-
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!
Comparison Charts
- Thread starter Kidz-4-HIM
- Start date
All you have proven is that the MVs Don't match the KJV.
Big deal!!
Did you notice the KJV 1611 background.
It doesn't match the 1769 verses that are printed.
Prove the KJV is God's only word from the KJV, and I'll shut-up.
The burden of proof is on you since you claim that one version is ONLY God's word.
The only proof you've shown so far is just smokescreens to hide your man-made myth.
Big deal!!
Did you notice the KJV 1611 background.
It doesn't match the 1769 verses that are printed.
Prove the KJV is God's only word from the KJV, and I'll shut-up.
The burden of proof is on you since you claim that one version is ONLY God's word.
The only proof you've shown so far is just smokescreens to hide your man-made myth.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Lies I found on the linked page:
I.- lie #1 & #2
1Co 16:22 - Lord Jesus Christ - Lord - Lord - Lord
1Co 16:23 Lord Jesus Christ - Lord Jesus - Lord Jesus - Lord Jesus
Omitted:
1 Co 16:24 - Christ Jesus - Christ Jesus - Christ Jesus
In fact all four translations have "Lord, Jesus, Christ"
in the three verses 1 Corinthians 16:22-24.
Is it really necessary for the Doctrine of Jesus,
the Christ and our Lord that we read
the KJV which says: "... Lord Jesus Christ ... Lord
Jesus Christ ... Christ Jesus"?
II - lie III
"John 4:42 Jn 4:42 the Christ, the Saviour - the Savior - the Savior - the Savior"
Interesting, this is quoting the Samaritan Woman.
Is it really likely that she would get the Catholic
philosophy of 500AD correct in 31AD? Sorry,
i think she though and confessed that Jesus
had saved her from the ghosts of husbands past,
not that He was the chosen one of God who
was to come to the Jews. Come on, she was
Samaritian, not Jewish.
III - final statements
Interstiing, i have time to check two entries
and i find three lies. Not a good sign of
the message at that link nor the concept
that they sponsor.
Ed, Bible believer: the NIV, the NLT, the NASB
are all real physical Bibles: full of the true
written Word of God and in a language that I
understand. And one of these days i'm likely to
get torqued when people bash my Bibles.
I.- lie #1 & #2
1Co 16:22 - Lord Jesus Christ - Lord - Lord - Lord
1Co 16:23 Lord Jesus Christ - Lord Jesus - Lord Jesus - Lord Jesus
Omitted:
1 Co 16:24 - Christ Jesus - Christ Jesus - Christ Jesus
In fact all four translations have "Lord, Jesus, Christ"
in the three verses 1 Corinthians 16:22-24.
Is it really necessary for the Doctrine of Jesus,
the Christ and our Lord that we read
the KJV which says: "... Lord Jesus Christ ... Lord
Jesus Christ ... Christ Jesus"?
II - lie III
"John 4:42 Jn 4:42 the Christ, the Saviour - the Savior - the Savior - the Savior"
Interesting, this is quoting the Samaritan Woman.
Is it really likely that she would get the Catholic
philosophy of 500AD correct in 31AD? Sorry,
i think she though and confessed that Jesus
had saved her from the ghosts of husbands past,
not that He was the chosen one of God who
was to come to the Jews. Come on, she was
Samaritian, not Jewish.
III - final statements
Interstiing, i have time to check two entries
and i find three lies. Not a good sign of
the message at that link nor the concept
that they sponsor.
Ed, Bible believer: the NIV, the NLT, the NASB
are all real physical Bibles: full of the true
written Word of God and in a language that I
understand. And one of these days i'm likely to
get torqued when people bash my Bibles.
Brother Ed:
Upon checking those versions side-by-side at biblegateway, you are, again, absolutely correct. You would think that people who would put up what, I guess, is a Christian web sight, would speak the truth.
tinytim:
Hey! Something we agree on.
"All you have proven is that the MV's don't match the KJV."
Good point. The Gospel accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) do not read the same on many points, that does not make one or more of them false.
Upon checking those versions side-by-side at biblegateway, you are, again, absolutely correct. You would think that people who would put up what, I guess, is a Christian web sight, would speak the truth.
tinytim:
Hey! Something we agree on.
"All you have proven is that the MV's don't match the KJV."
Good point. The Gospel accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) do not read the same on many points, that does not make one or more of them false.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Battling Bible Exclusive Versionists lying - NO!! I am shocked!!!!
Kidz-4-Him,
You appear to be a "hit and run" guy. You post something and never respond. Do you want to dialogue or are you afraid that your mind will be changed about "KJV onlyism"? Remember, this is a discussion board.
If "hit and run" is your tactic, then I will refrain from responding to any topic you start.
--Jeff
You appear to be a "hit and run" guy. You post something and never respond. Do you want to dialogue or are you afraid that your mind will be changed about "KJV onlyism"? Remember, this is a discussion board.
If "hit and run" is your tactic, then I will refrain from responding to any topic you start.
--Jeff
This is simply my personal opinion, but I think I know the mindset of a person who posted like this. He is KJVO, was converted to KJVOism by something as simple as a chart showing the differences in translations, not understanding the full background.
In his mind, he thought he would convert everybody to KJVO only, because to him it was clear, but he is dealing with people who are more educated on the subject matter.
This is not to be demeaning, but I find that most KJVOs are weak in their understanding of Bible history and translation. He thought we would all convert and when we didn't, he lost his only argument.
Hey, Kidz:
When are ya gonna come up with something ORIGINAL? People have been displaying similar charts since 1973, and they're as meaningless now as they were then.
There are many differences between narrations of the same events within the KJV. Care to post a chart of THEM?
When are ya gonna come up with something ORIGINAL? People have been displaying similar charts since 1973, and they're as meaningless now as they were then.
There are many differences between narrations of the same events within the KJV. Care to post a chart of THEM?
Your theory makes sense... since this describes me to the "Tee." Riplinger and a few well-placed charts got me into it... I came to this board "certain" of my KJVO position because of Mrs. Riplinger and her charts. Upon finding this board and researching some of the evidence given by some of you (and some who are no longer here), I changed my position.Originally posted by Phillip:
This is simply my personal opinion, but I think I know the mindset of a person who posted like this. He is KJVO, was converted to KJVOism by something as simple as a chart showing the differences in translations, not understanding the full background.
In his mind, he thought he would convert everybody to KJVO only, because to him it was clear, but he is dealing with people who are more educated on the subject matter.
This is not to be demeaning, but I find that most KJVOs are weak in their understanding of Bible history and translation. He thought we would all convert and when we didn't, he lost his only argument.
One thing, honestly, that made me question my own position as a KJVO when I joined here 3 years ago was, to be honest, the shallowness of the arguments given by some of my KJVO brethren. I was sitting here thinking, "I believe as they do... but our arguments just aren't working... even for me." I was able, I believe, to objectively look at both sides and determined which one presented the best evidence. I opted for supporting MV's.
JW and MVs omitted, added and changed any doctrine of Bible. They are almost the same. They are "common" bible versions.
Cline gave you his excellent point with his index finger at 2 charts where MV supporters dislike. </font>[/QUOTE]I guess you haven't read the NWT then.
Archangel7
New Member
First of all, there isn't a single major Christian doctrine affected by the modern versions in light of the teaching of Scripture *as a whole.* Not a one.
Secondly, if you want to play the "modern versions are like the JW Bible" game, it can also be played with the KJV. Consider these examples from the KJV and the NWT (the JW Bible) --
John 14:14 -- Denial of the deity of Christ by denial of prayer to Christ
KJV If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
NWT If YOU ask anything in my name, I will do it.
NASB "If you ask *Me* anything in My name, I will do it."
NIV You may ask *me* for anything in my name, and I will do it.
Romans 8:26 -- Denial of the personality of the Holy Spirit by use of impersonal pronoun with reference to the Holy Spirit
KJV ...but the Spirit *itself* maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
NWT ...but the spirit *itself* pleads for us with groanings yet unuttered.
NASB ...the Spirit *Himself* intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words;
NIV ...but the Spirit *himself* intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express.
Titus 2:13 -- Denial of the divinity of Christ by separating "God" and "Saviour"
KJV ...the glorious appearing of *the great God* and *our Saviour* Jesus Christ
NWT ...and glorious manifestation of *the great God* and of *our Savior Christ Jesus*
NASB ...the appearing of the glory of *our great God and Savior*, Christ Jesus;
NIV ...the glorious appearing of *our great God and Savior*, Jesus Christ,
2 Peter 1:1 -- Denial of the divinity of Christ by separating "God" and "Saviour"
KJV ...through the righteousness of *God* and *our Saviour* Jesus Christ
NWT ...by the righteousness of our *God* and *[the] Savior* Jesus Christ
NASB ...by the righteousness of *our God and Savior*, Jesus Christ:
NIV ...through the righteousness of *our God and Savior* Jesus Christ
And so on. You see how it goes.
