Major Doctrinal Differences

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Dr. Bob, Sep 5, 2003.

  1. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Would like to discuss the major doctrinal differences from the NASB and the KJV. Just give the same verse in each, and show how one or the other affects a major doctrine.

    Thanks. Think this will make a clear distinction as to why one endorses a particular English translation.
     
  2. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    major doctrinal--there ain't none, if considered in totality.

    verse by verse, i'm sure u'll find something at chick.com ;)
     
  3. DCK

    DCK
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2003
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are no real doctrinal differences. The God of the NASB is the same as the God of the KJV, as anyone who has read both versions and studied them without an agenda knows.
     
  4. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    As with every other occasion this challenge has been put forth... the lack of factual arguments from the KJVO's speaks volumes.
     
  5. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are no doctrinal differences. There are some minor interpretational differences, but that's to be expected considering variances in language differences, as well as differences in textual variance.

    Studying, understanding, and embracing those differences does not cloud biblical doctrine; rather, it clarifies them.
     
  6. Taufgesinnter

    Taufgesinnter
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'd like to point out that any answers showing 'omitted' verses shouldn't be posted at all if:

    1) those verses' or clauses' parallels are still present in other gospels in the newer translation;

    2) there are still any other verses in the newer Bible version that support a doctrine the alleged omission of other verses supposedly denies.
     
  7. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    o wait, lemme see--does this qualify as an example:

    Jude 25:

    MV--through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore

    KJB--missing. therefore, doctrines of Jesus' Mediatorship, Messiahship, Lordship, n Eternality all clearly denied.


    :eek:
     
  8. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    It's not missing in my KJV Bible.
    Jude 1:25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen. (KJV)
     
  9. Taufgesinnter

    Taufgesinnter
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Bob, I don't get it. You just quoted the KJV, demonstrating that it omits the words "through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages." So how could you say those words were there?
     
  10. Archangel7

    Archangel7
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    On the other hand, if someone wished to follow the same faulty method used by some KJV-Only advocates -- namely, selecting isolated verses and focussing on them while ignoring the teaching of Scripture as a whole -- a case could be made that the KJV is doctrinally defective when compared to the NASB. Consider the following example:

    "But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou *have worship* in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee". (Lk. 14:10, KJV)

    "But when you are invited, go and recline at the last place, so that when the one who has invited you comes, he may say to you, 'Friend, move up higher'; then you will *have honor* in the sight of all who are at the table with you." (Lk. 14:10, NASB)

    So the KJV teaches that it's perfectly acceptable to worship mere human beings, while the NASB does not. I guess the KJV must be doctrinally "corrupt" because it teaches idolatry. [​IMG]

    What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. ;)
     
  11. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    My mistake. I thought he was saying the KJV omitted the entire verse.
     
  12. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amazing.

    If someone posts a message that says, in effect, "I like the NIV and think it's cool," every KJV-onlyist for 50 miles immediately posts to the thread uninvited about how many doctrines it waters down, how one of its translators had an affection for barnyard animals, how it omits this verse or denies that doctrine, how Westcott and Hort used to participate in sex-magick rituals and sacrifice virgins on the graves of the King James translators, and precisely how long a burning NIV will heat your home.

    But Dr. Bob posts a message specifically inviting those same KJV-onlyists to show how doctrines have been denied . . . and twenty-four hours later, not a single one has jumped at the opportunity.

    I think this is prima facie evidence that the real motive of the KJV-onlyists is not to discuss the issue; rather, they are content to disrupt and divide and generally draw a whole bunch of undeserved attention to the lunatic fringe.

    Thank you, Dr. Bob, for driving this point home.

    You. Gotta. Laugh.

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  13. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    My mistake. I thought he was saying the KJV omitted the entire verse. </font>[/QUOTE]no. the KJB DENIED those entire doctrines.

    ;)
     
  14. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    And this is an honest question. No set up. Am just trying to get a discussion on an actual verse and doctrinal issue and assume we will still get many.

    Remember, this is not a chat room; sometimes it is days before answers come. I am looking forward to dealing with issues instead of straw men attacks.
     
  15. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Most naturalistic scholars said, "No doctrines affected." I disagree with them. Let me show you a verse for example.

    Matthew 18:11 in the KJV "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."

    This verse contains the doctrine of Jesus Christ and the doctrine of Salvation.

    Matthew 18:11 on the footnote in NASB said, "Early mss do not contain this verse."

    That is false., spurious and misleading.

    47 manuscripts contain this verse. Only 14 manuscripts rejected it.

    Incorrect!
     
  16. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok, please give me some verses that the KJV denied any doctrines. I will look up them.
     
  17. Archangel7

    Archangel7
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    First of all, both the verse and the the doctrine are in fact present in the NASB: "For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost" (Lk. 19:10, NASB).

    Secondly, you misrepresent the manuscript evidence for Mt. 18:11. It's missing from Aleph, B, L, Theta, f13, 1, 33, 892, the Old Latin (e, ff1), the Old Syriac (Sinaitic), the Palestinian Syriac, and the Coptic (Sahidic, Middle Egyptian, and Bohairic[pt]). Its absence from such a group of early and geographically widespread witnesses is strong evidence against its originality. It was likely imported into the text of Matthew from the non-disputed text of Lk. 19:10.

    Thirdly, if you focus on a single verse in isolation, completely disregarding what the rest of the Scripture teaches, then you'll find plenty of examples of such "troublesome doctrinal changes" in *any* English Bible version, even the KJV. Examples:


    The KJV teaches idolatry, but the NASB doesn't --

    KJV Luke 14:10 But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou *have worship* in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.

    NASB Luke 14:10 "But when you are invited, go and recline at the last place, so that when the one who has invited you comes, he may say to you, 'Friend, move up higher'; then you will *have honor* in the sight of all who are at the table with you.


    The KJV denies the divinity of Christ, but the NASB doesn't --

    KJV John 14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

    NASB John 14:14 "If you ask *Me* anything in My name, I will do it.


    The KJV denies the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but the NASB doesn't --

    KJV Acts 4:25 Who *by the mouth of thy servant David* hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?

    NASB Acts 4:25 who *by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David* Your servant, said, 'WHY DID THE GENTILES RAGE, AND THE PEOPLES DEVISE FUTILE THINGS?


    The KJV denies the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the NASB doesn't --

    KJV Romans 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

    NASB Romans 1:4 who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, *Jesus Christ our Lord,*


    The KJV denies that the Holy Spirit is a person, the NASB doesn't --

    KJV Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit *itself* maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

    NASB Romans 8:26 In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit *Himself* intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words;


    The KJV denies that believers are really God's children, the NASB doesn't --

    KJV 1 John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

    NASB 1 John 3:1 See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called children of God; *and such we are*. For this reason the world does not know us, because it did not know Him.


    Are you willing to be consistent and condemn these "terrible doctrinal changes" in the KJV with the same forthrightness you do for other versions like the NASB?
     
  18. Singleman

    Singleman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2002
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    Need you ask? The answer, of course, is no.
     
  19. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,165
    Likes Received:
    322
    While here on earth in the flesh Jesus said “the Father is greater than I”’

    In the KJV his voluntary subjection to the Father is permanent.

    The NASB shows correctly that it was "for a little while".

     
  20. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then you reject Matthew 18:11 because you denied Matthew's writing.

    Misrepresent? You misread what I said that these are 14 MSS omitting this verse. However 47 manuscripts CONTAIN this verse!!!!!

    Can you solve these problems on the KJV? [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...