Do new versions "attack" certain doctrines?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by uhdum, May 1, 2003.

  1. uhdum

    uhdum
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    0
    Heh, forgive me for fanning another flame... this has probably been discussed already but I find it somewhat humorous that KJV-onlyers accuse new versions of "attacking" certain doctrines if a) the verse is worded differently than in the KJV or b) if the verse does not appear in the manuscripts the version is translated from.

    It is immediately assumed that these verses are omitted because "Satan taketh away the word" and that they are attempts by heretical scholars to deny certain doctrines. Granted, the verse or doctrine may be given elsewhere in the manuscript, but its omission in another passage certainly must mean that the new version is "attacking" that doctrine.

    Take for example the NIV's translation of "the child's father and mother" in Luke 2:33 is said to "attack and deny" the virgin birth. Forget the fact that the KJV itself refers to Joseph as Jesus' father in Luke 2:48. Now I am in no way denying the virgin birth... Jesus was born of a virgin by the Holy Spirit. But Joseph is referred to as Jesus' earthly father. I find it interesting that Mary herself called him "thy father" in Luke 2:48; she didn't feel that it wasn't a theological heresy for her to call him that rather than "your surrogate earthly father."
    Oh, we also need to forget the fact that the NIV, like other versions, gives clear-cut statements regarding Jesus' virgin birth.

    Anyone have a comment? That is my little take on the "attacking" doctrines deal :D
     
  2. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    It does! and nevermind the tripe about "what so and so says" to try and explain it away;what saith the scriptures? It is obvious that most people cannot speak/read plain English;much less know who is talking in the sentence.The NIV has Luke,the narrator,calling Joseph His father.It is simple as that.
    Again look at the next verse,Jesus is QUICK to correct her by saying who His Father is(capital F).MV's weaken Biblical doctrine;but hey,take out what you dont like,cant understand,or falls under Hebrews 4:12,just as long as " you can find the basic doctrine" somewhere in the MVs..
     
  3. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    Many of the KJV onlyist who attack the MV's, especially the NIV, do so with alter motives. They do not look at the issues you mentioned with an unbiased eye. They have already made up their mind before hand. I have not met one KJV onlyist who would under any circumstance change bible versions.

    At first we were told that it was the "evil Alexandrian" family of manuscripts they were against. They were remaining true to the TR manuscripts. Then after the KJV was revised, as it had been many times before, and the NKJV was available, the KJV onlyist were even more upset. I find it laughable that now they seem to hate the NKJV more than any of the other MV's.

    The truth of the matter is that most of the reasons they remain KJV only is because of peer pressure and emotionalism. They do not want to be ostracized from their neat little group and they just do not want to change. If the KJV was good enough for Paul, it's good enough for them.
     
  4. Bartholomew

    Bartholomew
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2002
    Messages:
    714
    Likes Received:
    0
    And you MVers accuse us KJV-onlyists of name calling... :eek: :eek: :rolleyes:
     
  5. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    Bartholomew,
    Exactly what name did I call you KJV onlyists?
     
  6. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    It doesn't matter what doctrine is in the KJV. It only matters what doctrine is in the text the KJV came from:

    It does neither. In the Greek, the text reads "Joseph", so, IMO, it should be translated "Joseph", not "his father".

    But the NIV is not error free in translation. Neither is the KJV. For example:

    KJV translates Acts 19:37 as "robbers of churches." But the Greek manuscript reads HIEROSULOUS, which is "robbers of temples".

    KJV translates Is 14:12 as "Lucifer", but it reads in Hebrew "Day Star" (Lucifer is a human origin nickname for the Devil in the 1600's.) This verse refers not to the devil but the king of Babylon.

    KJV translates Ro. 3:4,6,31; 6:2,15; 7:7,13; 9:14; 11:1,11; 1 Co. 6:15; Ga. 2:17; 3:21; 6:14 as "God Forbid", when the translation is "may it not be" or "let it not be." KJV adds the word "God" where it is absent in the TR.

    Yes, the TRANSLATORS capitalized the word "Father" here. It is not so in the Greek.

    Why is it okay for the KJV to perform translational alterations from the Greek and Hebrew, but other translations are not?
     
  7. uhdum

    uhdum
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    0
    While I will for now ignore your rather negative comments towards some people's ability to "speak/read plain English," this statement is simply a strawman argument. You're going to have a hard time finding a person (with the exception of the occasional liberals like the Jesus Seminar) who advocate taking away what you "don't like, can't understand, falls under Hebrews 4:12." While I don't want to be guilty also of a strawman, it seems that many (not all) KJV-only'ers view MV'ers as essentially liberal and as those who deny basic tenets of the faith. This is not true. Please don't feel like I'm directing the statement towards you, because it's not a personal attack; it's a generalization.

    I actually also fail to see what Hebrews 4:12 has to do with it. A wonderful verse that I have preached (I use the KJV btw) many times talking about God's powerful Word... but what does that verse have to do with whether the modern versions are good or not?

    As for mv'ers' support of "simply the basic doctrine," you will find that the NIV, for example, does not just simply have "the basic doctrine." Luke's Gospel clearly holds to the virgin birth; Luke 1 in the NIV supports the virgin birth just as it does in the KJV.
     
  8. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Johnv, have you seen these MSS? If not, where are you getting this info? I thought the original were lost?
     
  9. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,184
    Likes Received:
    326
    Just like the archetype of the 1611KJV.

    There are however 4 major families of revisions of the KJV with several hundred words involved with some sustantive changes as well as two editions of the KJV (Oxford, Cambridge) which differ in several places.

    So, whether they know it or not the KJVO faction has the same problem as the MV users (howbeit to a lesser degree). Most KJVO choose the 1769 revision as authoritative. But, this leaves a deadly towing of the bell for the "inspiration" of the 1611 translation. God could't or didn't get it right the first time which actually destroys the KJVO argument for the first 1611 edition (it wasn't "pure"). So, again I would ask, which is it?

    Indeed no KJVO call tell for a surety which of the many revisions and/or editions of the KJV God chose to "re-inspire".

    And then there is the question concerning the Church of Rome "scripture" the Apocrypha which was included in the actual 1611 edition which the Anglican Church commissioned to be read in devotions in the Common Book of Prayer.

    HankD
     
  10. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are confused. A manuscript is not necessarily the original. The original is probably destroyed over time rather than lost. And since it is, you have no way of knowing what it said. The NIV could be right and you wouldn't know it.

    The information about what the Greek manuscripts say is available in numerous places. On my desk I have a Greek text (UBS3rd). On my computer I have the Robinson Pierpont Majority Text, Stephanus TR, the Westcott and Hort Text, the Nestle Aland text, Scrivener's TR, and Tischendor's text. So if you want to know what the Greek says, that information is readily available.

    In addition, a number of these manuscripts are available for public viewing at certain times and certain places. The University of Michigan has some; the British Museum has some. You can find photocopies of them in many libraries, and in most cases, I would imagine that inter-library loan can get a photocopy of these for you. So knock yourself out; go find them and read them. They are there and they are available.
     
  11. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Copies of the documentation that the KJV translators used is still in existence today.
     
  12. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is incredible that you folks think this is a strong argument. You claim that the KJV was somehow perfectly decendent from the originals. This belief makes your questions far more damaging to you than to believers in orthodox Bible doctrine. Where do you get your info from? If the originals are lost and unknowable, how do you know that a single word in the KJV is correct?
     
  13. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is but one way liberalism and KJVO holds hands very tightly. They both base a lot on this argument. But we've been down this road before...
     
  14. Singleman

    Singleman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2002
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    ^^True, but isn't that what this forum is all about, the pointless repeating of the same tired arguments over and over again. Didn't we give up on intelligent, respectful, edifying, informative discussion a long time ago? ...Just asking. :rolleyes:
     
  15. MEdde

    MEdde
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2003
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    You had the answer yourself...Mary said it. Not God. God is giving you a literal word for word conversation and Mary made the statement. God said Joseph and his mother. Mary said thy father. And then of course Christ corrected her.

    The book is a bear trap. It will get you if you don't stay honest.

    Can you actually tell me that you don't find it Ungodly, unchristian, and just plain strange that the man who owns Bart Simpson on Fox is the same MAN that owns your Bible. And he won't let people put out tracts with more than so many words without royalties or he chases them across the missions field to haul to court?

    LOL...Smile God loves you...
     
  16. MEdde

    MEdde
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2003
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Revelation 3:10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.
     
  17. MEdde

    MEdde
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2003
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now why did you have to go and tell them that?? They've been thinking their professors had them down at BJU or Temple all this time and of course could sit in Judgment on the word of God anytime they liked seeing how they knew more than God did.

    You spoiled it for them. They won't sleep a wink all this week thinking they might not know as much as they thought.

    I know if I hadn't ever seen a piece of paper and I kept insisting that something couldn't be right because it wasn't like the paper I had never seen, I'd be really dishonest. I would feel so convicted and guilty of bearing false witness. DO ANY OF YOU FEEL THAT WAY??

    [​IMG]
     
  18. MEdde

    MEdde
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2003
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are confused. A manuscript is not necessarily the original. The original is probably destroyed over time rather than lost. And since it is, you have no way of knowing what it said. The NIV could be right and you wouldn't know it.

    The information about what the Greek manuscripts say is available in numerous places. On my desk I have a Greek text (UBS3rd). On my computer I have the Robinson Pierpont Majority Text, Stephanus TR, the Westcott and Hort Text, the Nestle Aland text, Scrivener's TR, and Tischendor's text. So if you want to know what the Greek says, that information is readily available.

    In addition, a number of these manuscripts are available for public viewing at certain times and certain places. The University of Michigan has some; the British Museum has some. You can find photocopies of them in many libraries, and in most cases, I would imagine that inter-library loan can get a photocopy of these for you. So knock yourself out; go find them and read them. They are there and they are available.
    </font>[/QUOTE]BUZZZZ&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Sorry but you lost the game. Thanks for playing and come back.... Kicked out the door&gt;&gt;&gt;

    Now for an honest report. Who didn't know that All of the Greek text he listed would also have about 90 more listed beside them to be complete. None of these Greek text are the same. When talking of MSS you have over 5,000. These don't include the MSS in other languages. Just the Greek.

    So how reliable is this Greek? Well who didn't know that evertime a scribe made an error or if a Jew or Christian copyiest found one with an error or errors they buried it because it Had God's name, they wouldn't destroy it.

    Then you have the Bible correctors all the way back in Pauls day, 2Co 2:17.

    So any honest person would conclude that you can't go off of what we have in the Greek unless you are going to be the final authority yourself on what God said and pick and choose what you want the Bible to say. The motive behind all new versions is money.

    One way or the other you are going to have to take it by faith either God preserved his word or we don't have it.

    God never said He would preserve it scattered out in perverted parchments and you had to sit in judgment on it and put it back together.

    By the way...Your USB liberal Greek doesn't contain all the readings. Neither does Nestles. As a matter of fact Nestles has different Editions, NEWER ONES that take out some of the OLDER readings that it USED to have. Why did they do that if they are honest?

    So how would a man get the GREEK with a Greek text that didn't have all the readings?

    Just thought I would leave you with this last bit...

    Hypocrisy of the New Version Translators
    The Recognized "Accredited" Scholarship Behind the NIV, NASV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, RV, ASV, and NEB.

    1. They reversed the word order because of "importance" and "emphasis," and then reversed it again to make it "true to the Greek text."

    2. They threw out the "oldest and best" manuscripts where they Agreed with the King James readings, after using them to Correct the King James readings in more than 800 places.

    3. They refused to translate a word by saying, "the stress is here," after criticizing the AV for having done the same thing.

    4. They have left articles Untranslated and added articles that were not in their own text, while whining about the AV doing exactly the same thing.

    5. They did Not translate aorists or imperfects or pluperfects uniformly, after complaining about that in the AV.

    6. They did Not translate the same Greek word the same way every time it showed up, anymore than the AV translators did.

    7. They claimed words they didn't want were "borrowed" or "interpolated," whereas they had been CUT OUT OF THE BIBLE BY ALEXANDRIANS.

    8. They called their own mistranslations "Dynamic Equivalents."

    Matthew 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
     
  19. Pioneer

    Pioneer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Romans 1:25 (AV1611) - "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."

    This verse is an accurate description of the modern version movement.
     
  20. Pioneer

    Pioneer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Here's a couple of more verses for the modern version movement to think about:

    Proverbs 30:5-6 (AV1611) - "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."
     

Share This Page

Loading...