Missing Doctrines?

[Dale-c]

For all of the discussion of texts, is there a doctrine that someone can find in one version that is absent in another?

 

[TCGreek]

For all of the discussion of texts, is there a doctrine that someone can find in one version that is absent in another?

Dale-c, that is why I think we are wasting our time and resources on this whole TR vs CT,

because no doctrine is absent or undermined.

 

[Ed Edwards]

For all of the discussion of texts, is there a doctrine that someone can find in one version that is absent in another?

Haven't found one so far. Been listening on this Versions Forum of the BB (Baptist Board) for four years now and don't recall one being mentioned worthy of being rementioned.

However, I have found a few doctrines that have minor glitches because of misunderstanding of what the KJVs say.

For example: the name 'Lucifer' as the name of the head devil, or the devil, or old mealy mouth -- that is a misunderstanding of one verse and one verse only.

For example: the two-faced doctrine that MVs are made for profit (but KJVs are NOT made for profit) comes from a misunderstanding of one verse of the KJVs.

'God is not the author of Confusion' is misunderstood in the KJVs by many. They think it means 'inner turmoil when that was not a 1611 meaning of 'Confusion' at all. The very verse contrasts 'confusion' and 'peace' for the two terms are self defined in the Bible as being opposites.

Etc. full posts upon request.

 

[Dale-c]

I don't think that there are any missing either.

I do think that the oonger people use the KJV and take archaic words for granted there will be misunderstanding.
This is a knock at all on the KJV but merely a statement that the more words that the KJV uses that people think they understand but don't, it will cause confusion.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

I do think that the [l]onger people use the KJV and take archaic words for granted there will be misunderstanding.
This is[n't] a knock at all on the KJV...

It is most certainly an attack on the KJV. I do appreciate you coming straight out and saying it though. Most who hold to your opinion won't say it quite as clear. Call it what you will; it is a lack of confidence in the KJV.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Is there any chance we could stay on topic in this thread folks?

Are there doctrines missing in either manuscript choice?

 

[Dale-c]

It is most certainly an attack on the KJV

Is there any chance we could stay on topic in this thread folks?

1Th 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

22abstain from every [a]form of evil.

Is this a difference of doctrine or just in language?

I think it is just a translation difference and that the NASB is easier to understand.
THe KJV is still fine I believe if you are willing to go look up how that verse should read but I do know many people who misinterpret this verse from the KJV.
They use it t make all kinds of rules based not on what the KJV actually says but by what they THINK it says based on their understanding of modern english.

So again, no attack against the KJV anymore than it I am attacking German bibles.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Clearly there is no difference in doctrine here - it is a difference in application.

What "doctrine" could possibly be seen as changed here?

Every time evil appears we abstain from it. Is that really a doctrinal issue?

 

[Pastor_Bob]

...is there a doctrine that someone can find in one version that is absent in another?

I do not know of one single author who asserts that any major doctrines are absent from any version or text. When verses and words are omitted that would strengthen or add additional support to a doctrine, then it can rightly be said that a doctrine has been diluted or weakened.

The question ought to be, "How many references does it take to establish a doctrine?"

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I do not know of one single author who asserts that any major doctrines are absent from any version or text. When verses and words are omitted that would strengthen or add additional support to a doctrine, then it can rightly be said that a doctrine has been diluted or weakened.

Or, perhaps, artificially strengthened by a scribal addition which made its way into the text.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Or, perhaps, artificially strengthened by a scribal addition which made its way into the text.

I think this is far less likely than an omission by a scribe who doesn't hold to a particular doctrine. It was being done is Paul's day (2 Cor. 2:17), and not a stretch to believe that it has happened continually since. Both by verbal corruption and by textual criticism corruption. Is that not how the enemy would work? Why can we not admit the interference of Satan in this whole process?

 

[StefanM]

I think this is far less likely than an omission by a scribe who doesn't hold to a particular doctrine. It was being done is Paul's day (2 Cor. 2:17), and not a stretch to believe that it has happened continually since. Both by verbal corruption and by textual criticism corruption. Is that not how the enemy would work? Why can we not admit the interference of Satan in this whole process?

I disagree. It is quite conceivable for a scribe to add a marginal note of explanation that is accidentally considered part of the text when read by the next copyist.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I think this is far less likely than an omission by a scribe who doesn't hold to a particular doctrine. It was being done is Paul's day (2 Cor. 2:17), and not a stretch to believe that it has happened continually since. Both by verbal corruption and by textual criticism corruption. Is that not how the enemy would work? Why can we not admit the interference of Satan in this whole process?

We can, but can we not admit that it may go both ways? I think it likely, with Stephen, that an explanatory note, written as a word of clarification, could easily make its way into the next copyist's manuscript. How can we decide which texts have been influenced by Satan?

My strong preference for the traditional textual body is well known here, but I really don't know.

And still, there are no doctrines portrayed in the TR body that are not portrayed in the CT, or vice versa.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

We can, but can we not admit that it may go both ways?

We can, except that the doctrine of preservation demands that God's words are available to us in this generation.

I think it likely, with Stephen, that an explanatory note, written as a word of clarification, could easily make its way into the next copyist's manuscript.

I will concede that this is likely.

How can we decide which texts have been influenced by Satan?

I have based my opinion on the text that has been used throughout Christendom and that has been quoted by Bible-believing preachers since the first century. To accept a here-to-fore hidden text that is largely based on two mss that suddenly appeared in the 19th century is too much of a stretch for me personally.

My strong preference for the traditional textual body is well known here, but I really don't know.

That is where faith, common sense, and considering all the facts come into play.

And still, there are no doctrines portrayed in the TR body that are not portrayed in the CT, or vice versa.

The link with apostasy that is present with the Alexandrian text is enough for me to take a hard look at the Received Text.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I have based my opinion on the text that has been used throughout Christendom and that has been quoted by Bible-believing preachers since the first century. To accept a here-to-fore hidden text that is largely based on two mss that suddenly appeared in the 19th century is too much of a stretch for me personally.

And here, my brother our paths converge .

 

[franklinmonroe]

... When verses and words are omitted that would strengthen or add additional support to a doctrine, then it can rightly be said that a doctrine has been diluted or weakened...

That is an incomplete statement; you did not indicate the standard by which you evaluate those verses and words that support doctrine. Doctrines are strengthened or weakened compared to what standard text? And by what (and whose) criteria has this text become the sole standard?

... The question ought to be, "How many references does it take to establish a doctrine?"

Two or three witnesses.

 

[Dale-c]

Every time evil appears we abstain from it. Is that really a doctrinal issue?

Exactly, no difference in doctrine.

 

[TCGreek]

God created the universe ex nihilo.

Guess what?

Some are trying to creating doctrines ex nihilo.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

'God is not the author of Confusion' is misunderstood in the KJVs by many. They think it means 'inner turmoil when that was not a 1611 meaning of 'Confusion' at all. The very verse contrasts 'confusion' and 'peace' for the two terms are self defined in the Bible as being opposites.

Your thesis is overly broad Ed (please note dates below).

From the Oxford English Dictionary (OED.com) definition of "confusion".

3. Mental perturbation or agitation such as prevents the full command of the faculties; embarrassment, perplexity, fluttered condition.
1596SHAKES. Merch. V. III. ii. 179 Maddam, you haue bereft me of all words..And there is such confusion in my powers. 1602 Ham. III. i. 2 And can you by no drift of circumstance Get from him why he puts on this confusion. 1611 HEYWOOD Gold. Age III. Wks. 1874 III. 42 What Monarch wrapt in my confusions Can tell what patience meanes? 1728 CHETWOOD Adv. Capt. R. Boyle 226 The Sight of me, I observ'd, gave the Woman some Confusion. 1768 GOLDSM. Good-n. Man III, You amaze me. How shall I conceal my confusion? 1874 L. CARR Jud. Gwynne I. ii. 62 Suffering under a revulsion of outraged modesty, and sweet confusions.

A.F.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

That is an incomplete statement; you did not indicate the standard by which you evaluate those verses and words that support doctrine. Doctrines are strengthened or weakened compared to what standard text? And by what (and whose) criteria has this text become the sole standard?

Generally we gauge changes with respect to an antecedent. The nature (quality, quantity & etc.) of change can be evaluated without reference to an absolute standard.

A.F.