Bible Translations

Now that you have spewed someone else's claims out here without giving them credit (or discredit), would you care to cite some specifics? I for one would like to see the evidence for these charges... one by one if necessary. </font>[/QUOTE]A Book, "The NASV Compared to the KJV and the underlying Hebrew & Greek Texts" by D.A. Waite #1494-P cost $15.00

Check this for yourself.

 

I am familiar with Waite. As I have posted before, when someone demonstrates that they are arguing from false premises, I reject their arguments.

If you want to share some of Waite's accusations that particularly impress you, please feel free. I have no intentions of sharing the income God has bestowed on me with a false teacher.

 

Thanks Askjo, Others may have more historical info regarding what you posted above.

One thing I find rather remarkable is KJVO's very liberal ecumenicalism when it comes to finding support for their false doctrine. Assuming that everything written above is absolutely true, by what cause is Erasmus the final authority on the true text of the Bible. Erasmus opposed Luther's views on salvation (by grace through faith alone) and never left the RCC or denied its core doctrines.

This author that you have found so trustworthy cites Benjamin Wilkinson as an authoritative source. Wilkinson was probably the source of KJVOnlyism... he was definitely a hardcore 7th Day Adventist. See these articles:

http://www.kjvonly.org/gary/eye_opener.htm
http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/wilkinson_incred.htm

So who is it that you cite as absolute authorities on the text of the Bible? A Roman Catholic, a group of Anglican scholars and priests, a 19th century Anglican contemporary of W&H (Dean Burgon), and a 7th Day Adventist.

Quite ecumenical of you all I would say... Why someone was just commenting on how views on Bible Versions caused "ecumenism."

 

At last, some specifics. I have maintained that there are no differences in the modern versions that affect any major Christian doctrine in light of the teaching of Scripture as a whole. Let's put that claim to the test with these examples.

</font>[/QUOTE]Most naturalistic scholars/writers often said, "No differences" because D.A. Waite was right.

He wrote about these men said "No differences" or "affect any doctrines.

Dr. Philip Schaff wrote, "NOT ONE OF THESE 50 AFFECT AN ARTICLE OF FAITH" Because he was the Chairman of the ASV of 1901.

Dr. Arthur T. Pierson wrote, "NOT ONE AFFECTS A SINGLE VITAL DOCTRINE OF THE WORD OF GOD" because he was one of the editors of the Scofield Reference Bible.

Dr. John R. Rice wrote, "THE DIFFERENCES IN THE TRANSLATIONS ARE SO MINOR, SO INSIGNIFICANT, THAT WE CAN BE SURE NOT A SINGLE DOCTRINE, NOT A SINGLE STATEMENT OF FACT, NOT A SINGLE COMMAND OR EXHORTATION, HAS BEEN MISSED IN OUR TRANSLATIONS."

Dr. Robert L. Thomas wrote, "AND NO MAJOR DOCTRINE OF SCRIPTURE IS AFFECTED BY A VARIANT READING" because he is a "Professor of the New Testament Studies at the Master's Seminary" headed up by Dr. Jogn MacArthur.

Dr. D. A. Waite has lists of names reflecting "no differences" or "No one affected any doctrines."

Very obviously, you are like them, quoting the same things.

Matthew and Luke disagree each other in NIV and NASB because small manuscripts omitted "firstborn" on Matthew 1:25.

Matthew and Luke agree each other in the KJV because massive manuscripts had "FIRSTBORN" on Matthew 1:25 supporting the KJV.

Massive manuscripts had Matthew 18:11 supporting the KJV because more than 37 manuscripts had this passage. However modern versions omitted this important passage because only 14 manuscripts manuscripts omitted it. Therefore manuscript evidences show that large amounts of manuscripts supporting the KJV than modern versions.

So on.... That's enough!

 

I saw them before.

 

You use this label alot. Would you mind giving your definition of "naturalistic"?

Would you like to start a discussion on how many times Matthew and Luke disagree in this same way in the KJV? For instance, according to the 4 gospels what did the sign over Jesus' head at the crucifixion say? I am not asking for any explanations or mental gymnastics... simply tell me which "version" of the account is the truth.

 

I saw them before. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]So is the SDA Wilkinson an authoritative source for information?

BTW, the doctrine that we ascribe to goes back to the early church... yours seems to originate with Wilkinson. Which would you call fundamental and conservative? If KJVOnlyism, why is the first person to formalize it a scholar and promoter of a cult?

 

Why didn't the obvious ever cross your mind?? These men cited above were right. You have demonstrated this on many occasions. You, for all your herculean efforst, have yet to shown even one doctrinal difference. They have all been answered conclusively, thus showing you and Waite to be wrong.

We are not surprised that. We have known both all along.

What you cannot realize is that the omission of a word is not the omission or changing of a doctrine. That is so simple to understand but you have missed it time and time again. Consider you next quote.

Let's examine the evidence here shall we?? I will quote just a portion of Matthew.

Matthew 1:24-25 24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

That should be enough. Now, look closely at the part highlighted. If Joseph kept Mary a virgin until after Jesus was born, then 1) how was Jesus anything other than Mary's firstborn and 2) how does this support the RC doctrine about Mary??

These verses gives a specific and clear refutation of your charge that Matthew in teh MVs don't teach that Jesus was the firstborn. Very clearly they do teach that and you were either uninformed or dishonest.

This verse also gives specific and clear refutation of the false doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. "Kept her a virgin until" clearly shows that there was a point after which she was no longer a version.

So we see yet again that honesty with the facts clearly refutes your false charges and shows that the modern translations have yet again passed the test.

But remember what your charge was. Your charge was not that Matt 18:11 read differently in different versions. Your charge was that a doctrine had been changed in MVs. You were shown that MVs very clearly contain the doctrine of Matthew 18:11. Once again, you have been shown to be uninformed or dishonest. Since you were shown the truth in this thread, it seems we can only assume that you are not being dishonest. You know that the MVs did not delete or change that doctrine. It is plainly in there. To say otherwise is dishonest.

 

I'm not "quoting the same things"... I'm *proving* it with facts and evidence. I've just taken an entire list of alleged "changes affecting doctrine" and shown that in *every case*, none of the changes actually affects doctrine as was originally claimed.

Matthew and Luke disagree each other in NIV and NASB because small manuscripts omitted "firstborn" on Matthew 1:25.

Matthew and Luke agree each other in the KJV because massive manuscripts had "FIRSTBORN" on Matthew 1:25 supporting the KJV. </font>[/QUOTE]The issue we are discussing is, "do any of the differences between the KJV and the modern versions affect any major Christian doctrine in light of the teaching of Scripture as a whole?" You are attempting to shift the focus to the MS evidence. We can do that if you wish, but I note that you still have to produce a single example of a difference between the KJV and the modern versions that affects doctrine.

The reason why the modern versions don't have "firstborn" in Mt. 1:25 is because it wasn't originally part of Matthew's Gospel (as its absence from the oldest Greek, Syriac, Latin, and Coptic witnesses attests). Some scribe later added it to harmonize Mt. 1:25 with Lk. 2:7, and that harmonized reading eventually became the reading of the majority of MSS.

Massive manuscripts had Matthew 18:11 supporting the KJV because more than 37 manuscripts had this passage. However modern versions omitted this important passage because only 14 manuscripts manuscripts omitted it. Therefore manuscript evidences show that large amounts of manuscripts supporting the KJV than modern versions. </font>[/QUOTE]As above, the reason why you don't find Mt. 18:11 in the modern versions is because it wasn't there to begin with, and was obviously imported into the text of Matthew from Lk. 19:10. Not only is the verse is absent from the most ancient Greek, versional, and patristic witnesses, but in many later Byzantine witnesses it reads *exactly the same* as Lk. 19:10 -- a clear sign of a later scribal harmonization.

 

Not necessarily Archangel.
There are enough other ancient witnesses to indicate at least a "probably not there" as opposed to a "not there" even when all the extant evidence is reviewed.

HankD

 

A temple prostitute is not the same thing as a sodomite. And equating the NIV to the word of God is what is shameful. If you bothered to read your NIV in 1 Cor 6:9, Deut 23:17, 1 Kings 15:12,22:46, 2 Kings 23:7 you would see the sodomites are not in there.

If they knew their stuff as you claimed why did the get so many simple translations wrong? "Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each..." NIV James 5:16. The greek word is paraptomata (faults KJV) and not taxamartias. This is the Roman Churches rendering. Or changing worship to kneel in Mt 9:18,20:20;Mk 5:6, the difference is quite plain. Or the removal of "without a cause" in Mt 5:22 in the NIV. Which means Christ sinned in Mk 3:5. I guess it is because the NIV doesn’t command you to study in 2 Tim 3:15. Or Hosea 11:12 NIV”Ephraim has surrounded me with lies, the house of Israel with deceit. and JUDAH IS UNRULY AGAINST GOD, EVEN AGAINST THE FAITHFUL HOLY ONE” Instead of the proper rendering “Ephraim compasseth me about with lies, and the house of Israel with deceit: BUT JUDAH YET RULETH WITH GOD , AND IS FAITHFUL WITH THE SAINTS” Or “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which ARE SAVED it is the power of God.” (1Cor.1:18) (KJB)
“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who ARE BEING SAVED it is the power of God.” (1Cor.1:18) (NIV) Well which is it? Are we being saved or are we saved as it says in “For in this hope we WERE SAVED.” (Rom.8:24) (NIV) “... (by grace ye ARE SAVED)...For by grace ARE YE SAVED through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.... ” (Eph.2:5 and 8) (KJB) “...it is by grace ye HAVE BEEN SAVED...For it is by grace you HAVE BEEN SAVED.” (Eph.2:5 and 8) (NIV) “And the nations of them which ARE SAVED shall walk in the light of it....” (Rev.21:24) (KJB) “The nations will walk by its light....” (Rev.21:24) (NIV)
And there are a host of other places where the NIV contradicts scripture.

Prove it, otherwise your a talebearer. I would quote “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” Romans 13:9, but it isn’t in the NIV.

Now you're just being asinine. The NASV is the NASB.

Let’s quote the whole passage. So here I apologize I misquoted you.

Where is the fruit of the modern versions? You have yet to show any. And yes they are attributable to the Bibles being used. These modern perversions weaken and openly attack every doctrine in Scripture. Just because you can find it in another portion, does not give the right to attack it elsewhere. A little leaven, leaveneth the whole loaf. As to attacking the word of God, modern versions are not the word of God. To believe this nonsense one must believe that for 1800 years God did not give his church his word, and only after the rise of textual criticism did we once again have God’s word.

The preaching on sin in modern version churches is always weaker than the preaching on sin in KJV churches. As to lacking discernment and knowledge, and being a fool, these come from not having God’s word, which you do not. You cannot honestly expect anyone to believe that these new greek and hebrew texts which your translation is from, and which the Christian church did not use from 350AD until 1881AD, and only the pagan, baal-worshipping, Roman Church used, is truly the word of God. For if you expect us to believe this, then you expect us to believe God left his church all these years without his word. BTW you never did answer me, where in the Bible did God promise to preserve his word only in greek and hebrew?

As to KJVO churches being corrupt as well, I will not deny that some are. However, NO modern version church, that I or anyone I know has attended is a godly church. Every single one is corrupt. (This brings the total to over 3000)

Another interesting thing in modern version churches is the confusion. When in a Bible study everyone reads what their version says. The problem arises when they start contradicting each other. Guess they never read 1 Corinthians 14:33, about God not being the author of confusion.

 

Here is an entire listing of doctrines changed by modern versions

http://wayoflife.org/articles/doctrine.htm

 

BTW the Baptist burned 1611 was not burned by the Anglican Church. They had no such authority. However, he was burned by King James. I am still waiting for quotes (2 to 3 apiece) from each of the KJV translators stating that the king is pope, belief in baptismal regeneration, pedobaptism for salvation (christening doesn't count), and where these verses are in the Bible (2 or 3 verses for each should do.)

Perhaps a new rule should be accepted by all members posting to this area.

If you make a statement, so and so is liar, spiritist, said such and such, etc., it is up to you to post first source information proving it. Quoting someone quoting the first source is only acceptable if you have access to the writings of the person quoting the first source. Also from now on, when scripture verses from any version are posted it must include the copyright on the inside cover. This is due to the massive amount of changes occurring yearly in new versions. Many of the old errors, omissions, etc of the new versions are gone because they have corrected them, added Bible text back in, etc.

 

Amen!

 

Three comments:

* I notice that you have given no response on my earlier post ----&gt; link

* The writer of this listing focusses on a single verses in isolation, completely disregarding what the rest of the Scripture teaches. When you consider the teaching of Scripture as a whole, every one of his alleged examples of "doctrinal change" in the modern versions falls apart.

* The approach taken by the writer of the article can also be applied to the KJV. Here are some examples of changes in the KJV that affect doctrine:

(1) The KJV agrees with RC doctrine; it teaches that mere human beings can be worshipped (in other words, the KJV teaches idolatry). The modern versions don't --

KJV Luke 14:10 But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.

NASB Luke 14:10 "But when you are invited, go and recline at the last place, so that when the one who has invited you comes, he may say to you, 'Friend, move up higher'; then you will have honor in the sight of all who are at the table with you.

NIV Luke 14:10 But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, 'Friend, move up to a better place.' Then you will be honored in the presence of all your fellow guests.


(2) The KJV rejects prayer to Christ, and since prayer is to be offered to God alone, the KJV rejects the divinity of Christ. The modern versions don't --

KJV John 14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

NASB John 14:14 "If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.

NIV John 14:14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.


(3) The KJV rejects the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The modern versions don't --

KJV Acts 4:25 Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?

NASB Acts 4:25 who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Your servant, said, 'WHY DID THE GENTILES RAGE, AND THE PEOPLES DEVISE FUTILE THINGS?

NIV Acts 4:25 You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David: "'Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain?


(4) The KJV denies the Lordship of Jesus Christ. The modern versions don't --

KJV Romans 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

NASB Romans 1:4 who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord

NIV Romans 1:4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.


(5) The KJV agrees with JW doctrine; it denies that the Holy Spirit is a person (and not a thing, an impersonal "it.") The modern versions' don't.

KJV Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

NASB Romans 8:26 In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words;

NIV Romans 8:26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express.


(6) The KJV agrees with JW doctrine; it separates "the great God" from "our Saviour Jesus Christ," making them two different persons and denying Christ's deity. The modern versions don't --

KJV Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ

NAU Titus 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus

NIV Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope-- the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ


(7) The KJV denies that believers are really God's children. The modern versions don't --

KJV 1 John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

NASB 1 John 3:1 See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called children of God; and such we are. For this reason the world does not know us, because it did not know Him.

NIV 1 John 3:1 How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him.


Are you willing to hold the KJV to the same standard as the modern versions? Are you prepared to be consistent and condemn these "terrible doctrinal changes" in the KJV with the same forthrightness you do for the NASB and NIV?

[ November 02, 2003, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: Archangel7 ]

 

You use this label alot. Would you mind giving your definition of "naturalistic"? </font>[/QUOTE]The naturalistic method interprets these same materials in accordance with its own doctrine that the New Testament is nothing more than a human book.

 

I'm not "quoting the same things"... I'm *proving* it with facts and evidence. I've just taken an entire list of alleged "changes affecting doctrine" and shown that in *every case*, none of the changes actually affects doctrine as was originally claimed.

</font>[/QUOTE]What are you proving it with facts and evidence is as same as these men quoted same things.

 

When did you become an expert in Hebrew??

The NIV Is the word of God, as it claims to be.

So what?? 1 Cor 6:9 has an explicit condemnation of homosexuality and says that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. To deny this is a blatant lie.
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

There it is, plain and simple.

Also found in the NIV

Leviticus 20:13 "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Romans 1:26-27 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

To say that the NIV does not condemn homosexuality is blatant and outright lie.

They didn't. You simply do not know what you are talknig about.

Sin is the meaning of the word. Taxamartias is not even a word, showing that you have no idea what you are talking about. The word is harmartia.

Because that is what the words means.

The NIV clearly says that Christ was without sin.

Hebrews 4:15 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are-- yet was without sin.

So you are lying again. The NIV clearly declares the sinlessness of Christ, as I have shown.

God didn't command you to study. He commanded you to be diligent, which is how the KJV translate this word in every other case except this one. The word is spoudazo. Get our your Greek lexicon and look up what it means. Don't play games here unless you are willing to do your homework.

You haven't even shown one place yet. This is all a bunch of foolishness on your part because you do not study God's word.

Yet another lie. The NIV says, Exodus 20:16 "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor. Grady's lies have been proven on many occasions.

You are the one who doesn't know what you are talking. The NASV doesn't exist. The NASB is what you are talking about. You are making mistake after mistake because you have been lied to and you are repeating it. Now you are learning the truth. To continue to ignore it removes the blame from your teachers and puts it on your head, and

I see it every week in my churh and in other fundamental churches that I know about. You are apparently hanging aroudn the wrong people.

Then show us where. Why won't any of you guys step up to the plate and substantiate your charges. These are lies.

What it means is that you are wrong. These doctrines are not attacked, are not changed, and are not deleted.

Do you apply this to the KJV that has added to God's word??

This is the statement of ignorance. You don't understand what you are even saying. You are repeating the attacks on God's word that you have heard before. Find a church where the truth is being taught and get involved in it. Leave your false ways and your false teachers.

Come to my church and find out. I can direct you to other churches that will prove your charge wrong.

You are the one who lacks discenrment and knowledge. I have God's word. There is no doubt for me about it. You are the one who doubts it.

These are not new. They are older than the ones the TR used.

I don't believe he only preserved it in Greek and Hebrew. You are making stuff up yet again. Stop it. Get with the program. He preserved it in faithful copies and translations through church history.

Then you need to come to my church. I can direct you to at least 6 others in this area that will prove you wrong. Are you willing to put your ideas to the test? Come and see.

Another false statement. I have used a modern version for 7 years and have never had any confusion about it. Perhaps that is becuase I take the time to study and explain God's word so that the confusion goes away.

Some day I hope you will stop attacking God's word. I hope you will repent and leave your ways. This is a disgusting attack on teh word of God.

 

Jude 4 (KJV) For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Jude 4 (NIV) For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

Where is " the only Lord God" on Jude 4 in NIV?

Rev. 19:17 (KJV) And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;

Titus 1:3 (KJV) But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;

Titus 1:4 (KJV) To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.

Titus 2:10 (KJV) Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.

Titus 3:4 (KJV) But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,

Titus 3:6 (KJV) Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

Therefore the KJV is correct to say, "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;"

Modern versions on Titus 2:13 said "Our God and Savior, Jesus Christ. They refer this verse to 2 persons. Nonsense!