Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
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
Originally posted by Sola_Scriptura:
I have seen KJVO churches that are like this as well then to the opposite extreme I know of KJVO churches that turned people away at the door because they weren't dressed per the extra-biblical standard.I know of many KJVO churches like this and where monetary status divides the church.I have attended or directly known of many KJVO churches. All have done a very poor job of caring for the poor.I can state for a fact that not all churches that use MV's are into ecumenicism. I have never really seen an ecumenical KJVO... they are usually so contentious they do well to get along with each other... and often don't.KJVOnlyism is a "modernistic" idea- both historically and philosophically.When we lived in Seattle there was a show on public access called "Gays for Jesus". The "preacher" only used the KJV.Pentacostal, Apostolic, and Charasmatic churches usually use the KJV... they also have numerous women preachers.This verse says nothing about pants or dresses. BTW, what did the men were in those days?
Women's pants are not made for men... they are made for women. I don't know about you but I can recognize when a woman is dressing "butch" versus when a woman is dressing feminine.Please show your evidence that "shamefaced" = "without make-up". Thanks.Please cite the scripture that specifies the appropriate length for women's hair. BTW, I have known KJVO women whose hair didn't touch their shoulders...The shame of it all....
And you think this was from their Bible version?
"1Co 11:14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, (NAS95)"
Sorry I don't think so.See above. But for the record, I have seen less than macho men that were KJVO also.I have seen KJVO churches that weren't winning anyone to Christ. I have seen others that posted big "soul winning" numbers but because of easy-believism techniques and teaching- most of the converts showed no real change.Most of the KJVO churches I have seen have been lifeless.I have likewise seen many KJVO's and their churches that were "whited sepulchres." They put on an outward show but were hypocrites. Then again, I have seen a KJVO church in Georgia where the men gathered on the front porch for a smoke between SS and "preachin'".Seen these things in KJVO churches too.KJVO's are not immune.I am sorry for you. However, if your father had lived by the teachings of whatever MV you are blaming for his behavior... he wouldn't have done this.And the primary opponents of these folks from a scholarly scientific and biblical point of view are likewise users of MV's.I have seen all of these in KJVO churches... as a matter of fact, I have seen a couple of these things displayed here by KJVO's just recently.KJVO represents a recent departure from fundamental, orthodox, biblical teaching. By definition- apostasy.I have witnessed many KJVO's who refuse to obey the example of scripture. The command they seem to have the most difficulty with is "loving others."If you think your transference of blame for sinful behavior from sinners to Bibles that teach against their sins has any validity at all then perhaps you should consider 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.
Thanks Askjo, Others may have more historical info regarding what you posted above.
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.
Matthew and Luke disagree each other in NIV and NASB because small manuscripts omitted "firstborn" on Matthew 1:25.
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.
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?
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.Originally posted by Askjo:
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.
Let's examine the evidence here shall we?? I will quote just a portion of Matthew.
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.
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.
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)
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?
Three comments:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
