Doctrines Changed by Modern Versions

[Pioneer]

For those of you who claim that there are no doctrinal changes in the modern versions, please refer to the following links:

http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/doctrine.htm
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nivdelet.htm
http://www.av1611.org/biblevs.html
http://www.av1611.org/biblecom.html
http://watch.pair.com/scriptures.html
http://www.av1611.org/niv.html

Job 19:23,24 - "Oh that my words were now written! oh that they were printed in a book! That they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever!"

[ February 09, 2003, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: Pioneer ]

 

[rsr]

(1) When you are reading your Bible do you look at the footnotes after every verse? Do you say "I am reading verse 3 so let me look below and see if something in verse 3 is missing."? Even if you did do that (which you don't) the footnotes say that the "best manuscripts" don't have the verse--will you then agree with them that the verse doesn't belong? If not, then why are you reading an NIV? (2) Not all the word deletions are found in the footnotes of the NIV so don't think for a second that they are letting you know all the changes they made. (3) The next logical step will be for the NIV to omit the footnotes and just reorder everthing. In the example above verse 38 would become verse 37 so it wouldn't look funny. Look at the J.B. Phillips translation--that heretick didn't number the individual verses so you don't know what you're missing. It's paragraph style. The NIV may go that way too. They are desensitizing you to the changing of the very words of God. In summary, they'll either renumber or go to that paragraph format.

Shame that the writers didn't indicate paragraphs or verses. Could they be fallible? It is to laugh.

Hmm. My KJV doesn't have footnotes; I wish it did. Nobody has better notes than the NET. But that's an apostate version, right?

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Same KJV only [junk]. I do wish they would come up with something new to post.

[Edited to eliminate offensive word.]

[ February 09, 2003, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Terry Herrington:
Same KJV only [junk]. I do wish they would come up with something new to post.

Amen, Brother Terry -- Preach it!

I was hoping someone would document some
actual doctrine that any MV teaches
that is different from what the KJV teaches.
My bad

In fact, there are more doctrional differences
by the way the King James Versions (KJVs) are
read, than between KJVs and MVs.

[ February 09, 2003, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]

 

[Ed Edwards]

Salvation is IMHO the most important
doctrine in God's Holy Bible. Here is
how various translations present
the Doctrine of Salvation.

Romanes X:9 (KJV1611):
That if thou shalt confesse with thy mouth
the Lord Iesus, and shalt beleeue
in thine heart, that God hath raised him
fromthe dead, thou shalt be saued.

Romans 10:9 (KJV1769, KJV1873):
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth
the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe
in thine heart that God hath raised him
from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Romans 10:9 (nKJV):
that if you confess with your mouth
the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart
that God has raised Him from the dead,
you will be saved.

Romans 10:9 (NAS):
that if you confess with your mouth
Jesus {as} Lord, and believe in your heart
that God raised Him from the dead,
you will be saved;

Romans 10:9 (NLT):
For if you confess with your mouth
that Jesus is Lord and believe
in your heart that God raised him
from the dead, you will be saved.

Romans 10:9 (TMB):
that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth
the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart
that God hath raised Him from the dead,
thou shalt be saved.

Romans 10:9 (RSV):
because, if you confess with your lips
that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart
that God raised him from the dead,
you will be saved.

In April 1952 I first confessed with
my lips that Jesus is my Lord while
believing in my heart that God had
indeed raised Jesus from the dead.
Jesus became not only my Lord but also
my Savior. Yet today, in Feb 2003, i
confess with my typing that Jesus
is still my Lord, God still raised Jesus
from the dead, Jesus is still my Savior!

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Originally posted by Terry Herrington:
Same KJV only [junk]. I do wish they would come up with something new to post.

[Edited to eliminate offensive word.]

Pastor Bob,
I was not trying to use an offensive word. I have seen worse put forth by the KJV only crowd, and it was not edited.

 

[Pioneer]

Originally posted by Terry Herrington:
Same KJV only [junk]. I do wish they would come up with something new to post.

You throw out the insults because you can't give a knowledgeable reply. Quit messing around and admit the truth. Modern versions change basic Bible doctrines and it has been proven over and over again. I shouldn't have to give you page after page of word omissions, verse omissions, and word changes when someone else has done the leg work for me. That's why I supplied the links instead. But instead of a knowledgeable reply, you spew out the insults.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

The truth is that the fundamental truths of the gospel are more evident in the newer versions, like the NKJV or the NIV. Why will you not admit the evident truth. The modern versions of the bible are superior for reaching the world today than the KJV.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Pastor Bob,
I was not insinuating that your personal belief had anything to do with your editing my post. I do not believe that you would do this. The time I was referring to, I was edited by someone else.

In spite of your personal bias, you have always acted fairly as moderator. I have never accused you of anything. Please do not assume that I was attacking you, I wasn't.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Thank you for clarifying Terry. I deleted my post to reflect that all is well. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Pastor Bob,
Believe it or not, I have tried to refrain from the accusitory name calling. Sometimes, certain people get under my skin.

The shame of it is, I always had respect for the KJV until I came to this board. When I see where KJV onlyism can lead, it scares me. I do not want to go there and end up bitter like some people are.

 

[go2church]

Pioneer,
Your wed site links are from biased at best sources and prove nothing! How many times does a doctrine have to be mentioned in scripture to be doctrine? That is what you are arguing for, that the blood even though it is mentioned by the modern versions, it is not mentioned enough. That is silly and very unproductive to Christianity as a whole. What if a loved one became saved while reading a "Modern Version" or while someone shared the plan of salvation from a "Modern Version"......what then? Move one, when the horse is dead get off!

 

[Pastor Larry]

Pioneer,

Where are the doctrines eliminated? Having looked at these websites before they all grossly fail in their attempt to slander God's word in modern translations. Why don't you post one or two of your "best shots" here and let us discuss it? All it takes is one doctrine to prove your point so throw it out and let's talk about it.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Originally posted by Terry Herrington:
Pastor Bob,
Believe it or not, I have tried to refrain from the accusitory name calling. Sometimes, certain people get under my skin.

The shame of it is, I always had respect for the KJV until I came to this board. When I see where KJV onlyism can lead, it scares me. I do not want to go there and end up bitter like some people are.

Terry, I really do understand what you are saying. Please try and separate the KJV from some of its more aggressive defenders. In their defense, some have more zeal than knowledge. They have been taught to stand for and defend what they believe is right; for some they haven't learned to speak the "truth" in love yet.

Please be patient and understand that you and I are only responsible for our attitudes and our spirit in posting.

 

[Pioneer]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Where are the doctrines eliminated? Having looked at these websites before they all grossly fail in their attempt to slander God's word in modern translations. Why don't you post one or two of your "best shots" here and let us discuss it? All it takes is one doctrine to prove your point so throw it out and let's talk about it.

Using the term "God's word" in reference to modern translations is similar to a Presbyterian using the term "baptism" in reference to his sprinkling. The terms are misused and misapplied in both cases.

As I have said before, you have developed such a loyalty towards modern versions that you can't see that the changes in wording also changes their doctrinal teachings. Therefore you justify your loyalty by spreading the lie that there are no doctrinal changes in modern versions.

I have given you the evidence of doctrinal changes in modern versions through those web links and you choose to reject the evidence. Thus the burden is upon you to either disprove or discredit what has been posted on each of those web pages (point by point if you please).

[ February 09, 2003, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: Pioneer ]

 

[kman]

Originally posted by Pioneer:
I have given you the evidence of doctrinal changes in modern versions through those web links and you choose to reject the evidence. Thus the burden is upon you to either disprove or discredit what has been posted on each of those web pages (point by point if you please).

Hi Pioneer:

I doubt anybody on this board has time to sift through all those links you put up there and provide a point by point refutation.

Why don't you chose 2 or 3 of the most important/glaring doctrinal changes from those links and post them..and we can discuss them.

-kman

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Pioneer:
Using the term "God's word" in reference to modern translations is similar to a Presbyterian using the term "baptism" in reference to his sprinkling. The terms are misused and misapplied in both cases.

No it's not. God's word applies to revelation from God. For 3500 years it has been applied to things other than the KJV and there is no reason why it should not be now. Your failure to learn of history has led you to make such a statement. Faithful copies and translations of Scripture have always been called God's word and there is no reason to suggest differently now.

As I have said before, you have developed such a loyalty towards modern versions that you can't see that the changes in wording also changes their doctrinal teachings. Therefore you justify your loyalty by spreading the lie that there are no doctrinal changes in modern versions.

As I said before, this is simply untrue and it contradicts your claim to be tolerant of those who disagree with you. If you cannot be true to the word you write, why should we believe you here? I have no loyalty to the MVs. I don't really care. My loyalty is to the word of God and all I am asking is for you to show us a place where God said that the KJV is the only word of God. You have failed to do that, leading us to the conclusion that God did not say it but rather that you have followed the teachings of men.

I have given you the evidence of doctrinal changes in modern versions through those web links and you choose to reject the evidence. Thus the burden is upon you to either disprove or discredit what has been posted on each of those web pages (point by point if you please).

Every piece of evidence you have put forth so far has been soundly refuted. I, or someone else, has disproved and discredited everything you have put forth. The best you have done is show certain verses with different readings. You have not shown one doctrine to be absent or changed. Isn't your failure glaring even to you in this regard?

 

[Pioneer]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Isn't your failure glaring even to you in this regard?

Isn't your blindness to the truth glaring even to you in this regard?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Pioneer:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Isn't your failure glaring even to you in this regard?

Isn't your blindness to the truth glaring even to you in this regard? </font>[/QUOTE]Pioneer, Why are you so evasive? You have not provided an ounce of proof from scripture nor history that what you believe is true. Pastor Larry is not blind because he cannot see a figment of your imagination.

 

[Pioneer]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Pioneer, Why are you so evasive? You have not provided an ounce of proof from scripture nor history that what you believe is true. Pastor Larry is not blind because he cannot see a figment of your imagination.

Let's just say you are right. What am I supposed to do now?

Learn how to say John 3:16 a different way
Believe in the "only begotten God" instead of the "only begotten son?"
Change "God was manifest in the flesh" to "he was manifest in the flesh" and assume the verse is talking about God?
Start believing that Joseph was the earthly father of Jesus?
Start believing that the Devil is the "morning star" instead of Jesus?
Accept that the word "hell" doesn't belong in the Old Testament?
Completely remove Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:28, Romans 16:24, and 1 John 5:7 from my Bible?

Guess what? If I truly believed the NIV was the word of God I would have to do all those things and more. Changes in wording does produce changes in doctrine.