A very silly KJVO argument...

[Rippon]

The answer is "Yes, when man's 'additions' have been to translate His word into a currently-used language or language style." The AV men did exactly that 400 years ago.

The AV men didn't use the current English of the early 17th century. It was intentionally made to sound dated.

As has been demonstrated many times -- even Tyndale's New Testament sounds more understandable than the KJV in many places -- and of course the Geneva does too.

Modern English versions of today do not attempt to modernize KJV-speak. They attempt to be more accurate to counter all the unintentional mistakes of the past.

 

[TomVols]

Dr. Bob, C4...I understand the point. The problem? The side of those who would call someone "cursed" rejoices in it, while those of us who find Scriptural fault with it aren't.

Plus, the little matter of it being a BB rules violation.

 

[Rippon]

Actually most of the earliest copies of Scripture, such as, e.g., p45 and p66, are so wild that not even the most ardent NT textual critic would rely on them for preserving the original wording intact.

There's nothing like the lumping mentality.

Copies at least 150-200 years later are generally considered much better and more stable representations.

What's your opinion of p75? It's dated around the beginning of the 3rd century (around the time of p45)and has a good reputation for its relative purity.

It is a truism of textual criticism that the earliest survivable documents do not necessarily preserve the earliest text

I guess "necessarily" is the operative word. So you object to the truism that the earliest documents generally perserve the earliest text.

 

[jonathan.borland]

There's nothing like the lumping mentality.



What's your opinion of p75? It's dated around the beginning of the 3rd century (around the time of p45)and has a good reputation for its relative purity.



I guess "necessarily" is the operative word. So you object to the truism that the earliest documents generally perserve the earliest text.

p75 is unique in that it is the only early papyrus manuscript that preserves the Vaticanus-type text consistently. But even it is considered inferior to the text as preserved in Vaticanus, viz., usually when the two split, editors choose Vaticanus over p75.

I strongly assert, as do all professional textual critics, that the earliest survivable documents do not necessarily preserve the earliest text, or in other words, that manuscripts of a later date may preserve a far more ancient text than may manuscripts of an earlier date. A case in point is Matt 17:21 and the plain evidence of many fathers who read the verse in their copies (along with all Greek manuscripts of Matthew but ten). Some of these fathers predate the evidence of the earliest survivable Greek manuscripts by more than 150 years.

Jonathan C. Borland

 

[Winman]

Winman:So you see, Satan altered God's word right there by adding the word "not". He also added the word "not" when God told them that in the day they eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they shall surely die.

We have been over this before.

I have a fast red car.
I have a red fast car.
I have a car that's fast and red.
I have a car that's red and fast.
Ad Nauseam.

JESUS worded His Gospel message differently at times while proclaiming the same message. That's why I say the KJVOs who use the "yea, hath God said..." argument are grasping at straws.

Well, first of all, Jesus is God and can reword scripture any way he chooses to do so, the Holy Spirit has liberty with his own word.

You will never agree, but Satan started his conversation by quoting God, his first four words were:

"Yea, hath God said?"

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Now, if I asked, "Didn't John Kennedy say, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but rather, ask what you can do for your country", would you argue that I did not quote Kennedy?

Now, know what? I just misquoted Kennedy. He did not include "but rather". I added those two words. But millions of Americans would easily recognize that I was quoting Kennedy.

And this is what Satan did, he quoted God, but not precisely. God said in Gen 2:16

"Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: "

God actually gave Adam and Eve the permission to eat of any tree, including the Tree of Life, except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

But immediately after beginning his question with, "Yea, hath God said," Satan altered this statement by God saying:

"Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"

This is not like saying the red car is the same as the car is red. This is like saying the red car is blue. It is contradicting God's words.

Anyway, doesn't matter, it is obvious to most people that Satan was quoting God but altering his word. If you choose not to see this, that is your choice.

 

[robycop3]

Well, first of all, Jesus is God and can reword scripture any way he chooses to do so, the Holy Spirit has liberty with his own word.

You will never agree, but Satan started his conversation by quoting God, his first four words were:

"Yea, hath God said?"

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Now, if I asked, "Didn't John Kennedy say, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but rather, ask what you can do for your country", would you argue that I did not quote Kennedy?

Now, know what? I just misquoted Kennedy. He did not include "but rather". I added those two words. But millions of Americans would easily recognize that I was quoting Kennedy.

And this is what Satan did, he quoted God, but not precisely. God said in Gen 2:16

"Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: "

God actually gave Adam and Eve the permission to eat of any tree, including the Tree of Life, except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

But immediately after beginning his question with, "Yea, hath God said," Satan altered this statement by God saying:

"Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"

This is not like saying the red car is the same as the car is red. This is like saying the red car is blue. It is contradicting God's words.

Anyway, doesn't matter, it is obvious to most people that Satan was quoting God but altering his word. If you choose not to see this, that is your choice.

And Satan had already fallen. His aim was to cause A&E to fall, which he did. Not only did he misquote God, but he in effect called Him a liar when he said, "You shall NOT die."

The gist of God's words to both A&E was, "Do NOT eat of this tree; if you do, you shall die." Satan said, "You shall NOT die if you eat of that tree."

 

[annsni]

Now everybody knows the KJV and the MVs do not have the same content. The MVs have omitted many verses and words found in the KJV.

You have only two possibilities, either the MVs diminished or took away from God's word, or the KJV added to God's word. But these widely differing versions cannot not all be inerrant at the same time. And none of the MVs agree with each other, so if any of them are inerrant, it can only be one version.

We clearly know that the KJV added to the Word of God by looking at the italicized words. But of course it's stupid to measure two translations to see which is better ("The KJV is better because it has 'Jesus' 1000 times and the NIV has it only 998 times") because you are comparing two things that are not original. Instead, we need to compare to those things which are the closest and most accurate to the originals as possible.

But praise God that we have wonderful translations that may differ in a few places but not one doctrine is compromised even with man's hand involved. God is good!

 

[Winman]

We clearly know that the KJV added to the Word of God by looking at the italicized words. But of course it's stupid to measure two translations to see which is better ("The KJV is better because it has 'Jesus' 1000 times and the NIV has it only 998 times") because you are comparing two things that are not original. Instead, we need to compare to those things which are the closest and most accurate to the originals as possible.

But praise God that we have wonderful translations that may differ in a few places but not one doctrine is compromised even with man's hand involved. God is good!

You are correct, the KJV did add the italicized words. This is absolutely necessary in order to translate from any language to another.

That is not the difference between the KJV and the MVs. There are many verses that can easily be perceived as showing a different meaning and interpretation when compared. I have already given a few examples, Amy showed a great example.

Matt 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Jesus clearly showed that it is a sin to be angry at your brother unless you have a just reason. But look at the NIV:

Matt 5:But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother [fn]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca, [fn]' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Notice in the NIV that it omits "without a cause". This gives a very different meaning. The NIV could easily mislead a person to believe it is a sin to be angry at your brother for any reason.

And this is exactly what Amy said, because she only studied the NIV at the time, she felt guilty of sin whenever she was angry at another person, even when that person gave her a legitimate reason to be angry. She also could not understand how Jesus went into the temple and overturned the moneychanger's tables and hit them with a whip and was not guilty of sin if this verse meant what it clearly seems to say in the NIV.

It is not a sin to be angry at someone for a just cause. If you are walking down the street and someone walks up and punches you in the face and takes your money, you have a just reason to be angry with them. It is not wrong to be angry in this situation, it is not wrong to call the police on them.

This is only one of dozens of verses that have been changed between the KJV and MVs that give a different understanding.

 

[annsni]

You are correct, the KJV did add the italicized words. This is absolutely necessary in order to translate from any language to another.

But it is adding to the Word of God, is it not??

That is not the difference between the KJV and the MVs. There are many verses that can easily be perceived as showing a different meaning and interpretation when compared. I have already given a few examples, Amy showed a great example.

Matt 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Jesus clearly showed that it is a sin to be angry at your brother unless you have a just reason. But look at the NIV:

Matt 5:But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother [fn]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca, [fn]' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Notice in the NIV that it omits "without a cause". This gives a very different meaning. The NIV could easily mislead a person to believe it is a sin to be angry at your brother for any reason.

See now, you are REMOVING words from the Word of God in the NIV. You do notice the footnote marks in the verse you copied, do you not? Let's take a look at what the NIV truly says when we include the footnote:

But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother [fn]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca, [fn]' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
*22 some manuscripts brother without cause

AHA!!! Now we see the truth instead of deception! Not all manuscripts agree that those words were in the original language so the NIV notates that. To say that it is taken out is a lie because I have an NIV sitting right in front of my keyboard and that's what it's showing me.


And this is exactly what Amy said, because she only studied the NIV at the time, she felt guilty of sin whenever she was angry at another person, even when that person gave her a legitimate reason to be angry.

It is not a sin to be angry at someone for a just cause. If you are walking down the street and someone walks up and punches you in the face and takes your money, you have a just reason to be angry with them. It is not wrong to be angry in this situation, it is not wrong to call the police on them.

This is only one of dozens of verses that have been changed between the KJV and MVs that give a different understanding.[/QUOTE]

Yet we see it doesn't give a different understanding and that no verses have been changed. Oh, and we don't use the KJV as the measuring stick because that has been proven to be imperfect too. Instead we use the manuscript evidence and the Holy Spirit.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Matt 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

For those interested, David Alan Black defended the authenticity of the Greek word εἰκῇ (without a cause) on text-critical and theological grounds in his article, "Jesus on Anger: The Text of Matthew 5:22a Revisited," NovT 30:1 (1988): 1-8.

Basically, Matthew's account presents some exceptions elsewhere (Matt 5:11, 5:32). This is an important feature of Matthew's Bergpredigt (Sermon on the Mount). Primarily Alexandrian editors sought to heighten the rigorousness of Jesus' words. Some orthodox sought an "absolute" prohibition of anger, and thus the word could have been deliberately expunged. Thus the shorter reading is an erroneous improvement of the text.

"We have no certainty that 01 and B are intrinsically better than other manuscripts in general, and in a great many cases their readings have been judged to be more probably secondary than those of other witnesses" (6).

"Behind the variant εἰκῇ, on the other hand, are manuscripts of a greater variety and geographical distribution, including Western, Caesarean, Byzantine, and even Alexandrian witnesses" (6).

Copyists or editors also may have misunderstood the meaning of the word ὁ ὀργιζόμενος to mean "he who hates," in which case the word εἰκῇ would have been deemed superfluous, and thus omitted.

"There is, therefore, a righteous anger as well as one that is sinful, the former being a holy indignation, while the latter is without just cause, and is to be condemned. Only if we give to ὁ ὀργιζόμενος the sense of enmity or harboring a hateful, malicious purpose, is the word εἰκῇ superfluous. But taking it in its proper signification of suffering oneself to be provoked to anger, εἰκῇ is both appropriate and necessary" (7).

It is also doubtful whether Jesus prohibited all use of the word "fool" (Matt 5:22) since he himself uses it elsewhere (7:26; 25:2, 3, 8), and Paul also used it (1 Cor 4:10; Gal 3:1).

"The manuscripts containing this omission were evidently confined within comparatively narrow limits, and soon disappeared, the qualifying word εἰκῇ being everywhere recognized as genuine and a necessary part of the text" (8).

And again: "As indicated, the omission of εἰκῇ is supported mostly by witnesses that come from Egypt, and therefore its representation is limited and not fully convincing" (6).

Jonathan C. Borland

 

[Trotter]

Some orthodox sought an "absolute" prohibition of anger, and thus the word could have been deliberately expunged.

Emphasis mine.

Taking as assumption and then acting upon it as if it were fact is poor scholarship to say the least.

It is also doubtful whether Jesus prohibited all use of the word "fool" (Matt 5:22) since he himself uses it elsewhere (7:26; 25:2, 3, 8), and Paul also used it (1 Cor 4:10; Gal 3:1).

Here we see that he is trying to apply a broad rule without taking context into account. Jesus' prohibition against using "fool", when taken in context, shows that He was talking about the spirit in which one would do so and not the actual word (as many other words could be used in the same situation, such as raca, idiot, imbecile, etc.). Of course Jesus and Paul used "fool" many times, as did the psalmist. A fool is a silly person and has practical uses, but Jesus was talking about hatred.

And again: "As indicated, the omission of εἰκῇ is supported mostly by witnesses that come from Egypt, and therefore its representation is limited and not fully convincing" (6).

And now the Alexandrian slant...

 

[Winman]

But it is adding to the Word of God, is it not??

No, it is not, it is absolutely necessary to do this when translating from any language to another to give the full understanding.

See now, you are REMOVING words from the Word of God in the NIV. You do notice the footnote marks in the verse you copied, do you not? Let's take a look at what the NIV truly says when we include the footnote:

But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother [fn]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca, [fn]' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
*22 some manuscripts brother without cause

First, I wrote neither the KJV or NIV, I am removing nothing from either. But to argue that a footnote would be considered scripture by the average reader is unrealistic.

And you know, this is what made me study this issue many years ago. When I was a teen I owned a KJV and a RSV my aunt sent me. I immediately noticed a difference between the two and was confused over which was the accurate word of God. There were footnotes and comments in the RSV that said things like "better manuscripts omit vs. 37). Now, how is a new Christian supposed to understand that? According to the RSV, my KJV was full of errors and was inferior to the RSV. What was I supposed to believe? If these biblical scholars are saying the KJV is inferior, maybe I shouldn't be reading it.
So, I became very confused over which bible I should be reading. I just wanted to know the truth, the true word of God.

But I believed the word of God existed because of Matt 4:4.

Matt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Everybody knows this verse, but I think many people do not really give serious consideration to what Jesus is saying. Jesus says we are to live by "every word" that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. That word "every" really stuck with me. I had to ask how God could possibly expect me to live by every word unless he provides it. If all the versions of scripture are full of error, it hardly seemed just or fair for God to expect me to live by every word.

So, you see, there is more to this verse than meets the eye on first impression. There is an implied promise that God will provide every word for us so that we are able to live by every word.

But this is faith, I have no absolute way to prove it, and if I could I would not be living by faith. I simply believe God gave us his word so we could know and understand him and be saved. I believe God is truth and not the author of confusion. So, he is going to provide his inerrant word. And after study I came to believe the KJV is that inerrant version.

I have said many times, if a person does not believe the KJV the inerrant version of God's word, fine, just show me which version is the inerrant version.

And this is exactly what Amy said, because she only studied the NIV at the time, she felt guilty of sin whenever she was angry at another person, even when that person gave her a legitimate reason to be angry.

I don't know if Amy saw and read the footnotes or not, but she said the NIV caused her confusion, because she knew Jesus got angry.

Yet we see it doesn't give a different understanding and that no verses have been changed. Oh, and we don't use the KJV as the measuring stick because that has been proven to be imperfect too. Instead we use the manuscript evidence and the Holy Spirit.

How can you say it doesn't give a different understanding when Amy testified it did give her a different understanding?

But that is just one of many verses. Look at 1 Timothy 3:16

KJV-

1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Now look at this verse in the NIV-

1 Tim 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He [fn] appeared in a body, [fn] was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

The KJV identifies Jesus as very God and says he was manifest in the flesh. The NIV simply says "He appeared in a body". So what? I appear in a body and so do you. But saying God himself was manifest in flesh is a fantastic statement about Jesus. I don't see how any sincere person could not agree this is a monumental change in the understanding and meaning of this verse.

Yes, the footnotes in the NIV for vs. 16 say, "Some manuscripts God" and "Or in the flesh", but again, I doubt most people give footnotes the same weight and authenticity as the scriptures themselves.

 

[RAdam]

The KJV identifies Jesus as very God and says he was manifest in the flesh. The NIV simply says "He appeared in a body". So what? I appear in a body and so do you. But saying God himself was manifest in flesh is a fantastic statement about Jesus. I don't see how any sincere person could not agree this is a monumental change in the understanding and meaning of this verse.

I remember reading the writings of a man one time, cannot remember exactly who, warning of a revision of the King James before it actually took place. He predicted that 1 Timothy 3:16 would be changed, and it turns out he was right. Of course, people will claim that no doctrine is weakened in the modern translations derived from the so called older and better manuscripts, but that is patently false, as you have shown.

 

[annsni]

And again: "As indicated, the omission of εἰκῇ is supported mostly by witnesses that come from Egypt, and therefore its representation is limited and not fully convincing" (6).

Jonathan C. Borland

So what other manuscripts have support for the omission? Obviously it's not JUST the Alexandran manuscripts.

 

[annsni]

No, it is not, it is absolutely necessary to do this when translating from any language to another to give the full understanding.

But it is adding words that are not there to the text, therefore adding to the Word of God. Is that not the argument? If it is wrong for other versions, it's wrong for the KJV too.

First, I wrote neither the KJV or NIV, I am removing nothing from either. But to argue that a footnote would be considered scripture by the average reader is unrealistic.

Why? Because the translators put down the full thought - that some manuscripts include it and some don't. It was important enough to notate it. See, the translators of modern version are just being honest with their scholarship as were the KJV translators who also included notes.

And you know, this is what made me study this issue many years ago. When I was a teen I owned a KJV and a RSV my aunt sent me. I immediately noticed a difference between the two and was confused over which was the accurate word of God. There were footnotes and comments in the RSV that said things like "better manuscripts omit vs. 37). Now, how is a new Christian supposed to understand that? According to the RSV, my KJV was full of errors and was inferior to the RSV. What was I supposed to believe? If these biblical scholars are saying the KJV is inferior, maybe I shouldn't be reading it.
So, I became very confused over which bible I should be reading. I just wanted to know the truth, the true word of God.

Maybe a reading of the preface would have been important. Find out just WHY each translator did what they did. I'm sure it would have shed quite a bit of light on the issue, don't you think? Instead of writing down what very likely was an addition, it's notated for honesty and good scholarship.

But I believed the word of God existed because of Matt 4:4.

Matt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Everybody knows this verse, but I think many people do not really give serious consideration to what Jesus is saying. Jesus says we are to live by "every word" that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. That word "every" really stuck with me. I had to ask how God could possibly expect me to live by every word unless he provides it. If all the versions of scripture are full of error, it hardly seemed just or fair for God to expect me to live by every word.

So, you see, there is more to this verse than meets the eye on first impression. There is an implied promise that God will provide every word for us so that we are able to live by every word.

But as you have said, there are words added in the KJV so those are not words from the mouth of God. They did not proceed from His mouth, did they? So what are we saying here?

But this is faith, I have no absolute way to prove it, and if I could I would not be living by faith. I simply believe God gave us his word so we could know and understand him and be saved. I believe God is truth and not the author of confusion. So, he is going to provide his inerrant word. And after study I came to believe the KJV is that inerrant version.

That is sad considering the clear errors that have come up in the KJV since it's inception. You are putting your faith in a version rather than the Writer.

I have said many times, if a person does not believe the KJV the inerrant version of God's word, fine, just show me which version is the inerrant version.

Can you show me which Old Testament is the inerrant version? The Hebrew or the Septuagent? They differ clearly - which is inerrant?

I don't know if Amy saw and read the footnotes or not, but she said the NIV caused her confusion, because she knew Jesus got angry.

So we cannot trust our Bibles when we get confused or is this where we study more? It's not the version - it's the individual. Paul says that works will not save, James says the opposite. That is confusing so we toss out James? Or Galatians? Or do we study more?

How can you say it doesn't give a different understanding when Amy testified it did give her a different understanding?

It doesn't give a different understanding - Amy was confused. It happens.

But that is just one of many verses. Look at 1 Timothy 3:16

KJV-

1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Now look at this verse in the NIV-

1 Tim 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He [fn] appeared in a body, [fn] was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

The KJV identifies Jesus as very God and says he was manifest in the flesh. The NIV simply says "He appeared in a body". So what? I appear in a body and so do you. But saying God himself was manifest in flesh is a fantastic statement about Jesus. I don't see how any sincere person could not agree this is a monumental change in the understanding and meaning of this verse.

Yes, the footnotes in the NIV for vs. 16 say, "Some manuscripts God" and "Or in the flesh", but again, I doubt most people give footnotes the same weight and authenticity as the scriptures themselves.

OK - I guess you didn't learn grammar in grade school so it would be confusing for you?? First let's remember that the Bible was written without verse separations - and actually no punctuation! In that light, let's look at verse 14, 15 AND verse 16 in the NIV:

"Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:
He[c] appeared in a body,[d]
was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory."

c - some manuscripts God
d - or in the flesh

So now, when we see a pronoun, we need to look back to see who the pronoun is referring to. In this case, the last person spoken of is God. If someone could read this passage and not know who "He" is, they are pretty blinded and stupid, quite honestly. No man appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world and taken up in glory. This is a false argument and shows just how idiotic the KJV proponents really are if they find THIS to be a case of "See? The NIV took out God's name!" Yet here is what the NIV translators had to say: "No ancient Greek manuscript earlier than the eighth or ninth century reads "God". All the ancient versions concur. Compare the treatments of John 1:18, Luke 2:33, 43 above" (from NIV Accuracy Defined) You can see the treatments of the other verses if you wish to here: http://www.biblica.com/niv/accuracy/NIV_AccuracyDefined.pdf

So, yet another silly KJVO argument is clearly shown to be .... silly.

 

[annsni]

I remember reading the writings of a man one time, cannot remember exactly who, warning of a revision of the King James before it actually took place. He predicted that 1 Timothy 3:16 would be changed, and it turns out he was right. Of course, people will claim that no doctrine is weakened in the modern translations derived from the so called older and better manuscripts, but that is patently false, as you have shown.

Read above. It was changed before the NIV - before the KJV even. It was changed around the 8th or 9th century. The fact that NOT ONE manuscript before that time has "God" makes it highly suspect as to what the originals had IMO.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Read above. It was changed before the NIV - before the KJV even. It was changed around the 8th or 9th century. The fact that NOT ONE manuscript before that time has "God" makes it highly suspect as to what the originals had IMO.

Admitting that there were "expansions of piety" in ANY NT text sounds the death knell of the "only" bunch. That there are obviously hundreds of such over the copies of copies of copies of their corrupted source documents CANNOT be admitted.

Slippery slope. So don't expect them to agree.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

It's like trying to find 'God forbid' in Romans 6v2 in any manuscript. Did the KJV translators add to God's word there?

 

[Winman]

But it is adding words that are not there to the text, therefore adding to the Word of God. Is that not the argument? If it is wrong for other versions, it's wrong for the KJV too.

No, that is not adding to God's word. If the translators had not added words in English, many verses would have been unintelligible. I am not a big supporter of Chick Mininstries, but they have an article about italicized words in the KJV that explains better than I can.

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_11.asp

As you see, the MVs also add necessary words.

Why? Because the translators put down the full thought - that some manuscripts include it and some don't. It was important enough to notate it. See, the translators of modern version are just being honest with their scholarship as were the KJV translators who also included notes.

I agree with you here, the translators were honest in showing that some manuscripts include a verse or words and others do not. However, saying things like "better manuscripts omit this verse" is certainly showing a bias.

And I do not doubt that most (not all) translators are being honest. But that is not the question. The question is, which version of scripture is inerrant? There have always been corrupt versions of scripture, even before the NT was written. There were men who did not like scripture and destroyed it as when king Jehoiakim cut the words of Jeremiah out of scriptures and threw them on the fire.

Jer 32:23 And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth.

Now, understand this, the original autographs were destroyed here. They really were. But God made sure his word was preserved.

Jer 32:27 Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, after that the king had burned the roll, and the words which Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah, saying,
28 Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned.

So you see, God does not let men destroy or lose his word.

Maybe a reading of the preface would have been important. Find out just WHY each translator did what they did. I'm sure it would have shed quite a bit of light on the issue, don't you think? Instead of writing down what very likely was an addition, it's notated for honesty and good scholarship

I did a great deal of study on this years ago and am quite aware why the translators did what they did. They were working from different manuscripts. The KJV came out of Antioch, the MVs came out of Alexandria.

The MVs in my opinion are Catholic and support Catholic doctrines. Acts 8:37 is the greatest example of this. Compare the KJV and the NIV.

KJV-

Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Now the NIV-

omitted

The NIV and many other MVs omit this verse. Why? Because this verse clearly shows it is wrong to baptize babies and the doctrine of baptismal regeneration false.

Those who do baptize babies and teach baptismal regeneration do not like this verse.

Again, I know it is shown in the footnotes, and again, I seriously doubt any person gives footnotes the weight and authenticity of scripture. Plus, not all versions of the MVs have footnotes. I don't know if you can see it here, but the Children's NIV has no footnotes.

That is sad considering the clear errors that have come up in the KJV since it's inception. You are putting your faith in a version rather than the Writer.

Well, if you believe the KJV has errors, then it cannot be inerrant, as that is the very definition of inerrant. Fine, so which version is the inerrant word of God?

And I am not putting faith in the writers. They were very educated men expert in the original languages, but they were fallible men. I am trusting that God preserved his word despite using fallible men to translate it into English. You are the one making an argument for the translators, not me.

 

[annsni]

No, that is not adding to God's word. If the translators had not added words in English, many verses would have been unintelligible. I am not a big supporter of Chick Mininstries, but they have an article about italicized words in the KJV that explains better than I can.

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_11.asp

As you see, the MVs also add necessary words.

But it's adding words to the Word of God. Period. If it's not there in the originals that God inspired then we have a few issues, do we not?

I agree with you here, the translators were honest in showing that some manuscripts include a verse or words and others do not. However, saying things like "better manuscripts omit this verse" is certainly showing a bias.

Not if it's generally known that some of the manuscripts are not good. Of course if it's said that "Byzentine" manuscripts are better than "Alexandrine" manuscripts, that's not showing bias??

And I do not doubt that most (not all) translators are being honest. But that is not the question. The question is, which version of scripture is inerrant? There have always been corrupt versions of scripture, even before the NT was written. There were men who did not like scripture and destroyed it as when king Jehoiakim cut the words of Jeremiah out of scriptures and threw them on the fire.

Jer 32:23 And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth.

Now, understand this, the original autographs were destroyed here. They really were. But God made sure his word was preserved.

Jer 32:27 Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, after that the king had burned the roll, and the words which Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah, saying,
28 Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned.

So you see, God does not let men destroy or lose his word.

Correct - and He didn't stop this work in 1611.

I did a great deal of study on this years ago and am quite aware why the translators did what they did. They were working from different manuscripts. The KJV came out of Antioch, the MVs came out of Alexandria.

This is untrue. The modern versions have just used ALL of the manuscript evidence that has become available. The KJV did a great job with what they had available (although there are some issues with some of the sources like Erasmus using the Latin Vulgate for the end of Revelation and such) and if they had more manuscripts available, I'm sure they would have used the Alexandian ones too.

The MVs in my opinion are Catholic and support Catholic doctrines. Acts 8:37 is the greatest example of this. Compare the KJV and the NIV.

KJV-

Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Now the NIV-

omitted

The NIV and many other MVs omit this verse. Why? Because this verse clearly shows it is wrong to baptize babies and the doctrine of baptismal regeneration false.

Those who do baptize babies and teach baptismal regeneration do not like this verse.

Again, I know it is shown in the footnotes, and again, I seriously doubt any person gives footnotes the weight and authenticity of scripture. Plus, not all versions of the MVs have footnotes. I don't know if you can see it here, but the Children's NIV has no footnotes.

Well, you see, you just lied. You said it was omitted yet you say it's in the footnotes. So it was not omitted at all - just moved to show that there is some question to the heritage of the verse. But don't you think if they wished to remove a doctrine, they would have done a MUCH better job of it? Wouldn't they have taken out Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 8:12, Acts 19:5 etc. and maybe even added something showing ONE example of a babies' baptism? Oh - and I personally have the Children's NIV and the note is in there - I just saw it.

Well, if you believe the KJV has errors, then it cannot be inerrant, as that is the very definition of inerrant. Fine, so which version is the inerrant word of God?

The original autographs are inerrant.

And I am not putting faith in the writers. They were very educated men expert in the original languages, but they were fallible men. I am trusting that God preserved his word despite using fallible men to translate it into English. You are the one making an argument for the translators, not me.

You are trusting only certain fallable men. You are deciding that you are the expert and know which one is the right fallable men and have decided that since 1611, there is not one man who God has used to translate His Word into modern English. I, however, feel that God is STILL using men to continue to be sure that His Word is translated as accurately as possible. I guess that's where we differ.