Doctrines Changed in Modern Versions

[kman]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Let's study Scripture in context and these lists become very very short.

I couldn't agree more. Even on this thread we've
had someone attempt to state the MV's deny the virgin birth by calling Joseph "father" when
the KJV does the same thing (refers to Joseph as Jesus's father) not too many verses later.

Let's all get that Berean spirit and search the scriptures to see if these things are so!

-kman

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Originally posted by Brother Tony:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
Though admittedly out of my league in these discussions, and also being a user of the NIV, the lack of an answer to the Ethiopian's question in Acts 8:36 seems to leave a void.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Acts 8

36As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?"(NIV)

Acts 8
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.(KJV)

The ESV adds this response (verse 37) in the footnotes, the NIV, copyright 1995, does not. It appears from the Gospelcom website that the footnote has been added since then.</font>[/QUOTE]I just checked my NIV cross reference, and it is in the footnotes. So, what is the problem?

B.T.</font>[/QUOTE]As I stated before, Brother Tony, I have the NIV Study Bible right here in front of me, General Editor - Kenneth Barker, copyright1995 by Zondervan Publishing House. Page 1662 has this footnote for 8:37:

See NIV textnote on v. 36

Verse 8:36 has this footnote:

they came to some water. There were several possibilities: a brook in the Valley of Elah (which David crossed to meet Goliath, 1 Sa 17:40); the Wadi el-Hasi just north of the Gaza; water from a spring or one of the many pools in the area.

I personally don't have a problem with it but I cite this in answer to the original query.

 

[AVL1984]

Originally posted by Alex Mullins:
Kman:

I am KJV only because it works for me. I am not aware of any doctrines that have been totally eliminated in the MV's. The great counterfeiter/ deceiver Satan found it more effective to simply make hundreds of subtle changes which would dilute and weaken the effectiveness of the fundamental doctrines of our faith.

It is working too. More and more we are seeing evangelical, fundamental churches lining up with churches that, at one time, they would not affiliate with. Apostacy in our churches is running rampant as Muslims and Buddhists are now permitted to speak at many evangelical fundamental churches, the ecumenical movement is creeping in. Doctrine doesn't matter to many any more, the only important thing is that we love Jesus (ie: Promise Keepers)

Membersip is not as important as it once was. Water baptism is now practiced only by the very dedicated who are interested in obedience. The Lord's Supper has become a very mundanerouting practice with little or no meaning to those who partake.

To go along with our modern easier-to-read, waterd-down modern versions we are singing modern choruses which never mention the name of Jesus, the cross, the blood or salvation. They could be sung to whatever God you happen to be worshipping that day in whatever church you find yourself in. No one must be offended.

As the world moves closer to a one-world government and a one-world church we will soon have a Bible which will be useable in any church and it will not offend anyone by naming the one true God, the God of the tried, tested, proven and prevailing KJV.

Everett C Fowler in his 1981 book, Evaluating Versions of the New Testament notes 40 phrase eliminations, word changes, deletions in strategic places which weaken, dilute and make less effective the very doctrines that our Baptist faith has been built upon over the centuries. These are not differences which downgrade our Lord and Saviour. Those number in the thousands.

One half of the changes mention in Fowler's book, relate directly to the attributes, work or Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. One fourth of them relate to the basis and nature of our salvation.

Mark 10: 24, for an example, omits "for them that trust in riches". This eliminates the vital element of what it is the hinders a rich man from entering the kingdom of God.

John 3: 13 eliminates "Which art in heaven" which provides express testimony to His Deity.

Luke 11: 2-4 - Almost 50% of The Lord's Prayer has been eliniated. This is a direct atteck on the Deity of God.

Get the book and review it. There are hundreds of changes, deletions, some of them very subtle that, alone, have little bearing on the whole book, but when looked at in total change the whole picture and grand scheme. That is the way satan works.

If it were not for the MV's there would be no need to waste all this time trying to defend the pure preserved KJV but, for some, that is our mission. We have had it since God inspired holy ment to put it to payrus and we will have until He comes to take us home. Prior the KJV 1611, discerning men were fighting to preserve the Word also. It has been a struggle since the Garden of Eden. To those who "get it" it is an important issue.

I know thousands of men, some brilliant scholars, some completely uneducated, who acknowledge this truth, that the KJV is God's Word, pure and perfect for us today in our language.

I know none who would make the same claim for any of the MV's.

God Bless as you seek the truth on this issue. It isn't that hard to spot if you are looking through the right eyes.

I must get back to soul-winning. Thanks for the diversion though it was a fun time.

AV Alex

Again, a typical attitude of a KJV person. The "subtle" inuendo suggesting that we who don't use the KJV are using "corrupted" goods "watered down" by the "Great Deceiver"??? Give me a break!!!
Also, you imply that these groups who espouse many of the Promise Keepers, interfaith and other things as such are those who use these "watered down" versions. I think you need to get the facts straight! I've had just as many KJV friends go to these kinds of things, STRONG IFB people. If it is "PURE", then why did the translators say that it wasn't "PERFECT"? Do you even realize that you are contradicting not only yourself, but the translators of the KJV? I believe the only one deceived is the one who refuses to open his/her eyes to the fact that it's about Jesus Christ, not King James. And why shouldn't we stand for our Bibles just as you stand for the "perfect"(?) King James? Is it a waste of time. I think not...only to those who don't want to be confused with facts and those who don't want to think for themselves, but rather be led by a bunch of KJVOers.

B.T.

 

[AVL1984]

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
I personally don't have a problem with it but I cite this in answer to the original query.

Oh, okay...I don't have the "Study Bible" just the regular "cross reference"...so you probably have more info than I do on it...Sorry for the misunderstanding, Brother.

[ August 28, 2002, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: DocCas ]

 

[DocCas]

Again, posters, please don't over use the "quote" function. After hitting "quote" delete any part of the messege you are not actually replying to. Thanks again.

 

[GrannyGumbo]

Well..I think that first link must be the "mother of all KJO scripture lists"[kman]

"Well... I think that the KJB is the "father of all scripture!" [sorry, I just couldn't resist!]

 

[AVL1984]

Originally posted by GrannyGumbo:
Well..I think that first link must be the "mother of all KJO scripture lists"[kman]

"Well... I think that the KJB is the "father of all scripture!" [sorry, I just couldn't resist!]

Granny, your quote "I think that the KJV is the "father of ALL scripture". Therein lies the error and heart of the KJV movement. It's idolitry to worship a version of the Bible. It is even worse since it would imply that those who were alive before 1611 didn't have God's Word. How sad for them. How sad for you.

B.T.

 

[GrannyGumbo]

B.T.~I do so appreciate your concern for me, but I assure you, I do not worship the KJBible & I most assuredly believe there was a Bible before the KingJames. Please don't worry about me...I'm gonna be awright, as I have been all these many years!

 

[Naomi]

Originally posted by GrannyGumbo:
Please don't worry about me...I'm gonna be awright, as I have been all these many years!

I am very concerned about you Granny! I mean....What if your wearing your camoflauge skirt, while your hanging laundry and the deer hunters can't see you???
Yes! I am very concerned here!!!

From a concerned sister..

 

[AVL1984]

Originally posted by GrannyGumbo:
B.T.~I do so appreciate your concern for me, but I assure you, I do not worship the KJBible & I most assuredly believe there was a Bible before the KingJames. Please don't worry about me...I'm gonna be awright, as I have been all these many years!

Granny, though we disagree on some things, you've started to "grow on me"...I think I actually like you!

B.T.

 

[GrannyGumbo]

Why thanky, kind Brother Tony; I love you as I do everyone here on BB...

You all have truly been a blessing to my otherwise unexciting(according to some) life!

And to my 'concerned sister' above(Naomi),

I sent you a private message in response to your post, so I wouldn't be accused of 'hijacking' the thread!(which I just did!)hahaha

[ August 30, 2002, 08:03 AM: Message edited by: GrannyGumbo ]

 

[Ransom]

Four pages in, and there's still no example of a doctrine present in the KJV that isn't in something else.

Looks like, once again, the KJV-onlyists are tilting at windmills.