Are Doctrines affected by Modern Versions?

Origen · Mar 11, 2020

Ziggy said:
Except the Byzantine text type can be established with over 99% certainty, which cannot be said for any other text type. Thus the eclectic nature of the critical text.

I'm sure it is. However I was not addressing the uniformity of any text types. My only point was most scholars favor the Alexandrian text type over the others. I made no judgement concerning that.

Yeshua1 · Mar 12, 2020

Origen said:
I don't know who you are reading but that is not correct. The truth is most scholars favor the Alexandrian text type over the others. Nevertheless, the fact is no two manuscripts are 100% identical, no matter the text type, not even the Byzantine text type.

The Critical Greek text is still the favored one among majority of textual Greek scholars, but MT also has its supporters, while TR pretty much reserved for the KJVO group!

Yeshua1 · Mar 12, 2020

Ziggy said:
Except the Byzantine text type can be established with over 99% certainty, which cannot be said for any other text type. Thus the eclectic nature of the critical text.

That still is not proof though that it is the most accurate to the Originals!

Ziggy · Mar 12, 2020

Yeshua1 said:
That still is not proof though that it is the most accurate to the Originals!

Some think it should make it the odds-on favorite, however, as opposed to a pick-and-choose eclectic mishmash.

Yeshua1 · Mar 13, 2020

Ziggy said:
Some think it should make it the odds-on favorite, however, as opposed to a pick-and-choose eclectic mishmash.

That mishmash though would be consisting of documents much closer to time of the originals!

Shoostie · Mar 13, 2020

Hobie said:
ASV and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.

KJV - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

We see here in 1 John 4:3 that the NIV takes out the whole point in the text, "NIV leaves out the fact that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh--yet another swipe at the divinity of Christ." https://mundall.com/erik/NIV-KJV.htm

Why do KJVO use such (snip)-poor arguments, while ignoring good arguments? Would you be happy if someone came out the NIV "Christ edition"? It would be the same NIV except with the word "Christ" inserted after every use of the name Jesus? Then you could talk complain that the KJV denies Jesus is the Christ by pointing to where it mentions Jesus without the word "Christ" suffixed on. The NIV cannot be used to argue that Jesus isn't the Christ. Indeed, it refers to Jesus as "Christ" the hundreds of times.

Here's an example of the NIV trying to change doctrine: The NIV tries to promote women pastors by the use of "gender inclusive" language to replace the patriarchal language of scripture. The NIV and other modern translations make Nymphas a man, inviting false teachers to claim Nymphas was female church leader (but, man or woman, scripture does doesn't say he lead a church). The NIV also corrupts a verse to invite false teaches to say that Junia was a female Apostle (a couple of alternations in the verse, including changing the masculine "kinsmen" to gender-natural "Jews", which itself is a double deceit, because Paul sure as the Lake of Fire didn't call them Jews) (also, Junia, male or female, scripture doesn't say he was an Apostle).

Hobie · Mar 14, 2020

Shoostie said:
Why do KJVO use such piss-poor arguments, while ignoring good arguments? Would you be happy if someone came out the NIV "Christ edition"? It would be the same NIV except with the word "Christ" inserted after every use of the name Jesus? Then you could talk complain that the KJV denies Jesus is the Christ by pointing to where it mentions Jesus without the word "Christ" suffixed on. The NIV cannot be used to argue that Jesus isn't the Christ. Indeed, it refers to Jesus as "Christ" the hundreds of times.

Here's an example of the NIV trying to change doctrine: The NIV tries to promote women pastors by the use of "gender inclusive" language to replace the patriarchal language of scripture. The NIV and other modern translations make Nymphas a man, inviting false teachers to claim Nymphas was female church leader (but, man or woman, scripture does doesn't say he lead a church). The NIV also corrupts a verse to invite false teaches to say that Junia was a female Apostle (a couple of alternations in the verse, including changing the masculine "kinsmen" to gender-natural "Jews", which itself is a double deceit, because Paul sure as the Lake of Fire didn't call them Jews) (also, Junia, male or female, scripture doesn't say he was an Apostle).

Here is a post by my friend Green in the same vein..."
As anyone who has compared Bible translations knows, each one is different. Many of the differences are simple matters of word choice between two or more words that mean the same thing. Many of the differences amount to a simple reordering of the words or phrases in a sentence. Some differences are just spellings of the same word. However, many differences involve completely new wording or phrasing, omissions, or insertions. If the differences change the concept dramatically, or alter doctrines, or add or remove thoughts from the original text, these differences merit close scrutiny....Of all the errors in translation which one might consider, errors in number translations are the least excusable. Numbers are numbers, and are easy to translate accurately. Failure in accuracy here is indicative of an attitude that the details do not matter, and casts shadows upon the rest of the translation....

..You will see each text with the KJV and NIV beside each other, and below them in the same color block, my comments about the differences.....

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matthew 5:18, KJV)

I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:18, NIV)

But I guess the numbers just disappeared!

Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? (Matthew 6:27, KJV)

Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life [fn2]? Footnote: Or single cubit to his height (Matthew 6:27, NIV)

The NIV here meddles with the text, and turns Jesus' statement into one that can be countered. It may be possible to live longer through various means, especially when we speak of a mere "hour." It is not possible, however, to grow taller by worrying.

Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, (Matthew 11:2, KJV)

When John heard in prison what Christ was doing, he sent his disciples (Matthew 11:2, NIV)

John certainly must have had more than two disciples. John selected two for this special errand. Yet the NIV would make it appear as though he sent all of his disciples, and that the number is inconsequential.

Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened. (Matthew 13:33, KJV)

He told them still another parable: 'The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount [fn2] of flour until it worked all through the dough.' Footnote: Greek three satas (probably about 1/2 bushel or 22 liters) (Matthew 13:33, NIV)

Per the NIV rendering, the number must not matter. Do the translators believe that Christ's exact words are unimportant? Or perhaps just the numbers are not?

He answered and said unto them, Give ye them to eat. And they say unto him, Shall we go and buy two hundred pennyworth of bread, and give them to eat? (Mark 6:37, KJV)

But he answered, 'You give them something to eat.' They said to him, 'That would take eight months of a man's wages [fn5]! Are we to go and spend that much on bread and give it to them to eat?' Footnote: Greek take two hundred denarii (Mark 6:37, NIV)

Again, the numbers have been altered. Considering that numbers, of all words, are the easiest things to translate, and do not change meaning from one language to another, this seems inexcusable.

And they went their way, and found the colt tied by the door without in a place where two ways met; and they loose him. (Mark 11:4, KJV)

They went and found a colt outside in the street, tied at a doorway. As they untied it, (Mark 11:4, NIV)...

Hobie · Mar 14, 2020

More "details" are dropped here.

And John calling unto him two of his disciples sent them to Jesus, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another? (Luke 7:19, KJV)

he sent them to the Lord to ask, 'Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?' (Luke 7:19, NIV)

This is the second time the NIV omits mentioning the number of John's disciples who were sent to Jesus.

After these things the LORD appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come. (Luke 10:1, KJV)

After this the Lord appointed seventy-two [fn1] others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go. Footnote: Some manuscripts seventy; also in verse 17 (Luke 10:1, NIV)

Here we have 70 versus 72. The NIV admits in a footnote that they probably should have said 70. The "some manuscripts" in their note refer to the Majority Text, and would more accurately read "the majority of manuscripts."

And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. (Luke 10:17, KJV)

The seventy-two returned with joy and said, â€œLord, even the demons submit to us in your name.â€ (Luke 10:17, NIV)

This time the footnote is omitted. You would only see it if you had just read verse 1.

And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty. (Luke 16:6, KJV)

˜Eight hundred gallons [fn1] of olive oil, he replied. 'The manager told him, ˜Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it four hundred.' Footnote: Greek one hundred batous (probably about 3 kiloliters) (Luke 16:6, NIV)

Here we see completely different numbers again. The NIV footnote admits the numbers were changed from the Greek. Why didn't they translate accurately, and put the "eight hundred gallons" explanation in the footnote instead? Apparently, numbers aren't that important to them, or else they feel above scripture, and can adjust the original however they wish.

Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, An hundred measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore. (Luke 16:7, KJV)

Then he asked the second, 'And how much do you owe?' ˜A thousand bushels [fn2] of wheat," he replied. He told him, ˜Take your bill and make it eight hundred." Footnote: Greek one hundred korous (probably about 35 kiloliters) (Luke 16:7, NIV)

Again, the NIV admits changing the numbers: This time, by a factor of 10.

Hobie · Mar 14, 2020

And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. (Luke 22:14, KJV)

When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. (Luke 22:14, NIV)

Does the number of apostles not matter?

And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs. (Luke 24:13, KJV)

Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles [fn1] from Jerusalem. Footnote: Greek sixty stadia (about 11 kilometers) (Luke 24:13, NIV)

Once again, the NIV trades positions of what should be in the footnote (the explanation) and what should be in the text (the translation). By so doing, the translators set themselves up as part authors of the Bible.

And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. (John 2:6, KJV)

Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons. [fn1] Footnote: Greek two to three metretes (probably about 75 to 115 liters) (John 2:6, NIV)

Here we see the numbers adjusted by a factor of ten again.

Philip answered him, Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little. (John 6:7, KJV)

Philip answered him, 'Eight months' wages [fn1] would not buy enough bread for each one to have a bite!Footnote: Greek two hundred denarii (John 6:7, NIV)

While I do not especially like the use of "pennyworth" in the KJV here, at least the KJV correctly translated the numbers. The NIV has completely changed the text here!

So when they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the ship: and they were afraid. (John 6:19, KJV)

When they had rowed three or three and a half miles, [fn2] they saw Jesus approaching the boat, walking on the water; and they were terrified. Footnote: Greek rowed twenty-five or thirty stadia (about 5 or 6 kilometers) (John 6:19, NIV)

By now we begin to expect such changes of numbers in the NIV.

Now Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off: (John 11:18, KJV)

Bethany was less than two miles [fn1] from Jerusalem, Footnote: Greek fifteen stadia (about 3 kilometers) (John 11:18, NIV)

Not only has the NIV changed the numbers, but also part of the sense is lost here.

And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. (John 19:39, KJV)

He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds. [fn4] Footnote: Greek a hundred litrai (about 34 kilograms) (John 19:39, NIV)

The KJV here again attaches a questionable English unit to the number, but the number itself is accurately retained--not so with the NIV.

And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. (John 20:26, KJV)

A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, â€œPeace be with you!â€ (John 20:26, NIV)

There seems no excuse for this. Eight days and one week are not equivalent. Numbers are the easiest of all words to translate--why the error?

And the other disciples came in a little ship; (for they were not far from land, but as it were two hundred cubits,) dragging the net with fishes. (John 21:8, KJV)

The other disciples followed in the boat, towing the net full of fish, for they were not far from shore, about a hundred yards. [fn2] Footnote: Greek about two hundred cubits (about 90 meters) (John 21:8, NIV)

The NIV cuts the number in half, and translates the actual Greek only in the footnote.

And when he had tarried among them more than ten days, he went down unto Caesarea; and the next day sitting on the judgment seat commanded Paul to be brought. (Acts 25:6, KJV)

After spending eight or ten days with them, he went down to Caesarea, and the next day he convened the court and ordered that Paul be brought before him. (Acts 25:6, NIV)

Since when does "more than ten days" equal "eight or ten"?

And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
(Revelation 1:13, KJV)

and among the lampstands was someone 'like a son of man,' [fn2] dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. Footnote: Daniel 7:13 (Revelation 1:13, NIV)

The number seven here is highly significant. That it is omitted in the NIV should be highly significant too.

And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great. (Revelation 16:21, KJV)

From the sky huge hailstones of about a hundred pounds each fell upon men. And they cursed God on account of the plague of hail, because the plague was so terrible. (Revelation 16:21, NIV)

Here, the KJV got it just right. It is the NIV which both changes the number and attaches a questionable English unit to it."

rlvaughn · Feb 6, 2021

Yeshua1 said:
Even their patron saint of textual criticism, Dean Burgon, would have disagreed with KJVO!

Bill Combs of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary wrote:
...Burgon denied perfection for the TR in The Revision Revised, but he only admitted this in a footnote (p. 21, fn. 2) in a work of over 500 pages. Burgon never attempts to actually correct the TR, but spends the entire book defending it against every change adopted in the Revised Version. He suggests that any revision of the TR is only somewhat of a theoretical possibility (p. xxix). And like modern-day KJV-only advocates, he seems to suggest that any revision of the KJV itself is practically impossible: “I speedily made the further discovery that the Revised English would have been in itself intolerable, even had the Greek been let alone” (p. xii). “It may be confidently assumed that no ‘Revision’ of our Authorized Version, however judiciously executed, will ever occupy the place in public esteem which is actually enjoyed by the work of the Translators of 1611,—the noblest literary work in the Anglo-Saxon language. We shall in fact never have another ‘Authorized Version'” (p. 113). So although it may be unfair to classify Burgon as a KJV-only advocate in a strict, technical sense; as a practical matter, the distance between him and its modern-day practitioners is razor thin. [Bold emphasis mine, rlv]

Yeshua1 · Feb 8, 2021

rlvaughn said:
Bill Combs of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary wrote:
...Burgon denied perfection for the TR in The Revision Revised, but he only admitted this in a footnote (p. 21, fn. 2) in a work of over 500 pages. Burgon never attempts to actually correct the TR, but spends the entire book defending it against every change adopted in the Revised Version. He suggests that any revision of the TR is only somewhat of a theoretical possibility (p. xxix). And like modern-day KJV-only advocates, he seems to suggest that any revision of the KJV itself is practically impossible: “I speedily made the further discovery that the Revised English would have been in itself intolerable, even had the Greek been let alone” (p. xii). “It may be confidently assumed that no ‘Revision’ of our Authorized Version, however judiciously executed, will ever occupy the place in public esteem which is actually enjoyed by the work of the Translators of 1611,—the noblest literary work in the Anglo-Saxon language. We shall in fact never have another ‘Authorized Version'” (p. 113). So although it may be unfair to classify Burgon as a KJV-only advocate in a strict, technical sense; as a practical matter, the distance between him and its modern-day practitioners is razor thin. [Bold emphasis mine, rlv]

And yet did he not also state that there were something like 100+ "fixes" to be done in just the Gospel of Matthew itself?

Salty · Feb 8, 2021

six hour warning
This will be closed no sooner than 4 am EST (Tue) / 1 am PST (Tue)

robycop3 · Feb 9, 2021

My personal conclusion is that Burgon used the KJV almost-exclusively for teaching, etc. as there was no-better common English version available in his time, but he would've accepted a good MV had one then been made.

rlvaughn · Feb 9, 2021

It seems to me that he did not object to revision of the KJV. However, based on what Burgon wrote, he would have not liked most of the "MVs" of today, since they are based on the critical text. He might have been okay with the NKJV. Ultimately, this is just a exercise in writing out what we feel.

robycop3 · Feb 9, 2021

rlvaughn said:
It seems to me that he did not object to revision of the KJV. However, based on what Burgon wrote, he would have not liked most of the "MVs" of today, since they are based on the critical text. He might have been okay with the NKJV. Ultimately, this is just a exercise in writing out what we feel.

Right, as Burgon has been gone for a long time now!

Alofa Atu · Feb 9, 2021

Great resources:

http://supernaturalresources.epizy.com/inspired-psalms-126-7-kjb/

OFFICIAL KING JAMES BIBLE ONLINE

AV 1611 – King James Bible (PDF, Internet Archive)

KJV Dictionary - Definitions of words from the King James Bible

Another King James Bible Believer

Michael Scheifler's BIBLE LIGHT HOMEPAGE

213 - Battle Of The Bibles - Amazing Discoveries TV

214 - Changing The Word - Amazing Discoveries TV

Categories - Amazing Discoveries TV

Textus Receptus Bibles

Oldebible

The Biblical Timeline

Alofa Atu · Feb 9, 2021

Alofa Atu · Feb 9, 2021

Alofa Atu · Feb 9, 2021

AV1611 Answers To DBS – D. A. Waite Response (PDF)

AV 1611 Answers To DBS – O’ Reilly K. Di Vietro Response Add to CD (PDF)

AV1611 – Grievous Wolf Bible Corrector Errors (PDF)

AV1611 – Grievous Wolf KJB Questions (PDF)

AV1611 – KJO James White Review – Full Text (PDF)

AV1611 – NKJV Criticisms 01 (PDF)

AV1611 – NKJV Criticisms 02 (PDF)

AV1611 – The Old Latin And Waldensian Bibles (PDF)

AV1611 – Twist And Curl Your Fiendly Neighbourhood Bible Correctors (PDF)

AV1611 – James White’s 7 Errors (PDF)

AV1611 – Salvation Vs NIV Damnation Verse Comparison (PDF)

AV1611 – Salvation Vs NIV Damnation (PDF)

AV1611 Vs Rome’s Post 1611 Attacks (PDF)

AV1611 – O Biblios Overview (PDF)

AV1611 – The Great Bible Robbery (PDF)

AV1611 – The KJB Story 1611 – 2011 Abridged Appendix (PDF)

AV1611 – The KJB Story 1611 – 2011 Abridged (PDF)

AV1611 – The KJB Story 1611 – 2011 Graphics (PDF)

AV1611 – Bible – Article – The Perfect KJB (PDF)

AV1611 – Bible Reading Charts (PDF)

AV1611 – Cry Of Sodom (PDF)

AV1611 – English Reformation To Last Days Apostasy (PDF)

AV1611 – Matthew 11 AV1611 Vs 1984 NIV (PDF)

AV1611 – O’Reilly Add John Wycliffe Friend Of Israel (PDF)

AV1611 – Pocket Testament WWI (PDF)

AV1611 – Purification Of The Lord’s Words (PDF)

AV1611 – Seven Aspects Of ‘in The Greek’ (PDF)

AV1611 – Seven Aspects Of ‘the Greek’ (No Images) (PDF)

AV1611 – The Ethiopian Eunuch’s Testimony – Why It Is Scripture (PDF)

AV1611 – The Royal Law (PDF)

Billy Graham And His Friends By Dr. Cathy Burns (PDF)

Alofa Atu · Feb 9, 2021

Are Doctrines affected by Modern Versions?

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

20,000 Posts Club

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member