Doctrines Changed by Modern Versions

JYD said:

The "who" is GOD!!! period.

Are you saying that when I read Luke 2:27, I should read it as follows?

And when I read Luke 2:41, I should understand it as follows?

 

I'll reply Ransom, just so you don't get the idea that you came up with a "stumper."

The word "parent(s)" can, and often do, refer to even step-parents without qualifying that one or the other is a step-parent. A man can be a step-father without being a birth father and still be referred to as "father."

I don't think this argument, from either side, proves or disproves anything.

Joseph was Jesus' earthly parent. He was given responsibility to raise Jesus as his own son. It would have been very natural for Jesus to refer to Joseph as father. The people had that opinion of Joseph anyway. The Bible doesn't say that Joseph went around correcting people and telling them, "Oh, no, Jesus is not my son; He is the Son of God." He would have been stoned for blasphemy.

We must remember, it was God the Son who hand picked Joseph to be His earthly father. I'm quite sure He had no problem with him.

 

It still says nothing about him(Joseph) being His earthly Father,or father.I have know many adopted people that have "parents",we all have to have parents,blood related or not. </font>[/QUOTE]Why is this answer good enough for the KJV but not good enough for MV's?

It is dishonest to employ a double standard like this.

 

Pastor Bob 63 said:

I'll reply Ransom, just so you don't get the idea that you came up with a "stumper."

But I did come up with a stumper, Pastor Bob, for anyone who says that the modern versions are wrong for referring to Joseph as Jesus' "father."

I agree entirely with you. When Luke calls Mary and Joseph Jesus' "parents," when Mary tells Jesus that "thy father" and her were worried about him, she was speaking of a familial,, not a biological, relationship.

Of course, what is good for the KJV ought to be good for the modern Bibles as well. When JYD and friends have to bend over backward to avoid the fact that Mary called Joseph Jesus' "father" (she was wrong, they say), they are acknowledging that they are not in agreement with you and me about the definition of "father." To them it is biological, nothing more.

 

Exactly,Joseph was NOT His Father,we all know who His Father was;Joseph was one of His parents!!!! It is plain as the nose on your face.Why does the poly-versions discount His deity????

 

Pastor Bob, This exchange wasn't Ransom's "stumper". It was started by Pioneer who when refuted disappeared. It was then picked up by JYD who has held on to the double standard that indicts the MV's but not the KJV.

I think what you said is exactly what we were trying to point out. Both the KJV and MV's refer to Joseph as a parent to Christ. I doubt anyone in this particular dialogue thinks that means he was His biological father.

 

JYD posted the following disinformation:

Why does the poly-versions discount His deity????

Wow. Just when you think the KJV-onlyists can't get any more arrogant, they come up with something like this.

It is incredibly insulting to the intelligence of Christians everywhere to imply that by the time we get to reading Luke 2:33 in our NASB or NIV, we'll have forgotten that Jesus was born of a virgin in Luke 2:7.

 

Nope, you're wrong, I have a single Standard;The KJB...

 

Exactly,Joseph was NOT His Father,we all know who His Father was;Joseph was one of His parents!!!! It is plain as the nose on your face.Why does the poly-versions discount His deity???? </font>[/QUOTE]The only thing plain as the nose on our face is that you are clinging to a very dishonest double standard.

When the KJV calls Joseph a parent then you accept the reasonable defense above but when the MV's call him a parent you deny this reasonable defense. The "poly-versions" don't discount his deity. Your "poly-standards" do however discount your honesty and objectivity.

 

Nope, you're wrong, I have a single Standard;The KJB... </font>[/QUOTE]If that is true then you would desire to use only one set of balances on this issue. Any rule that applied to one version would be equally acceptable for the other.

Since you maintain one standard for the KJV and another for the MV's, the KJV cannot be your single Standard.

 

Not if I don't use the poly-versions.Again,only ONE standard;the KJB.Nothing "dishonest" about that.Now why don't you be "honest" & tell me where,when,and why you lost you're faith in the KJB??

[ February 14, 2003, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: JYD ]

 

Dear JYD,

It works both ways.
How about you being honest and answer this question.

Which KJB? 1611AD (With Apocrypa and marginal notes) ... or after many corrections ... 1769AD.

Cambridge or Oxford edition?

They all disagree with each other.

Things which are different are not the same.

HankD

 

Not if I don't use the poly-versions.Again,only ONE standard;the KJB.Nothing "dishonest" about that.</font>[/QUOTE] The KJV commands that you use fair balances and not be a respecter of persons. Here you are using unfair balances, eg. one standard for the KJV and another for MV's. You are acting as a respecter of persons by granting leniency to the KJV translators that you deny to all others. This is dishonesty compounded by your unwillingness to repent.

I would be lying if I affirmed such a thing. Your insistence that anyone who disagrees with you has somehow "lost faith" in the KJV is just a continuation of the dishonesty that has been pointed out.

 

Ok, lets see, JYD. Jesus had an earthly mother and _____________. The earthly _____________'s name was _______________. See, if he had earthly parents, he had a mother and a father.

No deity is being discounted. So are you saying that Mary and Joseph forgot the circumstances of the birth of Jesus and what was told them concerning Him? Was Mary a heretic for what she said in Luke 2:48? Was she discounting Christ's deity?

I have no doubt that God was Christ's true father. However, on earth, it was recognized that Joseph was his father (step-father), and there was nothing wrong with that.

What about Matthew 13:55?

"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"

The KJV must be heretical! Here it is again, ascribing fathership of Jesus to a carpenter! And no one corrects these people! Somebody who reads this may not believe Jesus is God!

Or not. Really, get a better argument than this one.

Neal

 

I never have! I am actually quite fond of it. However, if it was not for the KJVO camp I would probably use it more. KJVOs do much damage to the cause that in their heads they are so desperately fighting for. But I haven't "lost faith" in the KJV. Those are ideas you have cooked up in your head about those who use MVs.

Neal

 

I think the proper thing to do is put your faith in the God of the KJV and the MV's. I do not believe that God is limited to any one version. He is able to communicate what He wants to regardless of which version a person is reading.

I am afraid that to limit God to one English version is to belittle His ability. I do not think that God is at all worried that unless a person is reading the KJV, He will not be able to get His message across to them.

 

Please list the verses and biblical references so they can be reviewed by others.

 

This forum should have a FAQ, so we don't have to keep responding to this sort of nonsense, we can just say "see the FAQ, section 14-a"

 

Where did the name 'Lucifer' come from, Pioneer? Was it a transliteration of the Hebrew?

Neal