Changes in the Doctrine of Redemption

[Dr. Bob]

Some have suggested that modern English translation CHANGE the Doctrines in the Bible.

Topic #1 - Redemption. Please give concrete examples of how exactly a modern version (your choice, but please opt for a major one like NIV, NASB, NKJV, ESC, HSCB, et al, not cult versions or paraphrases) has CHANGED the DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION.

Thank you.

 

[James_Newman]

Maybe you could first tell us what the original word of God really says about redemption, so we would have a good yardstick to measure change with.

 

[Phillip]

Now we are getting somewhere, Dr. Bob, good idea to pick the major subject. I anxiously await scriptures.

 

[Dr. Bob]

I don't know what verses some will choose to condemn/question the modern versions. I, too, await.

Just more than tired at accusations without substance. So seeking substance so we can have a god discussion.

 

[Phillip]

I'm going to bring this back up to the top. I really would like to see some scripture. We are still waiting!

 

[AVL1984]

I, too, am waiting to see some scriptures and explanations.

 

[Phillip]

AVL1984, for some reason, I think we may have a long wait before us.

I am serious, I would really like to see a study on this. If the KJVO crowd has a credible argument, this goes right to the root of it and requires an answer.

 

[Bro Tony]

Dr Bob,

It will never happen. You cannot post something that does not exist. It is much easier for the KJVOist to stand back and throw bombs without any consideration of the damage they're doing. Your OP is the death nail for the KJVOist, but fear not they will continue to spew because who needs truth, when you understand

Bro Tony

 

[TC]

I asked a very similar question a while ago, and if I remember correctly, not a single KJVO gave an answer.

 

[Johnv]

TC, you're not alone. I also asked a similar question several months back, with not a single response from the KJVO crowd.

Then again, consider the fact, and I do mean fact, that I have to this day not been given a single bible verse that supports KJVOism, despite my more than thirty requests on this board for scriptural support.

 

[Phillip]

I'm going to move this back up. Still waiting. . .

I know this is Sunday night, but this has been up two days. How about an answer.

Come one KJVOs...give us your best. Surely you have an answer!?

By the way, to head off this answer before it is used. Dr. Bob would like to see specific answers, not a statement that MV's water it down such as changing "Jesus" to "He" or some other nonsense that is obvious to the reader.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

A verbal conversation can accurately reflect God's plan of salvation, as does most Gospel tracts. Surely you would not equate either of these with Scripture.

Just because a MV does not do away with God's plan of redemption does not make it reliable. Even the Living Bible explains redemption.

 

[GeneMBridges]

That's not quite the point, Terry. Dr. Bob's point is that many KJVO's object to MV's because they say that MV's actually change doctrines.

If you believe a translation is not reliable, then how can you be sure that the doctrines in it, like redemption, are actually reliable?

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Originally posted by GeneMBridges:
If you believe a translation is not reliable, then how can you be sure that the doctrines in it, like redemption, are actually reliable?

This is a good point. Since I believe that the KJV is reliable, I trust it concerning all doctrines. Since I am not sure about all doctrines in the MVs I will not use them.

Your very point reinforces my belief that we should stay with the KJV.

 

[Phillip]

Gene, this is very true.

Also, Terry, remember, this is but one doctrine. Nobody has yet to prove a doctrinal change in a mainstream MV. So, Dr. Bob is starting with the most important and will no doubt continue down the line, IF he can get actual answers on this.

So, as you would be required in court, a "yes" or "no" question, you might have to say "yes". Now, if you do that with all doctrines, then obviously the MV is not a problem.

Even without the ending of Mark (which is even included in the NIV, with an honest footnote) the verses do not add, nor subtract from what we believe, because it was obvious that miracles were wide-spread among the apostles during and shortly after the life of Jesus, as a man, on Earth.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Song 2:15
15 Take us the foxes, the little foxes, that spoil the vines: for our vines have tender grapes.
(KJV)

There is more to the Bible than major doctrines. It is often the small changes that can create the problems. I will stay with the KJV!

 

[Phillip]

Song 2:15
15 "Catch the foxes for us, The little foxes that are ruining the vineyards, While our vineyards are in blossom." (NASB)

The interlinear Hebrew says: "blossom", not "grape". There are very few variances in the Old Testament because of the way it was kept by the Jews. I would be willing to think that all Hebrew texts are the same. You are right, the little changes may make a difference.

In this case, you would say the Hebrew is wrong?

 

[Terry_Herrington]

I believe that the KJV, as always, is correct.

 

[pastorjeff]

Originally posted by Terry_Herrington:
Song 2:15
15 Take us the foxes, the little foxes, that spoil the vines: for our vines have tender grapes.
(KJV)

There is more to the Bible than major doctrines. It is often the small changes that can create the problems. I will stay with the KJV!

What major problem was created here? I don't think My doctrinal statement is in jepordy because one version has blossem and the other has grapes. what's the point.

 

[Dogsbody]

Ok, I’ll stick my neck out here. I only have my KJ in front of me. Do any of the modern versions leave out “through his blood” in Ephesians 1:7(or any other passage) as this verse speaks on redemption. Now I’d like to make a few personal points if I may. I am KJO based on my own personal historical study and comparison, but I wouldn’t dare call it a doctrine. A doctrine must begin with scripture. And, I wouldn’t say the omission of “through his blood” changes the doctrine of redemption in all MVs, but staying right in this verse, does anyone think the omission may affect someone’s interpretation of redemption? I’m speaking of someone who would “wrest…the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” (I do realize they can do this with the KJ also). Please take this as a question. Enquiring minds want to know.

BTW- I’m on break at work so may not be able to reply back.
Take care all.