviour. Those number in the thousands.

One half of the changes mention in Fowler's book, relate directly to the attributes, work or Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. One fourth of them relate to the basis and nature of our salvation.

Mark 10: 24, for an example, omits "for them that trust in riches". This eliminates the vital element of what it is the hinders a rich man from entering the kingdom of God.

John 3: 13 eliminates "Which art in heaven" which provides express testimony to His Deity.

Luke 11: 2-4 - Almost 50% of The Lord's Prayer has been eliniated. This is a direct atteck on the Deity of God.

Get the book and review it. There are hundreds of changes, deletions, some of them very subtle that, alone, have little bearing on the whole book, but when looked at in total change the whole picture and grand scheme. That is the way satan works.

If it were not for the MV's there would be no need to waste all this time trying to defend the pure preserved KJV but, for some, that is our mission. We have had it since God inspired holy ment to put it to payrus and we will have until He comes to take us home. Prior the KJV 1611, discerning men were fighting to preserve the Word also. It has been a struggle since the Garden of Eden. To those who "get it" it is an important issue.

I know thousands of men, some brilliant scholars, some completely uneducated, who acknowledge this truth, that the KJV is God's Word, pure and perfect for us today in our language.

I know none who would make the same claim for any of the MV's.

God Bless as you seek the truth on this issue. It isn't that hard to spot if you are looking through the right eyes.

I must get back to soul-winning. Thanks for the diversion though it was a fun time.

AV Alex

Luke 2:48 in the KJV - "And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing." father

It appears that the KJV translators must have thought that Joseph was Jesus's father.

Mullins, do you cast out devils, speak with new tongues, take up serpents, and drink deadly poison unharmed, and lay hands on the sick and they recover? Mark 16:17(KJV) says "these signs shall follow them that believe:"

Do you show the signs of them that believe? or do you not show and thus do not believe? or does this passage not belong in the canon?

Originally posted by kman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Japheth:
Well, Luke 2:33(KJV)"And Joseph and His Mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of Him." The good ole MV's have it as,"The Child's FATHER and mother marvelled at what was said about him." Childs FATHER???? Was Joseph Jesus's Father?? does this not deny the virgin birth?? is this NOT a Doctrine? (see also Luke 2:43.)

Click to expand...

If anybody had a question as to whether father refered to natural father or father in another sense all they have to do is compare scripture with scripture. It is clear from Luke 1:34-35
that the Child was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
and not Joseph. Therefore we can safely say
"father" doesn't mean natural father. If you adopt
a child, you would be his father..albeit not in
the "natural" sense of the word.

Luk 1:34-35 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Does that make sense?</font>[/QUOTE]No,what about Matt 23:9,In the MV'S it states call no man on this earth Father, so what about Luke 2:33 in the MV'S that say "His Father?" In stead of Joseph, did he call Joseph Father?? sound conflicting??

[ August 20, 2002, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: Japheth ]

Originally posted by Japheth:
No,what about Matt 23:9,In the MV'S it states call no man on this earth Father, so what about Luke 2:33 in the MV'S that say "His Father?" In stead of Joseph, did he call Joseph Father?? sound conflicting??

Click to expand...

Wow, really trying hard to find a problem here, eh?

First, Matt 1:23, Luke 1:27 and Luke 1:34 in 'modern versions' indicate Mary was a virgin. So, right off the bat we see that MVs do not deny the virgin birth.

Second, kman said "Therefore we can safely say
"father" doesn't mean natural father. If you adopt a child, you would be his father..albeit not in the "natural" sense of the word.....Does that make sense?" And you said "No". My advice to you then, is to simply buy a dictionary and look up two words: "father" and "deny". And then look up the dozens of places "father" is used in the KJV in a non-biological sense.

Third, Luke 2:33 is not "conflicting" in MVs any more than Luke 2:48 is "conflicting" in the KJV.

Fourth, if MVs are guilty of breaking some sort of rule re:Matt 23:9, the KJV is also guilty in dozens of verses for using the word "father" of someone other than God.



Next doctrine, please.

Originally posted by ChristianCynic:
Mullins, do you cast out devils, speak with new tongues, take up serpents, and drink deadly poison unharmed, and lay hands on the sick and they recover? Mark 16:17(KJV) says "these signs shall follow them that believe:"

Do you show the signs of them that believe? or do you not show and thus do not believe? or does this passage not belong in the canon?

Click to expand...

Those signs were fulfilled by the early believers, and like all such signs they passed away when they were no longer necessary. The passage belongs in the canon, and has been fulfilled, and the associated signs have passed away.

Originally posted by Japheth:
No,what about Matt 23:9,In the MV'S it states call no man on this earth Father, so what about Luke 2:33 in the MV'S that say "His Father?" In stead of Joseph, did he call Joseph Father?? sound conflicting??

Click to expand...

Are you saying that Mary denied His deity when she refered to Joseph as his "father?"

Luke 2:48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. KJV

I disagree with the variant in Luke 2:33 as the vast majority of MSS read "Joseph" - even the majority of the Alexandrian uncials, along with the miniscules, the entire body of Byzantine MSS, the lectionaries, etc. There is no doubt in my mind the correct reading is "Joseph" but I also believe it is a stretch to claim this is a denial of Hid deity, or even a sin as Mary called Joseph His "father."

I do not advocate basing a doctrine on a single, isolated verse. Nor, do I advocate the implication that a doctrine has been removed by the elimination of a single, isolated verse.

However, when several instances can be found regarding a doctrine, I have to deem this version as unreliable.

The doctrine in question is that salvation and redemption exists only in Christ. Some of the MV's seem to deny this by the omission of several related verses and/or words.

Mark 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me , it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. (KJV)
Italicized portion eliminated in the NASV.
John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. (KJV)
Italicized portion eliminated in NIV, NASV, & NKJV (footnote added)

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ : for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (KJV)
Italicized portion eliminated in NIV, NASV, NKJV (footnote)

Gal 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ , the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. (KJV)
Italicized portion eliminated in NIV, NASV, NKJV (footnote)

Gal 4:7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ . (KJV)
Italicized portion eliminated in NIV, NASV, NKJV (footnote)

Ga 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. (KJV)
Italicized portion eliminated in NIV, NASV

Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; (KJV)
Italicized portion eliminated in NIV, NASV, NKJV (footnote)

Tnere seems to be a trend in these omissions. The majority of Greek Texts agree with the TR in these instances with the exception of Texts "B" & "Aleph." How W/H can lean toward B & Aleph when it goes against the majority is why I cannot trust them to produce a reliable Greek Text.

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
Mark 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me , it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. (KJV)
Italicized portion eliminated in the NASV.

Click to expand...

And yet it goes the other direction if you compare John 14:14.

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ : for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (KJV)
Italicized portion eliminated in NIV, NASV, NKJV (footnote)

Click to expand...

And yet it goes the other direction in Acts 16:7

Gal 4:7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ . (KJV)
Italicized portion eliminated in NIV, NASV, NKJV (footnote)

Click to expand...

And yet it goes the other direction in Jude 1:25

And I could provide others as well. Where is the Holy Spirit in Acts 4:25? According to Philippians 1:14, we are to speak the word of *what* without fear? etc, etc, etc...

It seems to me you only see the verse comparisons you want to see.

Brian

Brian,

It is actually the last paragraph in my post that I feel carries more weight. How can they prefer "B" and "Aleph" when they disagree with the majority.

In every instance I named, the omissions should have been included.

Also, the casual reader would not have the knowledge to cross reference the verses like you or I can. What if the Bible left in the hotel room was a MV opened to John 6:47? The reader would be led to believe that simply believing on anything would lead to eternal life.

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
Brian,

It is actually the last paragraph in my post that I feel carries more weight. How can they prefer "B" and "Aleph" when they disagree with the majority.

In every instance I named, the omissions should have been included.

Also, the casual reader would not have the knowledge to cross reference the verses like you or I can. What if the Bible left in the hotel room was a MV opened to John 6:47? The reader would be led to believe that simply believing on anything would lead to eternal life.

Click to expand...

I can see the point you are trying to make, but I sure hope the person would choose to read more of the Bible than just one verse. Remember, you can take a part of the Bible and say, "There is no God." But you cannot just look at one verse or one part of a verse.

Whether you use a new version or the KJV, it is my opinion that you should study Scripture in context and not choose "one pet verse" or so to establish doctrine (that is why there are so many denominations). A single verse may confirm Christ's deity or such and state the whole plan of redemption, but God still wishes us to study more than just that one verse.

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
Brian,

It is actually the last paragraph in my post that I feel carries more weight. How can they prefer "B" and "Aleph" when they disagree with the majority.

Click to expand...

Hi Pastor Bob 63:

Read the following:

Pro Alexandrian Text: http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/91b2.htm

Pro Majority Text:
http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/RobPier.html

To me..each side makes credible arguments. How do you decide which one is right?

-kman