My Problems With MV's

[franklinmonroe]

Look, I have NO GUILT about anything! I need not be "absolved" from anything!...

After being given three opportunities, you have not yet retracted your biased implication that "divergent and confusing readings" are a problem unique to MVs (nor acknowledged the use of the derisive term.) I believe you recognize now that your OP was based upon an untrue proposition, but refuse to publically admit it.

You have no right to demand anything from me...

I have made no such "demand"; all I did was ask you a "why" question (notice the puncuation).

I use the KJV, use whatever you want, if the KJV seems to difficult for you, use something easier for you, but don't insinuate that those of us that use it are missing out and lacking understanding...

You keep telling us you like the KJV but you haven't given us one objective reason; you have only attempted to justify it by presenting these bogus problems with the "MVs". You must be obsessing with Rippon again, since I never suggested that the KJV was too difficult for me, nor have I insinuated that those that do use the KJV lack understanding. By the way, are those three demands?

You don't use the KJV. (We get that.) It seems that YOU have nothing else productive to add to this thread...

Actually, I do use the KJV every day. That this thread was defective and non-productive from the start has been my position.

 

[Baptist4life]

As I said God promised to preseve His Word and yes it was preserved in 1610, 1510, and before the foundation of the world. However the modern versions have taken out scripture that deals with baptism after salvation. If you take that out then you can justify baptizing babies. Also the manuscripts used for many of these versions contradict each other.

Welcome "because of grace" , but let me warn you, you're about to get "ganged up" on.:thumbs:

 

[mcdirector]

As I said God promised to preseve His Word and yes it was preserved in 1610, 1510, and before the foundation of the world. However the modern versions have taken out scripture that deals with baptism after salvation. If you take that out then you can justify baptizing babies. Also the manuscripts used for many of these versions contradict each other.

Compared to the foundation of the world, the AV is pretty modern . . .

 

[Rippon]

God has promised to preserve His Word forever. If there was not the King James Bible then God's people would have been without the Word of God for hundreds of years. If that was the case then God is not true to His Word and the Bible that you claim to believe is not worth the paper that it was written on. Why do scholars feel they need to improve on the Word of God? These other versions were written by men who wanted to make the Bible fit into their doctrine instead of letting the Bible (as written)shape their doctrine.

Well welcome to the BB because of grace.( And indeed it's because of grace alone that we are in the Beloved.)

I don't want to start out criticizing a new member's views.However,I just can't let your statements stand.

If the KJV never came into existence don't you think God would have had the wherewithal to provide His people with His Word?And aren't you aware of the Geneva Bible which came out before the KJV and Bishop's Bible?The KJV wasn't the accepted version until almost half a century after its initial publication.

Bible scholars need to improve on existing versions because languages change and new finds are discovered.

You do realize that the KJV was written by mortal men,right?The New Testament committee depended largely on the efforts of William Tyndale who was killed in 1536.Around 76% of what WT did in the OT was used by the KJV team.

I'll let others tackle your other mistaken views.

 

[because of grace]

The version debate is just another proof that modern christianity is seeking to please man and not God. Only God knows which one of us is right and when we get to heaven we will find out. But dont worry I will be too busy worshipping Him to say i told you so.

 

[Jim1999]

One note from me. It is the King James Version and not Bible.....It is just a version. An Anglican version at that.

Yes, I use the KJVersion almost exclusively in the pulpit, with many corrections along the way.

Cheers,

Jim

This thread has a certain circumlocution about it, innit? Wait, innit is prolly an English word you never heard about.

 

[TCGreek]

Well, I don't have a TNIV yet. I may have to break down and get one, but I just haven't been able to work up putting down my NASB yet . . . I've been disappointed in other purchases that promised more than they delivered.

Trust me, it was tough giving up the NASB, but the TNIV proved more readable and accurate, at least to me.

I hope you can get a copy to investigate it for yourself. There are a lot of great resources out there to help you deal with some of the misgivings others have seen in the TNIV.

I've gotten passed them, and so can you.

 

[annsni]

The version debate is just another proof that modern christianity is seeking to please man and not God. Only God knows which one of us is right and when we get to heaven we will find out. But dont worry I will be too busy worshipping Him to say i told you so.

ROTFL - I guess you haven't studied your translational history, have you? There have been version debates for years even before the KJV. It's proof of nothing, honestly.

And I think that it's pretty insulting to say that those men who worked hard on translating the Word of God as faithfully as they could did it just to please man. We have one Bible translator on this board and I know that the hearts of most of these men is to provide a faithful translation to the people who will receive it. They work for the glory of God and not themselves. What you say is a slap in their face, honestly.

 

[gb93433]

The version debate is just another proof that modern christianity is seeking to please man and not God. Only God knows which one of us is right and when we get to heaven we will find out. But don't worry I will be too busy worshipping Him to say i told you so.

God in His sovereignty chose the Bible to be written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. There is no version debate about what God chose.

 

[annsni]

As I said God promised to preseve His Word and yes it was preserved in 1610, 1510, and before the foundation of the world. However the modern versions have taken out scripture that deals with baptism after salvation. If you take that out then you can justify baptizing babies. Also the manuscripts used for many of these versions contradict each other.

Hmmm - I've not seen one verse that's been removed that deals with baptism after salvation. Can you back that up?

 

[because of grace]

what abouit the versions that remove the need for salvation prior to baptism, or where Joseph is referred to as the Father of our Lord? Are they casting doubt on the Virgin birth or are they just making the Bible easier to understand?

 

[EdSutton]

Your quotation of Rippon does not seem to even be from this thread. Why don't you just converse with me, and leave Rippon out of it?

The gent do make a valid point, here! :thumbs:

Ed

 

[franklinmonroe]

Welcome to the BB, because of grace.

God has promised to preserve His Word forever...

Perhaps you are mixing your verses together here? I see that Psalm 12:6 uses the plural "words" (no singular terms here) and Psalm 119 states that God's word is "settled" (not preserved) and that takes place in "heaven" (not earth) --

Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (Psalm 12:7)

For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. (Psalm 119:89)​

 

[because of grace]

Acts 8:37 is not found in the NIV. Where the eunuch professes Christ as Savior as the pre requisite for baptism. Can an infant be saved? Of course not but they can be baptized if you have no doctrine to teach them otherwise

 

[annsni]

what abouit the versions that remove the need for salvation prior to baptism, or where Joseph is referred to as the Father of our Lord? Are they casting doubt on the Virgin birth or are they just making the Bible easier to understand?

Can you give me the references?

I can imagine that the verse that refers to Joseph as being Jesus' father, he was. Just as my father is my father. No - neither one are our fathers through blood but they are our adopted fathers.

But I'd still like to see the verses in question to be able to address them.

 

[because of grace]

I do not have the reference off the top of my head for Joseph as his "Father" but Acts 8:37 is the refernce about infant baptism. It also seems to be missing from the NLT as well as the Message Bible

 

[Jim1999]

Acts 8:37 is not in original manuscripts.

In the geneology in Matthew 1 is listed the lineage of Joseph.....then in verse 16 it reads: "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."

Cheers,

Jim

 

[annsni]

I do not have the reference off the top of my head for Joseph as his "Father" but Acts 8:37 is the refernce about infant baptism. It also seems to be missing from the NLT as well as the Message Bible

Ahh - gotcha on the Acts 8:37 verse. I have it in my ESV, NIV and NKJV. The reason that it's notated as questionable though, is because Erasmus, who was the one who translated what would become the Textus Receptus, only had one Greek manuscript with it (it was not in any of the others) but it was in the Latin Vulgate, so he included it in the text. It is in no text that is dated earlier than the 6th century. It is important to note that the Majority Text does not include this verse.

It is helpful to actually look at the "Modern Versions" to see if a verse was, in fact, removed from the book or not instead of taking someone's word for it. It is also helpful to do some study on the heritage of a verse to see why someone might notate something about a verse just as Erasmus did when he was making his own translation.

In addition, the one verse in the Bible (Acts 8:37) is not the only support of believer's baptism. In addition to that verse (which has a questionable heritage), we also find the idea of believing then being baptized in Mark 16:16, Acts 8:12-13, Acts 18:8. If "modern version" were to make the idea of infant baptism OK, don't you think they would have done something with these other verses too?

I'd highly recommend that you do some of your own study rather. You can find out so much more truth than if you listen to a few who deceive.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Acts 8:37 is not found in the NIV. Where the eunuch professes Christ as Savior as the pre requisite for baptism. Can an infant be saved? Of course not but they can be baptized if you have no doctrine to teach them otherwise

Surely you are not suggesting the eunuch was an infant are you? That verse offers no support for infant baptism.

Furthermore, the fact that something is "not found" does not mean it was taken out. It may mean that it was never there to begin with.

 

[EdSutton]

God has promised to preserve His Word forever. If there was not the King James Bible then God's people would have been without the Word of God for hundreds of years. If that was the case then God is not true to His Word and the Bible that you claim to believe is not worth the paper that it was written on. Why do scholars feel they need to improve on the Word of God? These other versions were written by men who wanted to make the Bible fit into their doctrine instead of letting the Bible (as written)shape their doctrine.

Welcome to the Baptist Board. :wavey:

And may I suggest that you make sure you are wearing your "hard-hat" at least for this subject. :tonofbricks:

:laugh: :laugh:

Ed