• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Are Doctrines affected by Modern Versions?

Hobie

Senior
Joined
Aug 5, 2023
Messages
699
Reaction score
122
Points
43
...or is it just a change of language from old to new? Well, lets look under the surface as since the beginning, from even the early church, there have been those who have inserted changes to fit their own doctrinal bias. Because they are predisposed to mans 'ideas' and 'interpretation', rather than the truth, their can be changes by unscrupulous men or those who do not fear God. This was the reason the Jews would not change the text, but do a word for word translation or manuscript, and this is not the case at the least for most of these 'modern' versions.

Lets compare one verse, 1 John 4:3:

NIV - but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

RSV - and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.

ASV and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.

KJV - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

We see here in 1 John 4:3 that the NIV takes out the whole point in the text, "NIV leaves out the fact that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh--yet another swipe at the divinity of Christ." https://mundall.com/erik/NIV-KJV.htm
 
Now take a closer look, you can see some important doctrinal truths that are attacked by these 'modern' versions. We see here where they even refutes the idea that the Bible is the preserved, inspired, Word of God. Note:

Psalms 12:6-7 (KJV) The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Psalms 12:6-7 (NIV) And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. 7 O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever.

Can you see how the meaning is completely blurred by this supposed improved "Bible".

Now lets look at how just changing "God" to "He" they remove the fact that Jesus is God.

1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

1 Timothy 3:16 (NIV) Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

1 Timothy 3:16 (NASB) By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh,
Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.

Now look how by changing "Christ" to "God" they deny that Jesus is God.

Romans 14:10 (KJV) But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. Romans 14:12 (KJV) So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

Romans 14:10 (NIV) You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. Romans 14:12 (NIV) So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

Romans 14:10 (NASB) But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. Romans 14:12 (NASB) So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.

Now what happened here...

John 9:35 (KJV) Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?

John 9:35 (NIV) Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"

John 9:35 (NASB) Jesus heard that they had put him out, and finding him, He said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?”

Its a shading of the truth of His divinity, what Jesus directly lays claim to.
 
The Alexandrian codices are the cause of all the confusion, and they make up the corrupted stream of text that is coming into our modern versions. If you look you will find there are only 2 streams of Bible versions, the true text of the Textus Receptus (Majority Text) on which the Authorized version and other tried and true text is based, and those which picked up the Alexandrian manuscripts (Minority Text) which have been shown to have deleted and changed many parts of the text and are unreliable. The Textus Receptus or Majority Text in which we find the vast majority of copies, has been attacked with changes, amendments, deletions, and what can only be seen attempts to diminish Gods truth. Many of the new modern versions such as the NIV and others are based on a few corrupted manuscripts which form the basis of the Minority Text, many which can be traced back to their original source, the Alexandrian codices. From what I have come across it seems that the Majority Text (Textus Receptus), also called the Byzantine Text is based on the vast majority of manuscripts still in existence. The manuscripts were brought together by many were faithful to its text such as Lucian, Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and the Elzevir brothers to form the text known as Textus Receptus. When the Protestant Reformers decided to translate the scriptures directly from Greek into the languages of Europe, they selected Textus Receptus as their foundation Greek document and for good reason. So many of the new versions are based on the corrupted manuscripts and deletions which form the basis of the Minority Text, that its easy to pick one up and not notice. So how are Bible doctrines affected by these modern versions based on the Minority Text, lets take a look at what these changes do in this study I came across which states with Matthew:

Matthew 1:25 "her firstborn" is omitted. That Jesus was her firstborn indicates that Mary and Joseph had relations after the birth of Jesus and that others were born of her. The omission here seeks to add credence to the false doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Bible is clear that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

Matthew 5:22 "without a cause" is removed. In the Sermon on the Mount the Lord warned of judgment for those who were angry with a brother without a cause. Should this change be accepted everyone who is angry with his brother may be judged. (The effect is to bring Jesus into judgment for failing to observe his own words in Mark 3:5 "5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other." Such is contrary to the doctrine of the sinlessness of Christ.)

Matthew 6:4, 6, 18 "openly" is out. It is a Bible Doctrine that Christian work done unnoticed for the glory of the Lord will one day be rewarded openly (Col. 3:4).

Matthew 6:13 "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever, Amen" is deleted. This ascription of praise to "Our Father" is found in 491 out of 500 existing manuscripts.

Matthew 8:29 "Jesus" is left out. The demons bore witness to the fact that Jesus was the Son of God. It was an identification of Jesus (in humanity) as the Son of God (in Deity). It affects the doctrine of the Person of Christ.

Matthew 9:8 "marvelled" is changed to "were afraid." There is no reason to believe that the people were afraid because Jesus healed the sick of the palsy. There is every reason for them to marvel at the miracle.

Matthew 9:13 "to repentance" is left out. The Bible doctrine of repentance is one that men would like to do away with. God requires that in order to be saved one must truly repent (Acts 17:30; 2 Peter 3:9). The word means "a change of mind" and there must be that concerning God, sin and salvation. Men think that sin does not really separate them from God--they must change their mind about that. Men think that salvation is by works--they must change their mind about that. There is nothing more evident today than the absence of repentance among those who are professing to be converted.

Matthew 15:8 "draweth nigh unto me with their mouth" is left out. According to Isaiah 29:13 it belongs in because Isaiah prophesied of these hypocrites exactly that way.

Matthew 16:2,3 "When it is evening ... the signs of the times" is all omitted. The Pharisees and Sadducees came looking for a sign and the signs were all around them. Jesus called them hypocrites because they could not tell the signs of the times.

Matthew 17:21 Whole verse is left out. Power with God is to be had by prayer and fasting. That is a fundamental truth of the Word of God.

Matthew 18:2 "Jesus" is left out. This is done many times by the corrupt Alexandrian Greek Text of Westcott and Hort. The MAJORITY Text continuously places the word "Jesus" in the narrative with the definite article preceding it. Thus it places him in the center of things and in command. It is doctrinally unsound for such prominence to be discarded for the word "he."

Matthew 18:11 The whole verse is omitted. This verse tells us that man is lost, that he needs to be saved, and that the Son of man is the one who can do that. The doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ is affected by this change.

Matthew 18:15 "against thee" is omitted. This omission sets us up as watchdogs over others and if one sins we are to go and tell him. Such is not the teaching of Scripture. Were we to declare every sin we would be constantly busy (bodies) judging the actions and motives of everyone. This change is a very bad error.

Matthew 18:35 "their trespasses" is omitted. Same thought as mentioned in 18:15.

Matthew 19:9 "and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" is removed. This is a very important doctrinal change which concerns divorce and remarriage. A man who divorces his wife and remarries commits adultery, and also the man who marries the divorced wife commits adultery.

Matthew 19:16,17 "Good" before Master is omitted. In addition to that, the phrase "Why callest thou me good?" is changed to "Why askest thou me concerning the good?" Good Master is correct and Jesus responded to show the young man that only one was good and that one was God. The conclusion should have been obvious. Since Jesus was good he was necessarily God. The omission and change destroys the intended testimony to the Deity of Christ.

Matthew 20:16 "for many be called, but few chosen" is left out. The Lord would have us know that many are called to inherit eternal life, but few are chosen by virtue of believing in Christ. It is a Bible doctrine that God wants all men to be saved but few will come to Christ for salvation.

Matthew 21:12 "of God" is out. Jesus, who was God in the flesh, came to his own temple and said, "My house shall be called the house of prayer." It was the temple of God and the God of the temple was there.

Matthew 22:30 "of God" is removed. There are good angels and fallen angels. The believers, in the resurrection, will be like the good angels "of God" who alone are in heaven.

Matthew 23:8 "Master" is changed to "teacher." There are many teachers but only one master. The change here takes away the pre- eminence that God intends for his Son.

Matthew 25:13 "wherein the Son of man cometh" is omitted. The warning to watch is tied to the imminent return of the Lord. The omission here does away with the doctrine of the Lord's second advent.

It just goes on and on where the changes and omissions were purposely done to take away the divinity of Christ, confuse the issue, or totally wipe it out and keep it from the reader as this is the corruption of the Alexandrian Text or the Minority Text, and was a reason those codices were little used as they were avoided by believers from ancient times. They knew what was being done and we see it in Pauls warning..

2 Corinthians 2:17
For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
 
Now what happened here...

John 9:35 (KJV) Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?

John 9:35 (NASB) Jesus heard that they had put him out, and finding him, He said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?”

Its a shading of the truth of His divinity, what Jesus directly lays claim to.

It still affirms that Jesus is God.
The Son of Man (John 9:35) is the proper recipient of worship (John 9:38). This corresponds to the Son of Man being the proper recipient of worship in Daniel 7:13-14.
 
Acts 7:20
NASB: It was at this time that Moses was born; and he was lovely in the sight of God, and he was nurtured three months in his father’s home.
KJV: In which time Moses was born, and was exceeding fair, and nourished up in his father's house three months
Question: Why is "in the sight of God" removed from the KJV when in the Greek text "God" (θεῷ) appears?

Acts 16:7
NASB: and after they came to Mysia, they were trying to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus did not permit them
KJV: After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not.
Question: Why is "of Jesus" removed from the KJV?

Acts 24:24
NASB: But some days later Felix arrived with Drusilla, his wife who was a Jewess, and sent for Paul and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus.
KJV: And after certain days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ.
Question: Why is "Jesus" removed from the KJV?

Romans 8:11
NASB: But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
KJV: But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
Question: Why is the second usage of "Jesus" removed from the KJV?

Romans 11:22
NASB: Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.
KJV: Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
Question: Why is "God's" removed from the KJV?

1 Corinthians 1:29
NASB: so that no man may boast before God.
KJV: That no flesh should glory in his presence.
Question: Why is "God" removed and replaced with a "his" instead?

1 Corinthians 6:11
NASB: Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
KJV: And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Question: Why is "Christ" removed from the KJV?

Galatians 5:24
NASB: Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
KJV: And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
Question: Why is "Jesus" removed from the KJV?

Ephesians 3:6
NASB: to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
KJV: That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.
Question: Why is "Jesus" removed from the KJV?

James 4:12
NASB: There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor?
KJV: There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?
Question: Why is "and Judge" removed from the KJV?

1 Peter 2:2
NASB: like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation
KJV: As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby
Question: Why is "in respect to salvation" removed from the KJV?

Revelation 3:2
NASB: Wake up, and strengthen the things that remain, which were about to die; for I have not found your deeds completed in the sight of My God.
KJV: Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God.
Question: Why is "My" removed from the KJV?

Revelation 4:11
NASB: Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created.
KJV: Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
Question: Why is "and our God" removed from the KJV?

Revelation 14:1
NASB: Then I looked, and behold, the Lamb was standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His name and the name of His Father written on their foreheads.
KJV: And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.
Question: Why is "His name" (in reference to the Son) removed from the KJV?
 
...or is it just a change of language from old to new? Well, lets look under the surface as since the beginning, from even the early church, there have been those who have inserted changes to fit their own doctrinal bias. Because they are predisposed to mans 'ideas' and 'interpretation', rather than the truth, their can be changes by unscrupulous men or those who do not fear God. This was the reason the Jews would not change the text, but do a word for word translation or manuscript, and this is not the case at the least for most of these 'modern' versions.
This argument has done the rounds on this forum a few times and it goes nowhere.

You asked if there are any doctrine that have been affected by modern translations and then presented a number of verses who words have been "removed" from the KJV. However, as Christian know, there is no doctrine that is supported by a single verse, so showing those verses tells us nothing. The deity of Christ is demonstrated throughtout the New testament in so many verses. And your claim that the modern version omit "firstborn" in Matthew 1:25 to "add credence to the false doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary" is nonsensical, especially in light of its inclusion in Luke 2:7. I could go on, but I really don't see the point.

If you are so sure that any doctrine has been affected, please show us which and why you think so. To do so adequately, would require showing that all verses that support a particular historic Christian doctrine has been altered by these modern versions and not just single verses here and there.
 
Last edited:
It still affirms that Jesus is God.
The Son of Man (John 9:35) is the proper recipient of worship (John 9:38). This corresponds to the Son of Man being the proper recipient of worship in Daniel 7:13-14.
We see son of man was also used for regular men and prophets, so it takes away His divinity plainly laid out.
 
We see son of man was also used for regular men and prophets, so it takes away His divinity plainly laid out.

But they are not the proper recipients of worship.
 
Well here is one that the reason they took it out is pretty evident...
Acts 13:42 KJV
And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.

Acts 13:42 ASV
And as they went out, they besought that these words might be spoken to them the next sabbath.

Acts 13:42 NIV
As Paul and Barnabas were leaving the synagogue, the people invited them to speak further about these things on the next Sabbath.
 
It still affirms that Jesus is God.
The Son of Man (John 9:35) is the proper recipient of worship (John 9:38). This corresponds to the Son of Man being the proper recipient of worship in Daniel 7:13-14.
The Son of man born again became a son of God the firstborn of many brothers and sisters. All believers are sons of God . Jesus said whosoever does the will of the father are his brother and sisters.
 
...or is it just a change of language from old to new? Well, lets look under the surface as since the beginning, from even the early church, there have been those who have inserted changes to fit their own doctrinal bias. Because they are predisposed to mans 'ideas' and 'interpretation', rather than the truth, their can be changes by unscrupulous men or those who do not fear God. This was the reason the Jews would not change the text, but do a word for word translation or manuscript, and this is not the case at the least for most of these 'modern' versions.

Lets compare one verse, 1 John 4:3:

NIV - but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

RSV - and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.

ASV and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.

KJV - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

We see here in 1 John 4:3 that the NIV takes out the whole point in the text, "NIV leaves out the fact that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh--yet another swipe at the divinity of Christ." https://mundall.com/erik/NIV-KJV.htm
Well, first, the problem of effect on doctrine is often due to doctrinal effect translating scripture and is not one of modernity. Doctrinal approaches and interpretation of the original languages, in turn, effects doctrinal reading of the doctrinally interpreted. The problem is sometimes circular. Additionally, if modernity were the problem the KJV would never say "end of the world" (Mt. 13:49) when the Greek is undeniably aionos and not kosmon. The KJV is imperfect, too. It is, therefore, not the measure of other translations. Furthermore, doctrinal influence can be due to many things unrelated or indirectly related to modernity. For example, the debate over the majority manuscripts is indirectly related to modernity because we now have a lot more manuscripts (or parts thereof) but that's not doctrinal. Debates over Alexandria's veracity isn't doctrinal, either.

To measure the validity and veracity of any given translation the Hebrew or Greek should be consulted.

Curiously, that was left out of the op. Hebrew trumps KJV every time. Greek trumps KJV every time, too. The original languages trump the translated-into languages every time. On the occasion of 1 John 4:3 the KJV proves correct but that's not always the case. In fact, in most cases the NAS and ESV are more accurate word-for-word translations than the KJV and all three miss some of the valid points made by the dynamic alternatives. In our day - when we have near-instant access to both the manuscripts and multiple English translations this debate is largely..... doctrinal. And that is just sad :(.
 
Last edited:
Well, first, the problem of effect on doctrine is often due to doctrinal effect translating scripture and is not one of modernity. Doctrinal approaches and interpretation of the original languages, in turn, effects doctrinal reading of the doctrinally interpreted. The problem is sometimes circular. Additionally, if modernity were the problem the KJV would never say "end of the world" (Mt. 13:49) when the Greek is undeniably aionos and not kosmon. The KJV is imperfect, too. It is, therefore, not the measure of other translations. Furthermore, doctrinal influence can be due to many things unrelated or indirectly related to modernity. For example, the debate over the majority manuscripts is indirectly related to modernity because we now have a lot more manuscripts (or parts thereof) but that's not doctrinal. Debates over Alexandria's veracity isn't doctrinal, either.

To measure the validity and veracity of any given translation the Hebrew or Greek should be consulted.

Curiously, that was left out of the op. Hebrew trumps KJV every time. Greek trumps KJV every time, too. The original languages trump the translated-into languages every time. On the occasion of 1 John 4:3 the KJV proves correct but that's not always the case. In fact, in most cases the NAS and ESV are more accurate word-for-word translations than the KJV and all three miss some of the valid points made by the dynamic alternatives. In our day - when we have near-instant access to both the manuscripts and multiple English translations this debate is largely..... doctrinal. And that is just sad :(.
Thats why the Jews were very careful to do a word for word translation as they held that every word was inspired by God, which most modern translators do not believe or follow.
 
It still affirms that Jesus is God.
The Son of Man (John 9:35) is the proper recipient of worship (John 9:38). This corresponds to the Son of Man being the proper recipient of worship in Daniel 7:13-14.

Note . . . Red. . . Lord Christ the invisible head or husband

Note . . . .Jesus Son of man the prophet who declared the words of the lord .Not his own thoughts or ways

John9: 36-39 He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, (prophesied ) Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.(not Jesus son of man ) And Jesus said, For judgment I am (Not seeen) come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.

The Son of man Jesus a sent apostle. Sent with the prophecy of the Father, How beautiful are their feet shod with the gospel of peace

I would ask who is the proper recipient below.

Numbers 22:28 And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?

The Lord is not served by the dying hands of mankind He can use a unclean animal used in a parable to represent the unredeemed that must be redeemed by a Lamb . he can use a rock to declare the gospel
He sends his apostles Not the many in Mathew 7:22-23 . they did perform the wonderful work of preaching .In selfish pride they sent there own self. Not all are sent out .Different ministries different gifts.

it would appear to be a wile of the father of lies to deceive all the nations God is a dying Jewish man as King of kings .

Man and God altogether as one the lying wonder .Therefore no division removing the faith principle the invisible things of Christ in us.

Removing the spiritual unseen understanding focusing only on the temporal dying things seen they must be mixed if we desire the gospel rest yoked with Christ our daily burdens can be take a nap ZZZZ lighter
 
Note . . . Red. . . Lord Christ the invisible head or husband

Note . . . .Jesus Son of man the prophet who declared the words of the lord .Not his own thoughts or ways

John9: 36-39 He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, (prophesied ) Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.(not Jesus son of man ) And Jesus said, For judgment I am (Not seeen) come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.

The Son of man Jesus a sent apostle. Sent with the prophecy of the Father, How beautiful are their feet shod with the gospel of peace

I would ask who is the proper recipient below.

Numbers 22:28 And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?

The Lord is not served by the dying hands of mankind He can use a unclean animal used in a parable to represent the unredeemed that must be redeemed by a Lamb . he can use a rock to declare the gospel
He sends his apostles Not the many in Mathew 7:22-23 . they did perform the wonderful work of preaching .In selfish pride they sent there own self. Not all are sent out .Different ministries different gifts.

it would appear to be a wile of the father of lies to deceive all the nations God is a dying Jewish man as King of kings .

Man and God altogether as one the lying wonder .Therefore no division removing the faith principle the invisible things of Christ in us.

Removing the spiritual unseen understanding focusing only on the temporal dying things seen they must be mixed if we desire the gospel rest yoked with Christ our daily burdens can be take a nap ZZZZ lighter

The above does nothing to refute the fact that Jesus, being the Son of Man, is God.
 
Thats why the Jews were very careful to do a word for word translation as they held that every word was inspired by God, which most modern translators do not believe or follow.
Ummm.... can you see the logical errors in Post #13?


Foor example, the translators of the KJV, the NLT, and the ESV all believed every word was inspired by God BUT believing every word is inspired does not cause or guarantee accuracy. Likewise, just because the Jews believed every word inspired does NOT mean they recorded God's words correctly. There are, in fact, places in God's word where God records individuals changing His words. Furthermore, as far as the New Testament goes, we're ALL working from manuscripts that are written in Greek, not the Aramaic (or Hebrew) Jesus originally spoke (or the gospel writers may have written). Post 13 accuses "most translators" of not believing the words they are translating are inspired by God, so I wonder what evidence you have to prove that position.

In other words, there are three very serious and very fatal logical flaws in Post 13 (and there are others). Now that I have pointed out three of them, can you see them (and the others)?







Tell me also: Is this op intended to assert the preeminence of the KJV over all other English translations and is this op intended to assert the purity or perfection of the KJV over all other English translations? Is it being insinuated the KJV has no mistakes in translation? Is KJV onlyism being asserted without saying so?
 
Back
Top