Satan's work...?

What about where it goes the other direction, where something is "added" in the MVs or "taken away" from the TR? ie. Psalm 145:13, Jude 1:25, Acts 4:25, Phil 1:14, etc?

Your question based on the assumption that what *sounds* better *is* better. Instead, we need to focus on the manuscript evidence.

 

"not nearly so major" according to who? Are you saying that you personally get to be the judge, and that you personally get to determine how much addition/subtraction is alright and how much is too much? And not only that, but the spiritual reasons behind such? In John 1:18, Rom 9:5, 2 Pet 1:1 and Titus 2:13, the NIV *explicitly* says Christ is God. All 4 of these verses are 'watered down' in the KJV. If using "he" instead of "God" in 1 Tim 3:16 is the work of Satan in the NIV, why are these other verses not the work of Satan in the KJV? Sorry Bartholemew, but this thread is not supporting your main point, but simply exposing a double standard. Again, we cannot simply goes by what "sounds better" or we fall into subjectivism.

Brian

 

why back to an either-or mentality? that's precisely where things go awry--Onlyism at text level is as dangerous as that at versional level.

the TR suffers fr variants as well as MVs n the critical text; different revisions of TR contain different wordings, n (to quote onlyism's fave line), what's different cannot be the same.

better to take God's Word preserved in TR n other texts by faith--that's how God preserved it on earth, n that's why we need textual criticism AND faith.

 

What??? Do you know how many times Jesus is mentiond as "Lord" in the KJV without mentioning "savior"? I tried to count them, but I kept loosing count. That is a really weird argument, Bartholemew. If it said "savior", you'd argue that it is saying he's not "Lord". BTW, I notice that this verse in the NIV calls Jesus "Lord", but the KJV doesn't.

Several thoughts:
- again, you are assuming it was "left out" instead of "added"
- again, you are basing your argument on what sounds better to you personally
- even with the verse added, some people don't believe the Trinity. I've met some oneness Pentecostals who are KJV-only. Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses were founded by men who used the KJV, before "modern versions" existed.
- the Church was Trinitarian before this verse was common. When the Church solidified and expounded on the doctrine of the Trinity in the 4th century, VOLUMES were written supporing the doctrine. Debate raged, and heresy abounded that denied the Trinity. Yet in all is time, decades of debate and doctrinal development, the verse is NEVER used. That would be like collecting all the writings of Hal Lindsey, Grant Geoffry, Tim LaHaye, Scofield and Darby, across the last several decades and debate about the rapture, and seeing that NOBODY quotes 1 Thess 4:16.

It appears to me, based on manuscript evidence and church history, that many verses have been *added* to "bolster" doctrines.

All those verses say Christ is God in the AV.
</font>[/QUOTE]I'm sorry, but they don't. I have spent time witnessing to some JW friends, and they readily accept the KJV's wording of those verses. They outright reject the NIV's wording. Which "appears" to be Satan's wording?

That accusation is not true.
</font>[/QUOTE]Would Satan like a reading that affirms divine inspiration of the OT (Acts 4:25 in the NIV says David spoke by the Holy Spirit), or a reading that doesn't (the KJV deletes the Holy Spirit)? Would Satan like a reading that affims Christ's Lordship and preexistence (Jude 1:25 in the NIV) or a reading that doesn't (the KJV)? Would Satan like a reading that affirms God's lovingness to his creation and his keeping of his promises (Psalm 145:13 in the NIV) or a reading that doesn't (the KJV)? If you are going to apply your "what Satan wants" logic to 1 Tim 3:16, you have to apply it to ALL verse comparisons, not just a select list - otherwise, the double-standard is very evident.

It isn't nearly as subjective as the approach you are taking.

Brian

 

Quote from Brian;
Would Satan like a reading that affirms divine inspiration of the OT (Acts 4:25 in the NIV says David spoke by the Holy Spirit), or a reading that doesn't (the KJV deletes the Holy Spirit)? Would Satan like a reading that affims Christ's Lordship and preexistence (Jude 1:25 in the NIV) or a reading that doesn't (the KJV)? Would Satan like a reading that affirms God's lovingness to his creation and his keeping of his promises (Psalm 145:13 in the NIV) or a reading that doesn't (the KJV)? If you are going to apply your "what Satan wants" logic to 1 Tim 3:16, you have to apply it to ALL verse comparisons, not just a select list - otherwise, the double-standard is very evident.

The Devil is not afraid to quote scripture.That does not prove anything Brian!Subtil is the word we KJV guys use when refering to the verses you cling to to prove your point.The mv's change even verse structure of the KJV so that you cannot even discuss references.Take God's name out one place add it another.CONFUSION is not of God.The KJV is the word of God.

 

Non-existent is the word we biblical guys use to refer to the verses you cling to to prove your point.

We have never had any problem in my church. We discuss references and scriptures regularly and never had one problem. Maybe you need a better pastor if there is confusion.

I have seen plenty of people confused by the KJV. Under your own definition, that disqualifies it. I just recently had someone ask me about a verse from the KJV they were confused by. I read it to them from the NASB and they understood perfectly.

 

FABLE: New translations are needed to correct the errors and contradictions in the King James Bible.


FACT: No one has ever proven that there are errors and contradictions in the KJV. Many "Christian" colleges and preachers have a nasty habit of pointing out APPARENT contradictions to their people, but these arguments have been disproven so many times that it is nothing less than disgusting to hear them still being used.


FABLE: New Translations are needed to bring the archaic Old English language up to date. People have trouble understanding the language of the King James Bible.


FACT: The King James language is NOT hard to understand. Most of the so-called "archaic" words are explained by the context of the passage or by comparing the passage with other passages in the Bible where the same word is used. Heady and high-minded people resent the King James language because it is plain and simple, and it isn't in tune with their high-minded vocabulary. In fact, the Grade Level Indicator of the Flesch-Kincaid research company says the King James language is EASIER to understand than the new versions.

We certainly agree that the language of the King James Bible is a unique language, but why shouldn't it be? It's the WORD OF GOD!


FABLE: The King James Bible cannot be infallible because the translators were only men, and all men are sinners. The human element prevents the KJV from being infallible.


FACT: If this is true, then even the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS in Hebrew and Greek were not infallible, because they too were penned by men!

The fact of the matter is that the King James translators were only INSTRUMENTS of preservation (which is exactly what they called themselves in the Dedicatory to the A.V. 1611). God has always been the Divine Preserver of His word (Psa. 12:6-7), but He has used men as tools and instruments of preservation, just as He uses men to teach and preach His words. When men humbly yield themselves to the will of God, God can use them to accomplish His will (Rom. 12:1-2), and this is precisely what happened between 1604 and 1611.


FABLE: The King James translators added to the word of God, because the italicized words in the KJV were not in the originals.


FACT: The italics in the KJV prove that the translators were HONEST in their work. They set the words in italics so we'd know they were not in the manuscripts they were using.

Besides, no one has a copy of the original manuscripts today, so no one knows for certain that the italicized words aren't in them. In fact, there are many cases where we know that the italicized words are justified. For example, notice in Deuteronomy 8:3 that the word "word" is in italics. However, when Jesus quotes this verse in Matthew 4:4 he INCLUDES the italicized word! If the italicized word does not belong in the Bible, why did the Lord Jesus quote it?


FABLE: The original King James Bible included the Apocrypha in the Old Testament.


FACT: The King James translators knew the Apocrypha was not scripture, so they placed it BETWEEN the Old and New Testament as a HISTORICAL DOCUMENT, not as scripture.

 

But nevertheless, that's where the New American stands in connection with the Authorized Version. I just jotted down what these versions, translations, and paraphrases are doing. Consider:

One, they cause widespread confusion, because everywhere we go people say, What do you think of this; what do you think of that? What do young people think when they hear all of this?

Two, they discourage memorization. Who's going to memorize when each one has a different Bible, a different translation?

Three, they obviate the use of a concordance. Where are you going to find a concordance for the Good News for Modern Man and all these others? You aren't going to find one. If we're going to have a concordance for every one; you're going to have a lot of concordances.

Four, they provide opportunity for perverting the truth. There are all these translations and versions, each one trying to get a little different slant from the others. They must make it different, because if it isn't different why have a new version? If makes a marvelous opportunity for the devil to slip in his perverting influence.

Five, these many translations make teaching of the Bible difficult. And I'm finding that more and more as I go around the country. I mentioned this thing the other night. How could a mathematics professor or instructor teach a certain problem in a class if the class had six or eight different textbooks? How about that? How could you do it?

Six, they elicit profitless argumentation. Because everywhere we go they say this one is more accurate. Which one is more accurate? How do they know? And this is not a reflection against those saying this, because I would have done this a few years ago. In Christian Life magazine I got this. My dear friend, Dr. George Sweeting, president of Moody Bible Institute-one of the sweetest, dearest men you've ever met; he's wonderfully named-he's starting today right down near my home at southern Keswick, and if I'm back by the end of the week I expect to see him and I'm going to talk to him about these things. When he was asked for his recommendation for the New American Standard, he said, 'I like it because it reads freely." You can read it yourself; it's in the ad in various magazines. And he said, "I particularly like it because it's so near to the original." I'm going to say, "Now George, what is the original? Have you seen it?" There isn't any original
quote from Dr. Logsdon a man on the revision committee for the new amer stand.

 

&gt;Originally posted by KING JAMES AV 1611:
&gt;One, they cause widespread confusion, because everywhere we go people say, What do you think of this; what do you think of that? What do young people think when they hear all of this?

what did the Geneva Bible readers think when the KJB came out?

&gt;Two, they discourage memorization. Who's going to memorize when each one has a different Bible, a different translation?

ditto; a lame argument that assumes one single standard. why not assume the NIV instead, or the Bishop's Bible, or even the Greek and Hebrew texts? why not memorize--and make everybody do so--out of any one of these?

&gt;Three, they obviate the use of a concordance. Where are you going to find a concordance for the Good News for Modern Man and all these others? You aren't going to find one. If we're going to have a concordance for every one; you're going to have a lot of concordances.

no concordance? try here:

http://www.gospelcom.net/

http://www.biblestudytools.net

&gt;Four, they provide opportunity for perverting the truth. There are all these translations and versions, each one trying to get a little different slant from the others. They must make it different, because if it isn't different why have a new version? If makes a marvelous opportunity for the devil to slip in his perverting influence.

right, like there were no substantive changes (not mere "printers' errors") between the 1611 He and She KJV Bibles and the 1769, er, Cambridge revision?

the greatest tool for Satan is the division that arises among brethren based on version-onlyist misinformation--not the proliferation of translations of God's Word.

&gt;Five, these many translations make teaching of the Bible difficult. And I'm finding that more and more as I go around the country. I mentioned this thing the other night. How could a mathematics professor or instructor teach a certain problem in a class if the class had six or eight different textbooks? How about that? How could you do it?

we used a plethora of textbooks at my school--and were encouraged to do so. yours?

again, have u considered that there have been more than 6-8 revisions of the KJB?

&gt;Six, they elicit profitless argumentation. Because everywhere we go they say this one is more accurate. Which one is more accurate? How do they know? And this is not a reflection against those saying this, because I would have done this a few years ago. In Christian Life magazine I got this. My dear friend, Dr. George Sweeting, president of Moody Bible Institute-one of the sweetest, dearest men you've ever met; he's wonderfully named-he's starting today right down near my home at southern Keswick, and if I'm back by the end of the week I expect to see him and I'm going to talk to him about these things. When he was asked for his recommendation for the New American Standard, he said, 'I like it because it reads freely." You can read it yourself; it's in the ad in various magazines. And he said, "I particularly like it because it's so near to the original." I'm going to say, "Now George, what is the original? Have you seen it?" There isn't any original
quote from Dr. Logsdon a man on the revision committee for the new amer stand.

o, i'd go with wise old Prof Sweeting if i were u. just because one hasn't seen "the original" (or GOD himself, for that matter) doesn't mean it doesn't exist or it is irrelevant. the role of text criticism is to find out the 2% of what's uncertain about the original--the rest is blatantly clear for our understanding n obedience, which KJBOs have chosen to obfuscate by clever argumentation n bondage to the linguistically archaic.