KJV versus New Versions

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by MISSIONARY, Jan 14, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MISSIONARY

    MISSIONARY
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    One thing that disturbs me is not the language updates so much but the scriptural changes that have taken place.

    Just for a start: the doctrine of fasting

    KJV: Matt. 17:21 "This kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting"

    NIV: omit
    NASB: omit

    KJV: 2 Cor. 6:5 in fastings
    2 Cor. 11:27 in fastings

    NIV: OMIT
    NASB: OMIT

    KJV: MARK 9:29 This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting

    NIV: this kind can come out only by prayer
    NASB: same

    KJV: I Cor. 7:5 "give yourselves to fasting and prayer

    NIV: devote yourself to prayer
    NASB: same

    KJV: Acts 10:30 "Four days ago I was fasting . . . and prayed"

    NIV: Four days ago I was prayiing
    NASB: same

    Here the great doctrine of fasting is omitted. Believers lose this great power over extreme difficulties in their spiritual lives.

    objectionable reference to Bible versions snipped

    [ January 14, 2006, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]
     
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Please limit your comments to mss evidence and translational issues only. At the first sign of degeneration into personal attacks or attacks on versions it will be closed without notice.

    [ January 14, 2006, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]
     
  3. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here the great doctrine of fasting is omitted.

    There is no "great doctrine of fasting."

    There is no command that Christians are to fast, nor is its practice regulated by Scripture, except insofar as Jesus warns his listeners not to do so hypocritically.

    Scripture simply treats fasting as a fact of first-century life.

    objectionable reference to a group of posters snipped

    [ January 14, 2006, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]
     
  4. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Orignally posted by Phil310

     
  5. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    The story of Jesus in the NT is to face the Satan when he tempted Jesus DURING Jesus was fasting. Is the doctrine of fasting so important?

    Let's see: modern versions omitted this doctrine of fasting in many passages because they did not reverence God's speaking that He taught us about this doctrine.
     
  6. MISSIONARY

    MISSIONARY
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok, I disagree about there not being a doctrine for us to fast and that many difficult problems can be solved by fasting.

    We all agree in the Doctrine of Christ, right?

    Here goes:

    KJV: Acts 15:11 Lord Jesus Christ
    NIV: Lord Jesus
    NASB: Lord Jesus

    KJV: Romans 1:3 Jesus Christ our Lord
    NIV: omit
    NASB: omit

    KJV: 2 Cor. 11:31 Lord Jesus Christ
    NIV:Lord Jesus
    NASB:Lord Jesus

    KJV: I Thess. 3:11 Jesus Christ our Lord
    NIV: Jesus our Lord
    NASB: Jesus our Lord

    KJV: 2 Thess. 1:8 our Lord Jesus Christ
    NIV: Our Lord Jesus
    NASB: Our Lord Jesus

    KJV:I Cor. 5:4 our Lord Jesus Christ
    NIV: our Lord Jesus
    NASB: our Lord Jesus

    The doctrine of Christ is without a doubt weakened in the new versions.

    This is just a very, very small sample of what the enemy is doing to the true Word of God.

    Leaves the door open any religion to say their man is the Christ. Since Jesus is not identified as Christ.

    Think on these things !
     
  7. MISSIONARY

    MISSIONARY
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear moderator this is not an attack on any particular version, I am just letting the different versions speak for themselves.

    Missionary
     
  8. 4His_glory

    4His_glory
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey missionary look up all those passages in CONTEXT in the MV and you will see that the doctrine is by no means weakened at all. Oh and how about the times the MV's add referances to Jesus Christ that the KJV leaves out?
     
  9. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    [sarcasm]I suggest we should strengthen the "Doctrine of Christ" found in the KJV by adding more instances of the words Jesus, Lord and Christ. I really don't think it is strong enough in the KJV and more instances of those words will definitely strengthen this important concept.[/sarcasm] ;)
     
  10. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    </font>[/QUOTE]I too came to BB looking for answers. I too used to be KJVO until I discovered somethings.
    It saddens me to see Christians put down other translations, but I do feel we need to discuss them, and their usefulness. There are so many people still trapped by bad teaching.

    Please do not make personal insults or slander God's word. (in any translation)

    Thank you.
     
  11. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    This thread is quickly degenerating folks and faces imminent closure unless it discusses the topic.
     
  12. nate

    nate
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    0
    "But this kind does not come out except by prayer and fasting" Matthew 17:20 ISV

    "He told them, "This kind can come out only by prayer and fasting." Mark 9:29 ISV

    "in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, through hunger and thirst, through many periods of fasting, through coldness and nakedness" 2 Corinthians 11:27 ISV

    The versions(NIV,NASB) you mention have fine ground to stand on in their choices but remember monks in monastaries usually copied the Scriptures and they really believed in "fasting". So using the methods of textual critiscism we can tell in many instances Acts 10:30 for instance that it was probably added later by a scribe who thought it ought read "fasting" and IMO I wouldn't call fasting a doctrine either.
     
  13. 4His_glory

    4His_glory
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought it was a violation of the rules to even start a thread pitting one version against another.
     
  14. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    MISSIONARY said:

    The doctrine of Christ is without a doubt weakened in the new versions.

    The "doctrine of Christ" is not a count of capitalized words piled up in front of "Christ."
     
  15. nate

    nate
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    0
    On the deity of Christ issue~

    Christ Jesus
    KJV 58
    NKJV 69
    NASB 86
    NIV 86

    Christ Jesus our Lord
    KJV 5
    NKJV 7
    NASB 7
    NIV 7

    Jesus our Lord
    KJV 7
    NKJV 9
    NASB 12
    NIV 10

    Again using textual critiscism we can discern that scribes always tended to elaborate and add things rather than delete things. For instance the title of Revelation in one mss reads "the Glorious beloved and most revered disciple of our Lord in the days when He walked the earth"... yadda yadda. It goes on for nearly a small paragraph. Scribes loved to elaborate things. But anyway from the evidence above I will allow the versions to speak for themselves.
     
  16. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    MISSIONARY said:

    Dear moderator this is not an attack on any particular version

    Your claim that the NIV or NASB "omit" this or that was prejudicial from the very beginning.
     
  17. 4His_glory

    4His_glory
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree, which is I thought a violation of the rules unless I am mistaken.
     
  18. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    This is not technically a "Pitting of one version against another" so it is within the limits of the rules.

    It is questioning different translations of various passages.

    It does not appear to be long for this world though since it keeps veering from the passages in question.
     
  19. MISSIONARY

    MISSIONARY
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ransom, that was no claim, examine the facts. compare the versions and verses yourself, with your own eyes instead of what you have been told.

    Facts not claims ! !

    I challenge anyone to disagree that these mentioned verses were not left out as I said.

    Think on these things!
     
  20. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is not technically a "Pitting of one version against another" so it is within the limits of the rules.

    Certainly sounded to me like the conclusion we were supposed to draw was "KJV good, NIV bad."
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...