God's preserved, inerrant and inspired Word.

This looks too important not to discuss.

I assume that you're referring to the 2nd part of Galatians 2:20. Here they are, the KJV and the NIV.

I'm not a Biblical scholar, and I must be missing something, because I don't see a doctrinal change from the KJV to the NIV based solely on Galatians 2:20. Please educate.

 

No doctrinal difference here.

You are correct: In Gal 2:20, the KJV says,

"the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God."

and many recent translations say (including quite literal translations, such as the ASV),

"...faith in the Son of God."

but exactly how does this undermine the doctrine of faith? Jesus said scores of times, "your faith has healed you," etc. Paul talks about "the strengthening of your faith." The key is the object of our faith. And in every translation, that object is Jesus Christ. Same for Gal. 2:16 and Rom. 3:22. The essence of faith, in whom the faith rests, is identical in all versions I looked at: KJV, NASV, NIV, HCSV, NKJV.

As I said, no doctrinal difference here.

 

What about these two ince you seem to have no issues with Gal. 2:20:
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ,

Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

What justifies - your faith or Christ's?

The issue here is justification - I believe this to be a major issue.

God bless

 

Amen, Brother Rbell -- Preach it! :thumbs:

AVBunyan: //BTW Ed - you are more than welcome to keep quoting the different 1611's, 1612's, 1769's, etc but I go by the one in my hands that I can get at Walmart for $5.95.//

I got my electronic KJV1611 from E-sword.com for free.
I got my electronic KJV1769 with Strong's numbers
from E-sword.com for free, donation suggested.

I can hold neither in my hand (they reside in a
computer storage device) but they are
God's preserved, inerrant and inspired Word.

BTW, I notice the 'of'/'in' debate we are having is over
a added by the translators. The original Greek has
no pronoun there. Personally I like

"your faith ABOUT Christ Iesus" for Col 1:4

 

Greetings rbell - I gave you one on jutification now how about the deity of Christ:
The King James says:
Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
This says Jesus came forth from eternity because Jesus is eternal.

The NIV says:
Micah 5:2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

This says Jesus came forth from tiems - days – not eternal.

God bless

 

Scriptural faith is about things not seen. How can CHRIST, who made everything there is, by His Father's blueprint, who has seen all, have faith, since EVERYTHING is EMPIRICAL to Him? What is hidden from Him? What does He not know?

WE have faith. CHRIST is He in whom we have faith.

CHRIST does not have faith...He has empirical first-hand knowledge.

 

Sorry Jim - a poster said there were no doctrinal changes and I responded - also they brougt up the ole' "scriptural authority" and I responded to that - didn't mean to hijack your thread - I will gracefully bow out.

God bless

 

With all due respect, Sir, your beliefs about the KJV are based upon nothing but opinion and guesswork. Historical fruit? The LATIN VULGATE has a much-longer history. "Internal evidence"? These Scriptures existed long before the KJV-or English itself-did. Every valid Bible in every other language before 1611 said the same things.

Scriptural authority? The KJVO myth isn't about light bulbs or restrooms...it's an incorrect doctrine about the VERY WORD OF GOD! The WOG is our highest written authority; therefore any theory or doctrine about it, in order to be correct, MUST BE SUPPORTED by scripture, otherwise we're taking a man-made doctrine and placing it ABOVE SCRIPTURE in authority!

So you believe the KJV to be "THE" perfect, inerrant, inspired English BV? You have a problem...You CANNOT even BEGIN to prove that GOD singled out the KJV for special inspiration to the exclusion of all other English versions. Therefore you're merely GUESSING about the KJV. You're as a Ford driver defending his choice of Fords over Chevys. It's all a matter of PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

However, the SCRIPTURAL issue is much more important than one's choice of car. When one tells another that he's using the wrong BV, he'd better be able to PROVE IT or else keep silent, as he may be leading another astray. The KJVO myth is completely false & man-made and has NO PLACE in Christian doctrines.

SCRIPTURAL PROOF about the use of more than one version? Many, MANY times, we've referred to the comparison of isaiah 42:7 and 61:1-3 with the version of Isaiah from which JESUS READ ALOUD in Luke 4:16-21, placing His mark of approval upon it by calling what He read"THIS SCRIPTURE".

WE don't have the "burden of proof" to disprove the KJVO myth...the KJVOs have that burden to prove that KJVO is true...and they haven't come close in the time between 1930 and now.

As I said earlier...the same God who caused man to use all the various languages and develop all the various nations and all the cultures within those nations is well able to present His word to each one as he chooses, targeting certain groups with each version. There is NO"one-size-fits-all" Bible version. NO "one-version-only" theory, doctrine, or myth is true.

 

Post deleted by AVbunyan...

I realized I told Jim earlier that I would bow out and let his thread procede and I will keep my word.

God bless

 

AVBunyan:1. With all due respect you misjudge myself and others - we take this stand by faith just like God told us to - We are to walk and live by faith - not by sight.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1) The KJVO myth has neither substance nor evidence, which leaves your "faith" with nothing but guesswork.

2. Kind of like Burger King then, "You can have it your way."

Yes, if you trust God to be able to do anything, including presenting His word AS HE CHOOSES.

3. So much has been written on this showing the contradictions, false doctrine, and out right errors that if one can't get those then there is nothing that can be done.

So much has been written that is merely THE STATEMENTS OF MEN, WITHOUT ANY SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT, trying to justify the KJVO myth that it seems impossible for any Christian of normal intelligence to believe any such malarkey.

4. Until you and others can show me from scripture that we are wrong then we will continue believing the King James Bible is the pure word of God without error.

We've shown you that "the" is wrong and that "a" is right, until ya come across "without error" but some people think more of their myth than the TRUTH about it, so they are without excuse to believe the myth. It's actually a matter of PERSONAL PREFERENCE. As I've said many times, each version is perfect and inerrant for its target readership/audience. There's simply NO "universal" version! Try as you might, you simply CANNOT even to BEGIN to prove exclusive inspiration for the KJV alone, to the exclusion of all others.

We showed ya from the KJV that JESUS HIMSELF used a version different from the Ben Chayyim Text in Luke 4, and I don't believe there could be any more powerful proof than that example shown by our Lord. Again, there's simply NOT one universal BV in the English language.

Good day :wavey:

Same to ya! :applause:

 

Amen, Brother Robycop3 -- Preach it! :thumbs:

 

You haven't explained why the NIV changes the doctrine of Galatians 2:20 yet. I see no point in discussing any other verses. Please explain how this modern version, the NIV, changes doctrine.

 

As noted earlier Jim before your request to have this thread closed I deleted my last post so as to let your thread continue.

God bless

 

Jim, I offer my apologies as I have contributed to the hijacking of your thread.

 

I would define it as a translation being completely reliable historically and an accurate representation of the multitude of extant manuscripts. As you know, only the versions based on the traditional Received Text would fit that description.

Perhaps if you can offer an example of an error or contradiction in the KJV, we can address that specifically.

 

I think I'll just :tear: {Yawn} myself to :sleeping_2: :sleep:, rather than :BangHead:

Ed

 

I know just a little Greek, enough to state that it is a highly inflected language, which means that the spelling of a word may change depending upon its case (that is, its function within the sentence), and number (singular or plural). An English example of inflection is the way a word like "man" (singular) changes to "men" (spelling changes the root word to make a plural).

These Greek case changes can carry meaning which translates into English as more than a single word. The Genative case carries the meaning of possesion; in English we show this by adding the apostrophe then s (ie "God's word" means "the word belonging to God"). In Greek this would be literally "word of God" (typically there would be an article "the" which isn't always translated into English because "word of the God" sounds strange to us). One more example: the Dative case indicates the word stands as the indirect object and in addition to the root word in English the words "to", "by", or "for" etc. would be added (determined by context). So in summary, some Greek words may be left out, while other meaning is brought out by adding words in English.

(How does THAT fit with the other words vs. meaning topic?)

This is a highly simplified explanation, but the point is that the meaning is there within the word itself (even if there isn't a separate 'word' in the text to stand for it). You cannot simple count the words. Just because the word is italicized in English doesn't mean it doesn't properly belong; and to assume that it can be translated just as anything you want in English would be totally improper.

 

Pastor Bob, I would like to know the explanation for this apparent translation error (from another topic today)
from Song of Solomon 2:12--

The flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing [of birds] is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land;(KJV)

How is a "turtle" voice heard? The Hebrew word means "dove/turtledove" the bird according to both Thayer's and Strong's; no mention of "turtle" the amphibious creature for this entry in these Lexicons.

This is not a printer's error either: the AV translates this word 5 times as "turtle" (see Levi. 12:8, 15:29, Num. 6:10, Jer. 8:7 clearly related to various birds for sacrifice) even though in the KJV it is translated "turtledove" the other 9 times it appears in OT.

Thanks