Doctrines Changed by Modern Versions

Pioneer,
Same rhetoric, different day. Isn't it possible for you, or one of your KJV cronies, to simply show ONE doctrine that is present in the KJV and not present in the MV's, let's say the NKJV?

 

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. </font>[/QUOTE]Or you could check the evidence for exclusion or inclusion of these verses and also look honestly at why these other verses read as they do rather than jumping to the unsupported conclusion that any variation from the KJV is a change in God's Word (I don't think so but perhaps the NIV is correct in all these places)...

or don't use the NIV, I don't. But in all this hype, you have yet to cite one doctrine that is changed even by the NIV. This is interesting Pioneer. You keep making this statement but won't substantiate it.

 

I recently purchased a Contemporary English
Version (CEV) from the American Bible Society.
I'm sure we can agree it is a modern version
having been first released in 1995.

I recently purchased a King James Version,
undated, but determined to be KJV1769.
I'm sure we can agree that it is a KJV?

Both were delivered by the same package
delivery system, namely Federal Express.
The SAME DELIVERY SYSTEM
The MV and the KJB were delivered in
the same delivery system!

 

If you want but you don't have to.

Just believe in what the verse teaches: The the Word in Flesh was God himself, the only God.

Just read the context that makes it clear that "he who was manifest in flesh" is the living God.

No, not in the sense that you are using it here. There is no need to believe that since the MVs nor the KJV teach any such thing.

The MVs don't teach this. You have been around here long enough to see this discussed and refuted.

You don't have to accept that at all. Knowing the meaning of "sheol" would be helpful though.

Or consider the very real possibility that those verses were added in over the years for various unintentional reasons. It is no better to add to the Word than it is to take away from it.

You have not shown one doctrine that has been changed. None of these "objections" (regardless of validity) shows a doctrinal change. The doctrine of hell is clear in the NIV. The doctrine of hte deity of Christ is clear in the NIV.

 

the unsaved and unchurched are not interested in hearing about the gospel message from a Bible they can't read or understand because it is so incredibly antiquated in terms of language and style. perhaps if the energies placed into making this forum a back and forth tit for tat were placed into telling others the good news, all of you would be too busy obeying the Scriptures to argue about history.

you may now resume the hostilities.

"Serve the LORD alone." (Joshua 24:14)

 

Boy, using your logic, your are in trouble using the KJV! It must be heretical!

"And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing." Luke 2:48, KJV

Be careful of the accusations you fling at others, they may come back to haunt you!

Neal

 

Maybe you should have read it a little more carefuly;that particular portion of scripture is LUKE narrating what His(Jesus') Mother said,if you will notice the next verse,Jesus corrects them saying"How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not I must be about my Father's business?(notice the capitol "F" in Father). however,in the "better,more accurate,easier to read bibles"Luke is saying that Joseph is Jesus' father(Luke 2:33)!!!!

Yep.... no doctrines changed here

 

At least we agree ... This is the truest thing you have said in this thread so far.

 

At least we agree ... This is the truest thing you have said in this thread so far. </font>[/QUOTE]Uh,I was being sarcastic

 

JYD said:

Maybe you should have read it a little more carefuly;that particular portion of scripture is LUKE narrating what His(Jesus') Mother said,

That's right, folks, Mary forgot who the father was.

Go on, pull the other one, it's got bells on.

 

At least we agree ... This is the truest thing you have said in this thread so far. </font>[/QUOTE]Uh,I was being sarcastic </font>[/QUOTE]None the less, still one of the few true things you have posted in this forum.

 

At least we agree ... This is the truest thing you have said in this thread so far. </font>[/QUOTE]Uh,I was being sarcastic </font>[/QUOTE]Uh ... me too ... At least we finally agree on something ...

However, though you did not intend it, this was still the truest thing you have said on this thread. Now, if you only meant it.

 

I guess Mary forgot how Jesus was born to her. Good try, JYD. Maybe you should read a little closer yourself. Go read the angel's announcement to both Joseph and Mary and then try to reconcile why Mary in this passage refers to Joseph as Jesus' father.

Also, do you consider Mary a heritic? Just wondering, since you call MVs heretical for calling Joseph Jesus' father. By your definition, the mother of our Lord is a heretic.

Neal

 

Maybe you should take your own advice,Jesus QUICKLY corrected her in the next verse..

 

Even if we grant the KJV-onlyists Luke 2:48 (which I am not, I take their claim that Jesus "corrects" Mary as post-hockery and insulting of the intelligence of the mother of the Lord), they still have to deal with:

So if Mary is one parent (singular), who is the other according to the KJV?

 

So do you think Mary and Joseph forgot all the circumstances of Jesus' birth and what was told to them about it?

Neal

 

Bump.

Wonder why the KJV-onlyists haven't answered my last post on this thread?

 

It still says nothing about him(Joseph) being His earthly Father,or father.I have know many adopted people that have "parents",we all have to have parents,blood related or not.

 

It still says nothing about him(Joseph) being His earthly Father,or father.I have know many adopted people that have "parents",we all have to have parents,blood related or not.

OK, so you admit that Jesus had human parents, plural.

We agree that one parent was his mother, Mary.

Who and what was the other? Please answer in the form, "It was his _________, _______," where the first blank represents the relationship to Jesus and the second is the name of the parent.

 

The "who" is GOD!!! period.He had no "biological father.You see, the poly-versions discount My Savior by attacking His deity.if you cannot see this CLEAR attack on His deity,then I dont know what to tell you..