Spread of the "Only" Sect

I don't have time to tell you all the reasons
that there is more variation of doctrine
from misunderstanding of what the KJVs say
than variation of doctrine caused
by different readings of different
translations. I'm in bed ...

 

I dont believe that I ever said that you couldnt get saved through a MV, however, many important points of doctrine are changed in them. I would say more but its getting late and im almost out of time on here. </font>[/QUOTE]I'd like to see proof of the claim you just made that MV's change important points of doctrine. I've studied this issue for over 10 years, and they definitely DO NOT change any points of doctrine in any way. Nor do they change the fundamentals. Please, post your proof of said allegation.

 

I dont believe that I ever said that you couldnt get saved through a MV, however, many important points of doctrine are changed in them. I would say more but its getting late and im almost out of time on here. </font>[/QUOTE]Any proof?

 

Well, without posting all the details, I agree with Thumper on this...MV's DO change some doctrinal issues.

The KJV's wording (HankD had the exact differences posted in an other thread from this week) equivocates with regard to baptism so that baptismal regeneration / pouring (vs. immersion) are favored. (Understandable since the translators were former Catholics / Presbyterians).

MV's correct this, esp. in the NASB and NIV !

The KJV's wording regarding sin equivocates in James and Matthew.

As pointed out by a former seminary professor of mine:
The word PARAPTWMA in Jas 5:16 (TR) is equally translated “faults” or “transgressions”. Further, the KJV itself translates this *same* Greek word by the following:

“fault” (Ga 6:1) “faults” Jas 5:16)
“offences” (Rom 4:25; 5:16); “offence” (Rom 5:15, 17, 18, 20)
“fall” (Rom 11:11, 12; not a particularly accurate rendering)
“sins” (Eph 1:7; 2:5; Col 2:13 likewise not particularly accurate, since Eph 2:1 clearly makes a distinction between this word PARAPTWMA and “sins” (AMARTIA).

Finally (and especially for you, Askjo), the KJV itself renders this word:

“trespasses” (Mt 6:14, 15; 18:35; Mk 11:25, 26; 2Co 5:19; Eph 2:1)

Thus, the KJV expresses the Catholic belief in venial sins (James) and mortal sins (Matthew) .

MV's clear this up too!

Let's see...ah yes, HankD also posted regarding the passages regarding church gov't in the KJV favoring the episcopal form, even dropping "congregation" in the MSS for "church" in a few spots, much to the chagrin of Presybeterians and Baptists alike!

MV's seem to clear those up as well!

Hmmm, funny, it looks like the KJV is the ones that actually, err, "adapted," the MSS to fit doctrine and the MV's cleared it up!

Thanks, Thumper for pointing this out!

 

I thought NSA stood for National Security Agency.

It's often called No Such Agency a reminder of the fact that it is very secretive.

Thumper
"That is why the new versions are destroying America!"
"
In case you hadn't noticed this is one of those threads that is not about Bibles in the USA. It is about the KJVO-movement having a bad effect in places where English isn't spoken (much).

"You can get saved even through the Catholic bible(which I have looked at and I find it better in some places then the new versions."
"
There is no such thing as THE Catholic Bible (well there is the Vulgate, but you are not referring to it, because that one is in Latin) there are a large number of different Roman Catholic Biblesversions. Could you be a bit more specific?

 

How true. There is more disagreement among them than among the KJV, NASB and even the NIV.

 

He probably means Douay-Rheims? New Jerusalem?

I have done a study of the NT of the Douay-Rheims (DR) and in many places it is word-for-word the same as the King James.

In most places there is only a word or two difference. Far too much to be a coincidence.

KJVO problem, the DR NT (Rheims) was published in 1582.


HankD

 

You are correct, although it is not nearly as secretive about its existence as it used to be.

Andy

 

Thank you for the link.

I notice that the observation is made in the article that the KJV is therefore (including several other reasons) basically a Roman Catholic Bible.

Strange that in the "spread of Onlyism" the devotees of the same feel free to bad-mouth the MVs as "Alexandrian" and "Romish" but when these same historical facts are shown to be applicable also to the KJV, then somehow it becomes an attack on the Word of God.

Also many, maybe most KJVO are not aware that not a few of our Anabaptist/Dissenter/Puritan brethren from whom we have received a legacy and a great deal of our heritage suffered imprisonment, maiming and death at the hands of King James and his High Court for their opposition to the AV.

HankD

 

No question about that.

It is well known that America's pilgrims did not like or use the KJV. They DISCERNED through the Holy Spirit that the KJV was not a fit translation. Only over time did we succumb to the KJV.

 

In addition to being the reason for its popularity, the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible were also the reason for its demise. These strongly Protestant notes so infuriated King James that he considered it "seditious" and made its ownership a felony. James I was particularly worried about marginal notes such as the one in Exod 1: 19, which allowed disobedience to Kings. Consequently, King James eventually introduced the King James Version, which drew largely from the Geneva Bible (minus the marginal notes that had enraged him). During the reign of James I and into the reign of Charles I the use of the Geneva Bible steadily declined as the Authorized King James version became more widely used. In 1644 the Geneva Bible was printed for the last time.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/PuritanWorship/GenevaBible.htm

 

So I guess that makes the KJVO Baptists, Roman Catholic Anglican Baptists.

 

No, it just makes them wrong.

HankD

 

You are correct, although it is not nearly as secretive about its existence as it used to be.

Andy </font>[/QUOTE]NSA, never heard of it.

 

Hank
"He probably means Douay-Rheims? New Jerusalem?"
"
The difference between these 2 bibles is as big as the difference between the Geneva Bible and the NIV.

 

My favorite:

Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in caelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt.

HankusDium

 

It is the Anglican Version of the Bible.