Major Doctrines affected by Modern English Translations

Well at least now I can say I have been snipped. My first time. I should get a prize for the record. 725 posts in a year and a half by a KJVO without a snipp.

Lacy

 

That's actually a pretty good record Lacy.

 

Hebrews 2:9,"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." KJV

Is Jesus still lower than the angels?

Hebrews 2:9," But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone." NASB

Or was Jesus a little lower for a little while?

I think that JW's like the KJV's rendering better than the NASB.

JW's also like the way the KJV renders 2 Peter 1:1.

I'm sure that no KJVO defender wants to discuss this.

Let's be fair and look at the KJV also since it is a modern translation also

 

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life." John 3:16 NASB

"And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven, even the Son of Man." John 3:13 NASB

"For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through Him. John 3:17 NASB

"He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he was not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" John 3:18 NASB

Now, tell me how the NASB renders it incomprehensible? Can you not understand English?

 

I wonder when he called Abraham a friend of God if he approved the KJV also at that time? </font>[/QUOTE]No doubt He did! After all, God knew at that time that the KJV would be translated and that He would put His stamp of approval on it for the English-speaking people.

 

This is an interesting scripture. I am not a Greek scholar, but looking at my Interlinear Textus-Receptus supposedly used by the KJV translators, we find that: "---the (One) But a little than the angels having been made less we see. Jesus, because of the suffering of death with glory and with honor having been crowned so by grace God's ----" This seems to say that Jesus was made a little less than the angels "Because of the suffering of death with glory" This is very clear that it occurred NOT when he was created, but when he was suffering of death with glory.

The NASB seems to follow the Textus Receptus better than the KJV does.

 

David,
In what way do you believe Christ was lower than the angels "for a while"? Was he ever less than God himself in his essence? In other words did he divorce himself of everything higher than the angels? I don't think so.

I believe that this refers to Christ's humanity only, which he still retains. Jesus right now has a glorified human body with scars that will be visible when he returns to rule man's earth as man's (human) king.

If "lower than the angels" refers to anything short of his humanity, we have problems.

If "lower than the angels" refers exclusively to his humanity, (Man is lower than the angels in the normal scheme of things) then in that sense alone, Christ is still lower than the angels.

lacy

 

So, I guess the Vulgate was the featured Bible of the Latin speaking population? Did God put His stamp of approval on it for the 1000 years it was used? (Even after Latin was no longer spoken.) That's 600 years longer than the KJV, then if we go by length of time, (Which is always thrown out with the KJVO theory) then the Vulgate wins for the Latin language. Do you agree with this? If NOT what was the perfect Bible then?

 

Here's the problem, Lacy. You are arguing based on logic in your mind and based on your theory. True Bible study would require you go to to the original Greek.

That is the problem with the KJVO crowd, if the KJVO varies from the Greek the KJV wins.

WHERE in the BIBLE do you find ANYTHING about there only being a single translation in the English language. It is obvious there were multiple translations in the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. (Even of the Old Testament.) So, how can you define a single Bible in English -- a language now spoken 2000 years after Christ?

Yeah, I know, burning in the bossom. . . That's the only answer I have heard so far. God will eventually tell them what is right. . . Let's don't go back to the original manuscripts when we have the KJV.

 

It's not such a subjective thing as you make it seem to see "God's stamp of approval.

I'm not a historian but I know there was major world-wide revival in the 1st few centuries of the church. So I assume that there was a "stamp of approval" on a Greek Bible (LLX?)

Then there were pockets of resistance to the Roman Church who exhibited godly, holy, fruit but on a smaller scale. I assume that there was an Old Latin version with the "stamp". I've already mentioned the KJV. What's next? Perhaps a Chinese bible with the "stamp". This has always been my theory. Follow the fruit.

You show me an "outbreak" of holiness and advancement of doctrine in the churches of God on a scale that's anything close to the 1700s and 1800s and I'll eat my size 8 hat.

lacy

 

NASB

John 1:18

No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

John 3:16

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son , that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

How many differences I find between these verses? Just 2! That means they are double persons because these verses disagree each other on who they are.

NASB said 2 persons: 2 Gods: begotten God (1:18) AND begotten Son (3:16)

God beget God AND Son????

KJV said one person: 1 God: begotten Son (1:18) = begotten Son (3:16)

See the difference between NASB and KJV.

Some MSS supporting MVs favored "Son" instead of "God." Why did NASB not follow them? NASB followed the Gnostics dealing deceitfully with God's Words.

Massive MSS favored "Son" on John 1:18.

 

True Bible study would require a precedent for a doctrinal statement like you just made. show me where anyone in the Bible ever suggested that a man go back to the "original Hebrew", (or Chaldean, or Egyptian) to "really study". It is not there.

My position on the "original Greek" is here.

http://www.harvestbaptistofmidland.org/home/default.cfm?nav_id=6&par_nav_id=&content_id=&article_id=179&layout=Default&Link_URL=

 

So, if you base it on an outbreak of holiness, then the KJV doesn't hold a candle since England was always under the Church of England or the Anglican Church, which became the Episcopal Church in America.

Look at the morals in America? I do not think that we ever have shown a level of holiness to use this as a "cause" for KJV only theory.

 

Phillip,

The world has always been corrupt. That is why I specifically said, look for the fruit in the "Churches of God."

However if you want to "look at the morals in America", I dare say that they have gotten worse exponentially in direct relation to the number of new versions since 1850. The more MVs, the more corrupt we get morally. This is subjective and circumstantial but you brought it up.

lacy

 

Look at the morals in England when the 1611 was published.

And it didn't get much better considering that we left to obtain religious freedom.

In fact, many early Americans used the Geneva Bible because of the copyright of the KJV. The Geneva was actually carried over by early settlers. Did it have God's stamp of approval?

 

You can look at the world and her governments, secular and religious, for your fruit.

I'll look at Wesley, Whitfield, The Methodists, The Baptists, The Brethren, The Welch Revivals, the Great Awakening, the Cumberland Revivals, The Missionary Movements, Hudson Taylor, Billy Sunday, Robert Govett. Show me a 200 year period in history that even comes remotely close at any level. This is not subjective. This is just plain old church history with nothing romanticized.

lacy

 

It's not such a subjective thing as you make it seem to see "God's stamp of approval.

I'm not a historian but I know there was major world-wide revival in the 1st few centuries of the church. So I assume that there was a "stamp of approval" on a Greek Bible (LLX?)

Then there were pockets of resistance to the Roman Church who exhibited godly, holy, fruit but on a smaller scale. I assume that there was an Old Latin version with the "stamp". I've already mentioned the KJV. What's next? Perhaps a Chinese bible with the "stamp". This has always been my theory. Follow the fruit.

You show me an "outbreak" of holiness and advancement of doctrine in the churches of God on a scale that's anything close to the 1700s and 1800s and I'll eat my size 8 hat.

lacy </font>[/QUOTE]Lacy,

FYI, Jonathan Edwards' hearers during the First Great Awakening followed his sermons using their own copies of the New Testament in Greek, not the KJV.

Also...fallacy of argumentation: Cause and Effect: Attributing the effect to a cause because the two occur together.

The greatest outbreaks of holiness and doctrinal advancement in the Christian Church seem to have been in the first century, about 1550 years BEFORE the KJV. The Reformation fathers used their own translations in their own vernaculars, not the KJV. (You don't find Reformation theologians writing from the Church of England).

If we take the issue of doctrinal "advancement" into account and relate it to the KJV, then you've got a HUGE problem, because theological liberalism began in English peoples using the KJV. Mormonism favors the KJV. Moreover, lots of folks in the KJVO camp all but idolize Charles Finney as their evangelistic heroes, but don't realize that when he wrote his systematic theology, referencing the KJV, he wrote things like this:
full present obedience is a condition of justification. But again, to the question, can man be justified while sin remains in him? Surely he cannot, either upon legal or gospel principles, unless the law be repealed...But can he be pardoned and accepted, and justified, in the gospel sense, while sin, any degree of sin, remains in him? Certainly not (p. 57).

(Finney rejected eternal security), but it gets better...

"The atonement would present to creatures the highest possible motives to virtue. Example is the highest moral influence that can be exerted...If the benevolence manifested in the atonement does not subdue the selfishness of sinners, their case is hopeless" (p. 209). Therefore, we are not helpless sinners who need to be redeemed, but wayward sinners who need a demonstration of selflessness so moving that we will be excited to leave off selfishness. Not only did Finney believe that the "moral influence" theory of the atonement was the chief way of understanding the cross; he explicitly denied the substitutionary atonement, which "...assumes that the atonement was a literal payment of a debt, which we have seen does not consist with the nature of the atonement...It is true, that the atonement, of itself, does not secure the salvation of anyone" (p. 217).

(This all means that Finney rejected substitutionary atonement, instead advancing the exemplary view of the atonement further than Wesley ever did). He goes on to reject the imputed righteousness of Christ. He basically ends up saying that works and faith are necessary for justification.

If this is "doctrinal advancement" it is no doctrine to which I will be a party. Based on your "logic," since Finney used the KJV, this decline was due to the KJV, not the person using the KJV.

So, in short, we've seen a LOT more doctrinal DECLINE than doctrinal "advancement" during the KJV.

The cause of doctrinal decline and advancement is not necessarily tied to the version of the Bible used. It is true, however, that translators can and do insinuate their doctrinal predilections into certain versions. We've discussed that already, but the issue there is that doctrine is influencing their translating, not vice versa.

The bottom line is this: There is no major doctrine affected by the most widely used MV's among evangelical Christians.

 

HankD asked:

What is the criteria for "God-approved" Terry?

Terry asserts it, so it must be true.

Lacy agrees, so it's documented as true.

 

No, YOU brought it up. You're using a double standard. If the time was a time of revival, and the KJV was the most widely used version, then the revivals were due to the KJV. If the time was time of moral decay, and the MV's were growing it use, it must have been due to the MV's. The problem with that kind of thinking is that it applies the same thought process and makes a favorable judgment only when the effect is deemed favorable to the supposed cause. (It also doesn't account for the theological decline in the theological teachings of men using the KJV).

The even bigger problem is this:
Cause and Effect - assuming that the effect is related to a cause because the events occur together.
Example: When the rooster crows, the sun rises. Therefore, the rooster causes the sun to rise.
Example: When the fuel light goes on in my car, I soon run out of gas. Therefore, the fuel light causes my car to run out of gas.

Non Sequitar- Comments or information that do not logically follow from a premise or the conclusion.
Example: We know why it rained today, because I washed my car.
Example: I don't care what you say. We don't need any more bookshelves. As long as the carpet is clean, we are fine.

You said it yourself above when you used the word "assumed." If MV's views on the matter are "subjective" and "circumstantial," then the same must be said of your camp as well. Otherwise that is double standard.

 

Finney wasn't perfect. (I'll bet you wouldn't believe I already knew that.) Finney's doctrinal advancements to the church were in other areas besides soteriology. (He wasn't the only one in church history to reject eternal security.) His very positive influence is undeniable.

I also challenge you to compare the lives of typical modern rated-R-movie-quoting, pastors with the life of a typical pastor during the time of J Edwards.

The bottom line is this: Every major doctrinal difference that is brought to the attention of a MV user is denied vehemently by thirsty horses knee deep in pure sweet fresh water.

Lacy