Does Accepting MV's make One a Wescott/Hort Man?

Do you seriously think that anyone today understands 'worship' by this (the 6th one down apparently) definition?

 

I blame a lot on Pope Riplinger.

</font>[/QUOTE]Do you mean the heretic?

 

If it really means "have honour" then shouldn't it be translated that way? "Have worship" is a poor translation because it could be easily misunderstood.

 

Do you mean the heretic? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, sort of an anti-Pope.
Well, maybe sort of an annie-Pope

 

Do you seriously think that anyone today understands 'worship' by this (the 6th one down apparently) definition? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I think just about anyone reading this passage would scratch their head, pick up a dictionary, and be edified.

Except maybe Mormons, heh.

 

How many people own a dictionary first written in 1828? Open up a more modern dictionary, and see what the definitions for worship are. Might I point you to the American Heritage of the English Language, 2000?

 

Do you seriously think that anyone today understands 'worship' by this (the 6th one down apparently) definition? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I think just about anyone reading this passage would scratch their head, pick up a dictionary, and be edified.

Except maybe Mormons, heh. </font>[/QUOTE]You answered a question I didn't ask. I didn't ask what someone might find if they picked up the right dictionary then made the assumption that the first 5 definitions given for 'worship' were not the ones intended by the KJV translators. I asked if you seriously thought anyone today would understand the word in this way.

In fact, why would someone who knows perfectly well what 'worship' means pick up a dictionary at all? With regard to the KJV, the same could be asked about the words 'prevent, let, communication, conversation, etc'. Everyone knows what these words mean when used in modern language. They don't automatically assume that they mean something different if used in the KJV. This is true even of lifelong KJV users.

If a pastor told any modern Christian to "worship" another person, the Christian would be rightly appalled, offended, and resistant to such a command. Your objection based on an antiquated, obsolete definition is baseless.

This just adds to the list of words where the meaning has changed enough to cause the KJV to no longer accurately reflect God's intent. This is one of the primary reasons that translations in the modern vernacular are absolutely necessary for the continuation of biblical Christianity.

 

The KJV does use archaic words and this can be a hindrance to proper understanding.

In practice, it's not a big deal. A KJV user learns the most common uncommon words, heh, and rarely has any real difficulties.

My concern with modern translations, is, well, they're modern. If we were living in some great age of faith I don't think it would be such a problem but unfortunately we're living in an age of apostasy. This problem is especially evident in all the free-wheeling paraphrases that most people love so much.

 

A close family member who has used the KJV for close to 60 years and has sat under KJV preaching for the same period didn't know that "prevent" means "precede" in I Thess 5. An adult SS teacher in my last church cited James 3:13 as a command not to 'cuss'.

The problem with this reasoning is that it calls into question the character and theology of the KJV era Church of England. We would probably agree that their theology was apostate. On whole, I don't think you could make a case that their character was better than modern 'Christian' religionists. Some of the problems were different, ie. I would not say killing and imprisoning Baptists for their teachings is more godly than the "apostasy" we see today. But some were the same, many churchmen of their day were power/money hungry and used religion as a vehicle to gain position.

Bible believing/practicing Christians were no more prevalent then than now.

 

Why not these passages that I Listed and posted? Why are these passages in modern versions omitted? The fact is that massive manuscripts contained them! Those evidences contradict you on the omissions of these passages in modern versions.

If you favor the phrase, "confess your sins to *one another,*" you contradict 1 John 1:9 because of 2 masters whom you serve (Matthew 6:24). Therefore modern versions on James 5:16 contradict 1 John 1:9.

1. confess your sins to one another (James 5:16)
2. confess your sins to God (1 John 1:9).

Number one is the "Confessional' that many people said to their Catholic priest, "Father, I confess my sins!" This Catholic priest is a human man.

Then you serve 2 masters.

The KJV on James 5:16 is appropiate to say, "confess your faults to one another." The KJV is clear to 1 John 1:9.

I will confess my faults to one another and will confess my sins to God. That is CLEAR to the Scriptures.

 

Exactly. And this fact *alone* is reason enough for the KJV to be superceded by a modern translation that people can actually understand.

 

Why not these passages that I Listed and posted? Why are these passages in modern versions omitted? The fact is that massive manuscripts contained them! Those evidences contradict you on the omissions of these passages in modern versions. </font>[/QUOTE]Firstly, your point implied that that the so-called "Catholic Bibles" didn't have the teachings contained in the verses you listed. The truth is they *do* have those teachings elsewhere.

Secondly, you ask "why are these passages in the modern versions omitted?" The truth is they are not "omitted;" they were *added* to the original text, as the manuscript evidence strongly suggests.

Mt. 18:11 is absent from the earliest Greek (Aleph, B), Latin (Old Latin e), Syriac (Sinaitic), and Coptic (Sahidic) witnesses. It was imported into the Byzantine text from the Lk. 19:10 parallel at a later date.

Mt. 17:21 is also absent from the earliest Greek (Aleph, B), Latin (Old Latin e), Syriac (Siniaitic and Curetionian), and Coptic (Sahidic) witnesses. It was also imported into the Byzantine text from the Mk. 9:29 parallel at a later date and expanded under the influence of ascetic practices in the later church like fasting.

Ac. 8:37 again is absent not only from the earliest Greek witnesses (P45, P74, Aleph, A, B), it is absent from the *majority* of Greek witnesses including the majority of Byzantine copies. In other words, "massive" manuscripts do *not* contain this verse! It is also not found in the Syriac Peshitta or the Coptic versions. It appears only in the Latin versions (which are notorious for their additions to the text), probably under the influence of the Western Latin-speaking church's baptismal liturgy.

If you favor the phrase, "confess your sins to *one another,*" you contradict 1 John 1:9 because of 2 masters whom you serve (Matthew 6:24). Therefore modern versions on James 5:16 contradict 1 John 1:9.

1. confess your sins to one another (James 5:16)
2. confess your sins to God (1 John 1:9).

Number one is the "Confessional' that many people said to their Catholic priest, "Father, I confess my sins!" This Catholic priest is a human man.

Then you serve 2 masters.

The KJV on James 5:16 is appropiate to say, "confess your faults to one another." The KJV is clear to 1 John 1:9.

I will confess my faults to one another and will confess my sins to God. That is CLEAR to the Scriptures. </font>[/QUOTE]Please note that 1 Jn. 1:9 does not say to *whom* it is we are to confess our sins. It could be to God alone; it could also be to God and to another person whom we have wronged (cf. Mt. 5:23-24; Mt. 6:12-15; Mt. 11:25-26; Lk. 11:4). That is what Jas. 5:16 is talking about, and it has absolutely nothing to do with "confessing to a Catholic Father."

BTW, I notice you didn't comment on the KJV's teaching that it's all right to worship mere human beings.

 

Naturalistic theory!