KJV and the modern versions

I assume that you approve of the NKJV since the translators used the TR as it's basis, the same as the KJV?

 

The above statement is a falsehood.

It's just sad you believe this junk.

 

Agreed.

If the NASB, NIV, TNIV, ESV, HCSB, etc. were really that alien to the King James Version, it would be evident to everyone.

It would not take lengthy books to convince people of this. However, it takes books written for that express purpose for anyone at all to be convinced.

Why? Because the NASB, NIV, TNIV, ESV, HCSB, etc. are not substantially different from the King James Version.

 

Strawman: The MVs take the blood of Jesus out of the KJV

Searching for 'blood':

437 hits Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition - e-sword.com
451 hits KJV1611 Edition - e-sword.com
447 hits KJV1769 Edition with Strong's numbers - e-sword.com
375 hits KJV1769 Edition - crosswalk.com
352 hits NIV - crosswalk.com
351 hits TNIV -crosswalk.com

I've done it before, it seems like there would be a lot of difference between the 'blood of bulls' missing compared with the 'blood of Christ'.

Heb 9:22 (KJV1611 Edition):
And almost all things are by the Law purged with blood: and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Heb 9:22 (NIV)
In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Those who 'took the blood from the Bible' missed the most significant Blood passage of all

The largest differences between two Bibles is:

447 hits KJV1769 Edition with Strong's numbers - e-sword.com
375 hits KJV1769 Edition - crosswalk.com

Oops - Explain that

I'll explain it. There is something different between e-sword's searching tool and the crosswalk's searching tool. The getting of numbers of occurance is fool's task, for it has no meaning. Of course, the getting of number of occurrence does look mathematical (Arithmetic = Grade School Mathematics).

 

I do not see where any of these different translations deny the Deity of Christ or salvation by faith. I did read your verse quotations.

There is a big difference between a translator deciding the ancient text does not allude to a precept, versus when the text is translated to deny it.

If you can quote a real translation at some verse that explicitly says that Jesus Christ is not God, or that salvation is not by faith, I might be even minimally persuaded that you have something.

 

Excellent post Ann.Thank you.

 

A note on the "he" of 1 Tim. 3.16 from the online NET Bible:
The Byzantine text along with a few other witnesses (אc Ac C2 D2 Ψ [88 pc] 1739 1881 � vgms) read θεός (qeos, “God”) for ὅς (Jos, “who”). Most significant among these witnesses is 1739; the second correctors of some of the other mss tend to conform to the medieval standard, the Byzantine text, and add no independent voice to the discussion. A few mss have ὁ θεός (so 88 pc), a reading that is a correction on the anarthrous θεός. On the other side, the masculine relative pronoun ὅς is strongly supported by א* A* C* F G 33 365 pc Did Epiph. Significantly, D* and virtually the entire Latin tradition read the neuter relative pronoun, ὅ (Jo, “which”), a reading that indirectly supports ὅς since it could not easily have been generated if θεός had been in the text. Thus, externally, there is no question as to what should be considered original: The Alexandrian and Western traditions are decidedly in favor of ὅς. Internally, the evidence is even stronger. What scribe would change θεός to ὅς intentionally? “Who” is not only a theologically pale reading by comparison; it also is much harder (since the relative pronoun has no obvious antecedent, probably the reason for the neuter pronoun of the Western tradition). Intrinsically, the rest of 3:16, beginning with ὅς, appears to form a six-strophed hymn. As such, it is a text that is seemingly incorporated into the letter without syntactical connection. Hence, not only should we not look for an antecedent for ὅς (as is often done by commentators), but the relative pronoun thus is not too hard a reading (or impossible, as Dean Burgon believed). Once the genre is taken into account, the relative pronoun fits neatly into the author’s style (cf. also Col 1:15; Phil 2:6 for other places in which the relative pronoun begins a hymn, as was often the case in poetry of the day). On the other hand, with θεός written as a nomen sacrum, it would have looked very much like the relative pronoun: q-=s vs. os. Thus, it may have been easy to confuse one for the other. This, of course, does not solve which direction the scribes would go, although given their generally high Christology and the bland and ambiguous relative pronoun, it is doubtful that they would have replaced θεός with ὅς. How then should we account for θεός? It appears that sometime after the 2nd century the θεός reading came into existence, either via confusion with ὅς or as an intentional alteration to magnify Christ and clear up the syntax at the same time. Once it got in, this theologically rich reading was easily able to influence all the rest of the mss it came in contact with (including mss already written, such as א A C D). That this reading did not arise until after the 2nd century is evident from the Western reading, ὅ. The neuter relative pronoun is certainly a “correction” of ὅς, conforming the gender to that of the neuter μυστήριον (musthrion, “mystery”). What is significant in this reading is (1) since virtually all the Western witnesses have either the masculine or neuter relative pronoun, the θεός reading was apparently unknown to them in the 2nd century (when the “Western” text seems to have originated, though its place of origination was most likely in the east); they thus supply strong indirect evidence of ὅς outside of Egypt in the 2nd century; (2) even 2nd century scribes were liable to misunderstand the genre, feeling compelled to alter the masculine relative pronoun because it appeared to them to be too harsh. The evidence, therefore, for ὅς is quite compelling, both externally and internally. As TCGNT 574 notes, “no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (Ψ) supports θεός; all ancient versions presuppose ὅς or ὅ; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεός.” Thus, the cries of certain groups that θεός has to be original must be seen as special pleading in this case. To argue that heretics tampered with the text here is self-defeating, for most of the Western fathers who quoted the verse with the relative pronoun were quite orthodox, strongly affirming the deity of Christ. They would have dearly loved such a reading as θεός. Further, had heretics introduced a variant to θεός, a far more natural choice would have been Χριστός (Cristos, “Christ”) or κύριος (kurios, “Lord”), since the text is self-evidently about Christ, but it is not self-evidently a proclamation of his deity. (See ExSyn 341-42, for a summary discussion on this issue and additional bibliographic references.)

 

You are alleging that the NIV translators think Jesus Christ is Satan? I have heard that one before. Is that what you are trying to say?

I hope you have better sense than that.

If you are just trying to say that the NIV translators deny the fall of Satan, do you have any quotations from the translators saying so? That is a pretty big accusation to make based on conjecture rather than evidence.

 

Do we not have a "beat that horse" smiley? Beat that horse boys. Beat that horse. The MV's make Jesus a liar. The MV's make Jesus satan. The MV's take away the blood. It's a dead horse.

 

Tee Hee, I don't know if I should laugh or cry.
Post #6 above misquotes 1 Timothy 3:16 (NASB):

A 16By common confession, great is (AF)the mystery of godliness:
He who was (AG)revealed in the flesh,
Was (AH)vindicated in the Spirit,
(AI)Seen by angels,
(AJ)Proclaimed among the nations,
(AK)Believed on in the world,
(AL)Taken up in glory.

That seemed rather strange to me, so I checked out 1 Timothy 4:16 in biblegateway.com I'm required by Acts 17:10-11 to check these scripture out to see if they are correct. Here is what biblegatway says, the above and:

1. 1 Timothy 3:16 : Rom 16:25
2. 1 Timothy 3:16 : John 1:14; 1 Pet 1:20; 1 John 3:5, 8
3. 1 Timothy 3:16 : Rom 3:4
4. 1 Timothy 3:16 : Luke 2:13; 24:4; 1 Pet 1:12
5. 1 Timothy 3:16 : Rom 16:26; 2 Cor 1:19; Col 1:23
6. 1 Timothy 3:16 : 2 Thess 1:10
7. 1 Timothy 3:16 : Mark 16:19; Acts 1:9

Note that the crossreference says that the meaning is found in 1 Timothy 3:16 and one, two, or three other places. I.E. none of these meanings are found exclusively in 1 Timothy 3:16:

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]By common confession, great is the R122 mystery of godliness: He who was revealed R123 in the flesh, Was vindicated R124 F36 in F37 the Spirit, Seen R125 by angels, Proclaimed R126 among the nations, Believed R127 on in the world, Taken R128 up in glory.
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]FOOTNOTES:
F36: Or {justified}
F37: Or {by}
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]CROSS REFERENCES:
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]R122: Romans 16:25
R123: John 1:14; 1 Peter 1:20; 1 John 3:5,8
R124: Romans 3:4
R125: Luke 2:13; 24:4; 1 Peter 1:12
R126: Romans 16:26; 2 Corinthians 1:19; Colossians 1:23
R127: 2 Thessalonians 1:10
R128: Mark 16:19; Acts 1:9

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]However, it is common courtesy to quote ONLY THE BIBLE (and not somebody's note on what they think the cross reference should be). Yes, this takes a little editing (or I know how to turn off the cross references in crosswalk.com) but this is what one gets:

[/FONT]In crosswalk.com the NASB says at 1 Timothy 3:16:

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]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. [/FONT]

From post #6: // The real Word of God, from the KJV says God was manifest in the flesh. The NASB has removed that.--a deceitful sly change
They take out the fact that Jesus is God. //

Duh the NASB says "[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]He who was revealed in the flesh' who is 'He' here. (to understand simple English, one needs to figure out who the pronouns (like 'He') are refering to. This noun or noun-structure (any English language than can be a noun-like structure) [/FONT]is usually before the pronoun. The very word before 'He' in the sentence, 'Godliness" implies we are taking about GOD, 'He' means 'God'. This sentence fragment says He (God) was revealed in the flesh (Jesus)

Crossreference Romans 3:24 (NASB):
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; [/FONT]
His (God's) redemption is in Jesus (the flesh-person).

Nothing is missing in 1 Tim 3:16 (NASB)
If something was missing in 1 Tim 3:16, it is present in Romans 3:24 (NASB).

// The real Word of God, from the KJV
says God was manifest in the flesh.

Amen! Preach it! that is what the Word of God, the KJV says.

// The NASB has removed that.--a deceitful sly change
They take out the fact that Jesus is God. //

This statement is flat wrong.

The real Word of God, from the NASB says God was manifest in the flesh

read my trailer, we have two different words of God sayingGod was manifest in the flesh
Two witnesses agree, as required by God's Law.

 

Steele: // You are alleging that the NIV translators think Jesus Christ is Satan? I have heard that one before. Is that what you are trying to say.//

Tee Hee, the first time I read it was in the Atheist Commentary on the Bible. They said the KJV (they called it 'the Bible' - strange, Atheists and /a group I'm not allowed to mention on this board/ call the KJV the only Bible) shows in Rev 22:16 that Jesus is the Morning Star and in Isaiah 14:12 that Satan is the Morning Star - which is it?

Sorry, but 'Lucifer' is the Latin Vulgate term used in Isaiah 14:12. I thought the KJV didn't use the devil's Latin Vulgate version :laugh:


Isaiah 14:12 (Latin Vulgate)
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes[/FONT]

 

Sorry, I disagree. This 'MV's make Jesus Satan horse will be beaten until he is buried. It will probably be beaten under a mountain of Vuglar Latin verses :tonofbricks:

 

From my NIV:
Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven,
morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!

O.K., just thought I'd check and see if it was cut & pasted correctly.

Speaking of Isaiah 14:12 post #12 sez: // In the real Old Testament Isaiah, The massoretic text of the King James version, Satan is never called morning star; Satan is called Lucifer. The modern bible versions put morning star there because of the theology of the translators. It does not come from the original Hebrew scriptures and morning star is a mistranslation. //

Wrong, I hope you didn't copy this from an unreliable source, it will make somebody here look abject.

Look what the theology of the translators made them do in the KJV:

Isaiah 14:12 (KJV1611 Version):

How art thou fallen from heauen,
||O Lucifer, sonne of the morning?
how art thou cut downe to the ground,
which didst weaken the nations?

Margin Note:
||Or, O daystarre

The KJV says that O daystarre could be used instead of 'O lucifer' and make perfectly good meaning.

So the KJV claims that 'the daystarre' is the 'son of the morning'.
That is just common knowledge lots of people (even some home schooled) know: Venus, is called 'day star' when Venus can be seen in the day time (Venus is the third brightest object in the sky being led by the Sun and the Moon.) When Venus preceeds the Sun it is called the 'Morning Star'; when it follows the Sun, it is called the 'Evening Star'.

Another thing:
In Revelation 22:18 Jesus is called the Bright and Morning Star. It is a metaphor. Jesus is not the Bright and Morning Star; Jesus is my Lord and Savior - Won't you let Him be your Lord and Savior also (PM me if you want to find out how to do that)? Jesus is LIKE the Bright and Morning Star - Jesus precedes the True Dawn of God's Truth.

In Isaiah 14:12 the King of Babylon (who might be a type of the Devil ?) is compared by a metaphor to the Morning Star (Day Star, or whatever). Neither the King of Babylon nor the Lead Devil IS the Morning Star. Both the King of Babylon and the Lead Devil think they are the Morning Star - bringing Light to Mankind. But both the King of Babylon & the Lead Devil are FALSE LIGHT. Jesus is the Truth, the Light, and the Way.

So sorry, if your Doctrine is based on one passage that is usually misunderstood - you loose because you didn't check two Bibles (or in this case did not even bother to read THE KING JAMES VERSION)