No Doctrines Are Changed?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Will J. Kinney, Mar 18, 2004.

  1. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    No Doctrines Are Changed?

    I often hear those who criticize the King James Bible and defend the multiple modern versions say: "Well, no doctrines are changed in the different versions." But is this true?

    There are presently well over 100 different English bible versions available to the general public and none of them agrees with the others in both text and meaning in hundreds of verses. This is easily proved and well noted by many atheist, Muslim and Bible basher sites on the internet.

    Which of these different bibles is really the inspired, inerrant words of God? Or have the complete, pure, inerrant words of God been lost in the shuffle and God has failed to preserve His words as He promised? Is it true that "no doctrines are changed" in the various conflicting versions?

    Some Christians say, "Well, only the originals were inspired." Since we don't have any of the originals and nobody knows what they really said, how can we then say the Bible is the inspired word of God? Shouldn't we say the bible WAS the inspired word of God?

    I and thousands of other Christians believe God has kept His promises to preserve His words and He has done so in the King James Holy Bible. In general terms the overall state of textual evidence and ancient versions is overwhelmingly on the side of the King James Bible readings as opposed to such versions as the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, and ISV.

    However, one can argue back and forth over the textual evidence till you are either blue or red in the face, and prove nothing. For me and many other Bible believers, we clearly see the Providential hand of God placing His divine approval upon the King James Bible that has been universally recognized as THE BIBLE of the English speaking world for almost 400 years.

    One of the clear and convincing proofs that the King James Bible is the complete, inerrant, and pure words of God is the purity and truth of its Christ exalting doctrines. Proverbs 14:5 tells us: "A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies." There are many lies found in the new bible versions and it is the accumulation of such lies that reveal them to be false witnesses to the whole truth of God.

    Modern versionists say they are examining the evidence to come up with the best text to restore the words of God. The problem with this is, the new versions continue to disagree with each other in both texts and meaning in a multitude of places. I believe God has already gone through this process using the men He chose to bring forth the King James Bible. If God has already done this in order to preserve His words and carry out the great modern missionary movement from the late 1700's to the mid 1900's, there is no need to do it again, unless He decides to put His complete words into a language other than English.

    Some speak of the same General Message being found in all "reliable" versions. True, the simple gospel can be found in them all. Yet in all of them we also find contradictions concerning the basic truths of the character of God and corruptions of other sound doctrines.

    The "Any Bible Will Do" position leads to uncertainty, doubt and unbelief. There are a multitude of contradictory versions, with several whole verses being found in some that are not in others. Seventeen entire verses, and about half of another 50 are omitted from the New Testament in the NIV, NASB, and even more in the RSV, ESV when compared to the King James Bible, Tyndale, Bishop's, Geneva, Webster's, the NKJV, and the Third Millenium Bible.

    All the examples in the following list, except Luke 2:22, are not the result of different Greek and Hebrew texts being used, as is often the case, but rather of different ways the same underlying texts have been translated into English.

    As Pilate asked his wife in the movie the Passion of the Christ: "Can you recognize truth when you hear it?"

    Does the true Lord Jesus Christ have "ORIGENS from ancient times" as taught in Micah 5:2 by the NIV, RSV, ESV, and Jehovah Witness New World Translation, or were His "goings forth from everlasting" as the King James Bible, NKJV, NASB have it? One rendering teaches His eternality, while the other says He has an origen or a beginning.

    Is the Jesus Christ in your Bible the one who lied in John 7:8 as the NASB and ESV read? The King James Bible, NIV, RV, ASV and NKJV have Jesus saying: "Go ye up unto this feast: I go NOT UP YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come". Then in verse 10 "But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." However the NASB, ESV have Jesus saying: "I do NOT GO up to this feast... But when His brothers had gone up to the feast, then He Himself also went up".

    Did the Lord Jesus Christ need a blood sacrifice to be cleansed from sin in Luke 2:22 as the NASB, ESV, NIV teach? These versions read: "when the days for THEIR purification according to the law of Moses were completed...to offer a sacrifice", as opposed to the King James Bible, the NKJV, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster's 1833 translation, and the Third Millenium Bible which have "when the days of HER purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished...to offer a sacrifice". Wycliffe's 1395 translation says "the days of the purification of Mary". The only Old Testament reference for this sin offering to make an atonement is found in Leviticus 12:6-8 where the woman alone offered a sin offering for her purification.

    Can God be deceived as the NASB teaches in Ps. 78:36? The NASB says the children of Israel DECEIVED GOD with their mouths, but the NKJV, KJB, NIV, RV, ASV, ESV all say they "flattered" God with their mouths and lied unto Him. You can flatter God by saying nice things about Him but not obeying Him, but you certainly cannot deceive God.

    Is the Lord Jesus Christ the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of God BEFORE His incarnation? The NIV never refers to Christ as "the only begotten Son". Christ was the only begotten Son from all eternity, but not in the NIV.

    The NIV, ISV, and Holman Standard pervert true doctrine in Acts 13:33 where the Bible speaks of the resurrection of Christ. He was quickened from the dead and raised again to life to become "the first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5), and "the firstborn from the dead (Colossians 1:18).

    In Psalm 2 and Acts 13:33 God says and ALL GREEK TEXTS read: "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus AGAIN: as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE". This is the reading found in the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NKJV. The specific Day that Christ was begotten from the dead was that first Easter morning. However the NIV, and now the new ISV (International Standard Version) and the upcoming Holman Christian Standard Version actually say "Today I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER"!!!

    The NIV, ISV, and Holman version here teach that there was a time when God was not the Father of Christ. This is also the reading of the Jehovah witness version, the New World translation, and they use this verse and Micah 5:2, which also reads the same in their version as does the NIV, to prove that Jesus Christ is a created being and not from everlasting.

    Please see my article about the Only Begotten Son for more detail: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/begotnSon.html

    Another doctrinal error is found in the NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV and others in 2 Samuel 14:14.

    The context is Absalom had slain Amnon because he raped his sister Tamar. Absalom fled to Geshur and was there for three years, yet the soul of king David longed for his son Absalom. Joab decides to put words in the mouth of a wise woman from Tekoah and he sends her to speak to the king.

    In the course of their conversation the woman tells king David: "the king doth speak this thing as one which is faulty, in that the king doth not fetch home again his banished. For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him."

    The meaning is pretty straightforward. We all must die and God does not respect any person or show partiality to one more than another in this regard.

    Other Bible versions that read as the King James Bible are the Geneva Bible of 1599, the Jewish Publication Society of America's 1917 translation, Young's "literal" translation, Daniel Webster's 1833 translation, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras, the KJV 21st Century version and the Third Millenium Bible.

    However when we get to the NewKJV, ESV, the NIV and the NASB instead of "neither doth God respect any person" they read "YET GOD DOES NOT TAKE AWAY LIFE". This is untrue and a contradiction.

    Just two chapters before this event we read of the child born to David in his adulterous affair with Bathseba that "the LORD struck the child, and it was very sick" and on the seventh day it died. (2 Samuel 12:15). In Deuteronomy 32:39 God Himself says: "I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand." In Genesis 38:7 and 10 we read of two wicked sons of Judah, Er and Onan "and the LORD SLEW him", and "wherefore he slew him also."

    1 Samuel 2:6 tells us: "The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up." And 2 Samuel 6:7 says: "And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah. and God smote him there for his error: and there he died by the ark of God."

    God obviously does take away life, and the NKJV, NIV and NASB are all in error in 2 Samuel 14:14 where they say that He doesn't take away life.

    In 2 Peter 3:12 the King James Bible, Tyndale, Geneva and others correctly say we are "looking for and HASTING UNTO the coming of the day of God". The date is already fixed in God's timetable and nothing we can do will make it come any faster. It is we who in our fleeting lives are fast moving towards that day. However the NKJV, NIV, NASB all teach that we can "speed" or "hasten" the coming of the day of God. This contradicts numerous other Scriptures and is a false doctrine.

    See my article dealing with this verse in much more detail at: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/hastingunto.html

    Who rules or is in control of this world, God or Satan?

    In I John 5:19 the King James Bible along with the Tyndale 1525, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Young's, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602, and 1909 (y todo el mundo está puesto en maldad), Lamsa's translation of the Peshitta, Webster's 1833 translation, the Douay-Rheims 1950, the KJV 21st Century version, Green's literal translation and Green's Modern KJV, and the Third Millenium Bible all say: "And we know that we are of God, and THE WHOLE WORLD LIETH IN WICKEDNESS."

    Miles Coverdale's 1535 translation says: "We know that we are of God, and the whole world is set altogether in wickedness."

    We live in a fallen world; it lies in sin and wickedness, just as the text says. But God is still in control and ruling over all His creation. "He worketh all things after the counsel of his own will" Ephesians 1:11. Daniel 4:17,25,26 tell us three times that "the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will." Even though it may appear that wickedness is winning, the eye of faith sees His sovereignty and rejoices in this confidence.

    However, believe it or not, many new versions change the truth of God's sovereign rule and would have us believe that Satan is the ruler of this world and is in control. In fact, they come right out and say it in these exact words.

    The NIV says: "The whole world is UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE EVIL ONE."

    NASB " the whole world lies in the power of the evil one."

    Today's English Version "the whole world is under the rule of the Evil One."

    ESV (English Standard Version) "the whole world lies in the power of the evil one."

    Living Bible 1981 "the world around us is under Satan's power and control."

    ISV (International Standard Version) "the whole world lies under the control of the evil one."

    The NKJV, and the Holman Christian Standard Bible try to strike a medium with : " the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one" but the NKJV as well as the NASB are also wrong when three times they refer to Satan as the "ruler of this world" in John 12:31; 14:30, and 16:11. Satan is NOT the ruler of this world. He is the spiritual "prince of this world", as the KJB, RV, ASV, Tyndale, Geneva, and even the NIV correctly say, but there are also other spiritual "princes" or beings working among the nations, and all of them are under the control of God and not Satan.

    For a more detailed study of who rules the world see: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/controlworld.html

    What is the fine linen, clean and white?

    Our only hope of righteousness before God is to be clothed with the imputed righteousness of Christ. Revelation 19:8 speaks of the church of God, the wife of the Lamb being arrayed in fine linen, clean and white. "for the FINE LINEN IS THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF SAINTS."

    Versions that read like the King James Bible are Tyndale's New Testament of 1534, Miles Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1599, John Wesley's 1755 translation, Green’s interlinear, Webster's translation of 1833, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Bible in Basic English 1970, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Third Millenium Bible, the 21st Century KJV, and even the modern paraphrase called The Message.

    But the NKJV, NASB, ESV, ISV, Holman Christian Standard Bible, and the NIV have, “the fine linen is the RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the saints.” (or "the righteous deeds of God's people") If our righteous acts are going to make up our wedding dress, it will be pretty soiled and tattered. At the very least, you have to admit that not all these versions teach the same thing here. So, which one is true?

    Matthew Henry notes: "You have here a description of the bride, how she appeared in fine linen, clean and white, which is the righteousness of saints; in the robes of Christ’s righteousness... She had washed her robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb; and these her nuptial ornaments she did not purchase by any price of her own, but received them as the gift and grant of her blessed Lord."

    John Gill comments: "for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints, not good works, or their own righteousness;... these are not comparable to fine linen, clean and white, but are like filthy rags, and cannot justify in the sight of God; but the righteousness of Christ is meant, and justification by that; for that is the only justifying righteousness of the saints.

    "Christ's righteousness may be compared to fine linen, clean and white... all the Lord's people will be righteous, they will have on the best robe, and wedding garment, and their being arrayed with it will be owing to the grace of Christ, who grants it. Not only the garment is a gift of grace, but the putting of it on is a grant from Christ, and what he himself does, (Isaiah 61:10) (Zechariah 3:4)."

    1 Corinthians 8:4 "we know that an idol is nothing in the world" - this is the meaning found in the Geneva Bible, Holman Christian Standard, Darby, NIV, NKJV, and even the Douay version too. However the NASB says: "there is no such thing as an idol in the world". No idols in the world, huh?

    Is Judah faithful to God as the KJB, RSV, ESV, NKJV teach - "but Judah yet ruleth with God and is faithful with the saints" or "Judah is UNRULY with God, even AGAINST the Holy One who is faithful" as the NASB, NIV teach in Hosea 11:12?

    These are just a few of the problems you have if you think God is the one directing the modern versionists. This God seems more than a little confused and muddled in his thinking. He can't seem to make up his mind as to what he said or meant.

    If you think all these modern versions are from God, you have no sure words and your case is getting worse all the time as new versions continue to roll off the presses which in turn contradict the previous ones.

    Isn't there something written in the Bible that tells us of the falling away from the faith in the last days? Has Satan changed his hateful opposition and corrupting influence toward the words of God? Has man "evolved" to a higher state in these latter days to where he can now think more clearly?

    If the gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ is found only in the Bible, and this "bible" contains contradictions, false information, completely different meanings in hundreds of places, verses found in some but not in others, then how do we know the gospel of which it speaks is true?

    If God hasn't kept His promises to preserve His words, then how do you know God will keep His promise to preserve your soul? When does God start telling the truth?

    Do you still think that "no doctrines are changed" in the various versions? Is the Bible the inspired, inerrant words of God? If so, what exactly are you referring to when you say this? Some mystical bible that exists in your own mind, or a solid Book we can hold in our hands, read, believe and preach to a lost world?

    Will Kinney

    For a complete list of articles defending the King James Bible please visit my website at:

    http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/
     
  2. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you intend to join the
    atheist, Muslim and Bible bashers? Well
    kindly lay off my inerrant Bibles. Thank you.
     
  3. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    2 Corinthians 13:1 (NLT):

    This is the third time I am coming to visit you.
    As the Scriptures say,
    "The facts of every case must be established
    by the testimony of two or three witnesses."


    Thus, I will make no doctrine which
    hinges upon one and only one verse of the
    Bible.

    So, if one finds a verse in a passage that
    might weaken God's doctrine, then i shall
    refure it with another verse which does
    teach God's doctrine.
     
  4. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Will J. Kinney: "Our only hope of righteousness before
    God is to be clothed with the imputed righteousness
    of Christ."

    Amen, Brother Will J. Kinney -- Preach it!

    Will J. Kinney "Revelation 19:8 speaks of the church of God, the wife of the Lamb being arrayed in fine linen, clean and white. "for the FINE LINEN IS THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF SAINTS."

    Versions that read like the King James Bible are Tyndale's New Testament of 1534, Miles Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1599, John Wesley's 1755 translation, Green’s interlinear, Webster's translation of 1833, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Bible in Basic English 1970, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Third Millenium Bible, the 21st Century KJV, and even the modern paraphrase called The Message.

    But the NKJV, NASB, ESV, ISV, Holman Christian Standard Bible, and the NIV have, “the fine linen is the RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the saints.” (or "the righteous deeds of God's people") If our righteous acts are going to make up our wedding dress, it will be pretty soiled and tattered. At the very least, you have to admit that not all these versions teach the same thing here. So, which one is true?

    I don't think i'll be adminiting any such things.
    All the versions i have and the ones you mention
    all teach THE SAME THING: and it is as you said
    in your first verse. Why did you forget your
    general principle that you had learned from your
    Bible when you read the other Bibles? You perchance
    didn't believe it very much? The Devil robbed you
    of your joy of understanding?

    Also my brother, you are being very deceptive.
    Ever heard of a "context"? Sometimes a useful
    concept for the understanding of the Holy Scripture.
    Look at the preceeding verse:

    Reuelation XIX:7 (KJV1611):

    Let vs bee glad and reioyce, adn
    give honor tohim : for the marriage of
    the Lambe is come, and his wife hath
    made herselfe readie
    .

    Sorry Bro. that shatters everything you
    said. But still i won't abandon so quickly as
    you did your general principle (gained by
    studying other scriptures and NOT JUST ONE SCRIPTURE))
    that:

    "Our only hope of righteousness before
    God is to be clothed with the imputed righteousness
    of Christ."

    By this general principle, the bride could not
    have made herself ready as said in verse 7,
    only Jesus has made her, the Bride, the church,
    ready.

    I speak of "my salvation". But it really isn't
    my salvation, Jesus paid it all. So it is
    God's salvation, not mine - the salvation belongs
    to GOd, not to me. Yet still i say "my salvation"
    because it pertainteth to me.

    [​IMG]
     
  5. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brother Will, You have really done the right thing now! (not that in any other post you haven't too.)

    To rate such a lengthy response by Ed and even three within a few minutes on the same day.

    The details you've given are not anything less than incriminating to those versions.

    I have never read much of the niv. Those few verses I have read just like the ones you have given by example , are enough to keep the niv a CLOSED BOOK for me. Those "books" that align with the niv are become closed as well. To suggest the Jesus Christ is the "first begotten of the dead"? No wonder so many believe it to be demonic and worthy of being diminished to ashes.

    What really amazes me is how so many will argue for confusion. Do they understand how that gives the impression of their allegiance?

    Just give me the WHOLE TRUTH and NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH; AV 1611 KJB. [​IMG]
     
  6. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    More of the same old tripe that stems from a failure to study diligently the word of God from a believing heart. When your goal to attack the word of God, it is easy to come up with this kind of stuff. But as in every other case, there is nothing new here. This is old stuff. It has been tried before. It didn't work then, and it won't work now. More attacks on God's word are not what we need.
     
  7. Orvie

    Orvie
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    Shall we say, "strain at (out) a gnat"? :D
     
  8. Kidz-4-HIM

    Kidz-4-HIM
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    0
    AMEN BRO. WILL!!! YOU GO!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  9. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    O-me, Bro Will, you stop! [​IMG]
    Playing the "Devil's Advocate", how do you KJVO's deal with it teaching man-worship? The NKJV clears it up. The KJV teaches in Daniel that Nebuchadnezzar worshiped Daniel.(last I heard, he was no god). How about Luke 14:10? see where a good MV will clear up the "misleading" of the KJV here? The KJV appears to teach man worship, unless you clear up the matter with a MV. ;) Jesus said in Matthew 4:10 that only He was to be worshiped...but the KJV teaches...it confuses when taken at face value...get a copy of the NKJV to clear up the matter, God isn't the Author of confusion. ;)
     
  10. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    It demonstrates either ignorance or deception to repeat the same old non-sense. Since you have been given a clear, accurate answer to this question... you can not claim ignorance.
    Only if you think we don't still have it... which all of us do. We also believe that it has always been available... even before 1611. The Bible was and is the Word of God.

    A completely arbitrary choice no more valid than the RCC claims that only the Latin Vulgate was the Word of God.
    No it isn't... and you full well know it. There are readings in the KJV that have very little 'textual evidence' or 'ancient versions' to support them at all.

    Maybe you should see the thread I started concerning this very topic. There is no more "divine approval" on the KJV than any other good version and you would have to revise history to make a case otherwise. The KJV became the universal Bible for English speakers because the universal church/state for English speakers in the 1600's eliminated the competition... while at the same time trying to eliminate dissenters such as Baptists.

    Oh, you mean like the linguistic gymnastics that you KJVO's have to go through concerning the two accounts of Paul's conversion doesn't qualify by your same rule. The only reason you "think" there are lies is because you employ double standards and bow to the idol of your own preconceptions.

    He didn't choose those men. Archbishop Bancroft and King James did... these same men tried Baptists as heretics lest you think they were endowed with godly discernment.
    The "if" rests on a false assumption.
    Thus saith Will... but God wants us to put His Word in our hearts and many modern readers can't accomplish this with the KJV. So there is a need because we speak a different language.

    Only in the temple of your mind... using your "law" of employing double standards.

    Not for me... in fact, the opposite is true since I left behind the false doctrine of KJVOnlyism.
    OK. List those 67 verses. Give the doctrines you think we lose because of them and let's see who is right.

    The fact is Will that you yourself use the same methods of apology for explaining away apparent problems in the KJV that we use for explaining apparent problems in MV's. You just aren't honest enough to use one "set of balances".
     
  11. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's BLACK and WHITE "tripe" Larry, found right thar in the goot'ol'niv. Good to see you're finally coming around to the knowledge that the niv is NOT the Word of God as in the Whole but is actually an attack on the True Word of God. [​IMG]
     
  12. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    So Orvie, you'll strain "out" a gnat and drink the contents including a nasty camel? :D
     
  13. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    That doesn't even make sense Precepts. Will is the one attacking the word of God. I didn't even mention the NIV. It is the word of God. Will just launched yet another long and misinformed attack on God's word because he won't take the time to study the issues and learn the truth. I wish he would ... hopefully one day he will. Until then we will have to put up with this nonsense while hoping he will stop.

    I thought you weren't going to post in here anymore??? :confused: :confused:
     
  14. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    O-me, Bro Will, you stop! [​IMG]
    Playing the "Devil's Advocate", how do you KJVO's deal with it teaching man-worship? The NKJV clears it up. The KJV teaches in Daniel that Nebuchadnezzar worshiped Daniel.(last I heard, he was no god). How about Luke 14:10? see where a good MV will clear up the "misleading" of the KJV here? The KJV appears to teach man worship, unless you clear up the matter with a MV. ;) Jesus said in Matthew 4:10 that only He was to be worshiped...but the KJV teaches...it confuses when taken at face value...get a copy of the NKJV to clear up the matter, God isn't the Author of confusion. ;)
    </font>[/QUOTE]Uh, Nebuchadnezzar did worship Daniel. Daniel was so Christlike that he thought he was God.

    What, praytell is "misleading" on Luke 14:10? NOTHING, Kevin, NOTHING.

    Since God is NOT the author of confusion, why do you propigate so many confusing versions each claiming to be the Word of God? Each is supposed to be better than the last, doting back and forth between the MSS and the "next" new discovery of ancient and forgotten as well as conflciting and confusing papyri.

    Stick with the KJB, you may not fully understand every verse, but you'll NEVER be led astray. ;)
     
  15. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Only your bias gave you that impression. I'm quite proud of Brother Will's worki in showing the multiple contradictions and confusing passages in the mv's. I don't want him to stop, you do. You also want me to stop posting in the BV/T forum, probably BB altogether as well.

    Would you please quote where I gave you that impression?
     
  16. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    heh heh, nice try. wonder how the shoe fits on the other foot.

    can u name just 1 purely preserved bible that:

    1. refers to the 3rd Person of the Trinity as an "it" in Romans 8;

    2. withholds the title "the great God" from Jesus in Titus 2 n 2 Peter 1; AND

    3. omits the Eternality, Lordship, Mediatorship, n Messiahship of Jesus in Jude 25?


    see what happens when u apply an unfair test unfairly?
     
  17. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Daniel was Christlike? Neb revered Daniel, but he didn't deify him.
    Luke 14:10, didn't you read it? if taken at face value, it says to the "friend", that he can go up higher and have "worship", you don't see a problem with this friend being worshiped? NKJV clears it up with the word, "glory"; and the NIV uses the word, "honored", see how a MV can clear things up? ;)
    ...and if you wish to stick with the KJV, that's your choice, enjoy.
     
  18. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  19. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'll answer your entire diatribe with one statement. "Prince" in old English stood for "Ruler of", "Author of", "In charge of". This is where many of you KJVO's go wrong. You do NOT understand much of the old English and therefore try to make the archaic old English read in today's English, therefore, it "appears" different than modern translations. This is seen throughout your entire post. ;)
     
  20. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    There you go AGAIN, Precepts, The AV1611 is NOT what you hold in your hand today? Which is the inerrant word? The KJV 1611 or any one of its many, many revisions? Which one, huh, they can't all be inerrant, if it is the 1611, then we'll discuss the 1611, if it is the 1769, then we'll discuss the 1769............? :rolleyes: :confused: :rolleyes: :confused: :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page

Loading...