Are modern Bible translations gnostic?

Since your first point has no substance I'll address the second-

Kindly point out the difference between Satan's attack in Genesis and the attacks of KJVO's against so-called "MV's".

I doubt that I will get an answer but thought I would try anyhow.

 

The problem is this. KJVOs sow discord among the brethren. I can understand why KJVOs believe what they believe and why -- they want to make sure that God's Word (the KJV in their eyes) is kept "pure." Because they take this so far it places them in a cult. They are just as blinded as the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses insofar as it pertains to their (KJVO's) believing a false doctrine (Note: I'm not saying that KJVOs are JWs or Mormons: I'm pointing out that they're so indoctrinated to King James Onlyism -- the belief in a false doctrine and -- that they cannot understand truth).

 

I don't even think much historical proof is needed for askjo to answer this. He does not need to know greek really.
It would suffice for me if he could simply show me that awful gnostic teaching in the NASB.

 

Satan attacked Scripture in the Garden? Is that biblically or historically accurate? The word "scripture" means a writing by the hand. What handwritten revelation existed in the Garden that Satan could attack?

Did God give Adam a book or scroll? Was it the complete KJV? If not, does that suggest that there is holy Scripture someplace else besides just within the covers of the KJV?

 

Askjo.

For a long time I drifted around fooling with the MV’s, which I still own a good collection of. I got away from the KJV for some time, but one day I started reading it again. And I did not need a book of higher scholarly criticism, strongs, or a Greek New Testament to refer to. My hart told me, there was a big difference in the MV's I had been reading, and the KJV. The KJV has life in it, that the others do not have.

Now I look on the others (MV's) as "sometimes a commentary", but nothing more. But in the case where whole verses are left out!, or as in Mark 16:9-20 sadly they don't even make a decent commentary.

Now Askjo you are beating a dead horse, the dead do not see, and they do not hear. So leave the dead to bury their own. :tear:

 

The dead horse may be stinking! that's why we need to bury them ! Now you suggest he should leave the dead to bury their own.

 

At best, you are giving an opinion, with no supporting evidence, aside form your personal preference; at worst, you are implying that one cannot be saved from some supposed "MV" or even some older version ("OV"?), such as the GEN, MCB, or TYN (Might this be a good place to bring up that the majority of the KJV NT is directly attributable to Tyndale, and a huge chunk of the KJV OT is directly attributable to Coverdale and Tyndale, as well?), simply because a "dead word" cannot possibly give life.

Considering, I just looked up all 20 English versions that are found on Bible Gateway, and found each and every one of them contains Mk. 16:9-20, exactly what are you referring to here?

And what verses are allegedly "left out" of any of these, at least in the major versions? This had been refuted time and again, here on the Baptist Board, and simply because one does not like the location when verses may be in the footnotes or side notes as the alternative reading to the main text body, this does not, in any sense, equal "left out!"

In addition, why do so many apparently 'choke' over some verse or word(s) being in the footnotes or side notes, who while so loudly proclaiming their fealty to "the King James -1611" , yet have no problem in completely leaving out more than a dozen parts of or complete books? Have you even heard of the Apocrypha?? This is blatant hypocrisy and a double-standard, at best, and I am not even going to attempt to characterize what it might be, at worst.

Well, I'm also pretty sure, as a cattle farmer, that I can recognize the dead horse and the dead cows right along with the dead bull.

FTR, the Bible editions I own and that I prefer happen to be a 1967 KJV, and a 1989 NKJV, both of which are the 'genuine' article.

Ed

 

I could use your same argument simply by putting "NIV" in lieu of "KJV." Since when did Evangelicals start using experience to determine truth? Even the Mormons say they have a "burning in their heart" when they read the Book of Mormon.

 

NO! I am not suggesting that a person cannot be saved, from reading a modern translation. Even! the most blundered Gospel presentation, will save those destined to be saved. I am also a Calvinist! as you can see. :tonofbricks:

A lot of the MV's have replaced Mark 16:9-20 in their later printings, but in the originals that was not so. I have an NIV for one, that puts a note right in the text that says it should not contain these verses. Oh, and a RSV that does not have them.

My NASB (1975 V.) has them Jailed in brackets, and tells you they don't belong there, so do many of the others. Now if you jail it up, and you tell me it doesn't belong, you might as well have left it out.

But I did not come in here to debate, I simply was warning Askjo, he was beating a dead horse.

Yeah! I read a little in the book of Mormon once, and it gave me heartburn also. In fact I used to have one, I donated that to the trash dump.

 

All of my NIVs say regarding the last several verses of Mark: "The earliest manuscripts do not contain Mark 16:9-20," but they do not say that those verses should not be there.

I find nothing wrong with the note that provides this information. Honesty is a good thing.

 

Wow, I didn't see that at first. He'll have to answer to God for that.

 

I guess I need to defend that. I used the words DEAD HORSE, there are people just like that. That refuse to hear, or see anything they do not want to. But since dead horses can't bury themselves, I guess someone needs to.

My statement had nothing to do with anyones Salvation. God is the judge of that not me.

 

annsni (and R. Lawson), you might also note that this poster, by implication, also questioned the salvation of all who were saved before there was any KJV, as well, which words I noted in 'blue' here. I noted this in post #89. In addition, this post effectively questions the salvation of any who do not even speak English, as well.

That would include even the NT writers. (Sorry, I'm simply not willing to accept the offered 'theological cop-out' poster offered to me, via the theological system generally known as Calvinism, here, in what I consider an attempt by poster to 'soften' teh blow of said poster's own stated words.)

According to a couple of the Bible translations I possess, we are born again by the incorruptible seed, which is the living word of God. (I Pet. 1:23-NKJV) The word is alive, by definition, hence embued with life, and is even said to be the word of life. (Phil'p. 2:16 -KJV; Heb. 4:12).

At best, the position this poster is suggesting amounts to a "one version Bibliolotry" - and at worst - I'm not even going to try to ascertain what I consider this to be, although a certain word which we have been asked to not use in our posts (So I will not.) that begins with the letter "h" seems to be extremely close, IMO.

And I suggest that is a real reason to end a post with :tear:

Ed