Bible Translations

The fact that you did noy know is that I have information concerning Erasmus and the Vaticanus manuscript.

 

So your claim that the NASB "perverts doctrine" is false. </font>[/QUOTE]Sola_Scriptura is right concerning the NASB preverting doctrine. The NASB perverts words or doctrines 4,000+ times!

 

Dear askjo,

Archangel has shown several instances where Sola Scriptura was wrong concerning an MV perverting doctrine.

Of the 4000+ can you give others?

HankD

 

I found the quotation concerning Manuscript Evidences Disputes verses from Allan O'Reilly:

"Mark 16:9-20

NIV has a note between verses 8 and 9 stating that the most reliable early manuscripts do not contain Mark 16:9-20. NKJV has a marginal note stating that Aleph and B do not contain the verses, although most other manuscripts of Mark do. RSV (1971 Edition) has a marginal note stating that some of the most ancient authorities conclude at verse 8 but that most authorities contain verses 9-20. (The 1946 Edition omitted verses 9-20 from the text, placing them in italics as a footnote. See remarks in Preface to 1971 Edition, vii, where the translators seek to cover up their ineptness.) GN brackets the verses, with a marginal note stating that some manuscripts and ancient translations omit this ending to the Gospel. LB, in the margin, notes that the verses are not found in the most ancient manuscripts but may be considered an appendix. AMP notes in the margin that the verses are not in the two earliest manuscripts. NASV brackets the verses, noting in the margin that some of the oldest manuscripts do not contain the verses. NSRB notes in the margin that Aleph and B do not contain the verses, although other manuscripts do and that they are quoted by Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the 2nd or 3rd century. NEB notes in the margin that some of the most ancient witnesses do not have the verses. NEB includes in its text the following, which other versions, e.g. RSV, NASV, retain the margin: "And they delivered all these instructions briefly to Peter and his companions. Afterwards Jesus himself sent out by them from east to west the sacred and imperishable message of eternal salvation." NWT has verses 9-20 as a "long conclusion," indicating that manuscripts A, C, D include it, while Aleph, B, the Syriac and Armenian versions omit them. NWT also has the "short conclusion" in its text-see note above on NEB text. JB insists that MANY manuscripts omit the verses.

The evidence in favour of the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 is overwhelming. The TBS publication (58) "The Authenticity of The Last Twelve Verses of...Mark" is an excellent summary, drawing mainly from Burgon, (14) p 36-40, 422-4 and Burgon's work cited by Fuller (33) p 25-130. See also Burton (5) p 62-3, Fuller (4) p 168-9, Hills (3) p 161-2, (38) p 133-4, Ruckman (2) p 132.

The TBS publication-see above-states that only 2 Greek manuscripts (Aleph and B) out of a total of 620 which contain the Gospel of Mark, omit the verses. See Burgon, cited by Fuller (33) p 60-1. Moreover, Burgon, ibid p 67, states that a blank space has been left in B, where the verses should have been but where the scribe obviously omitted them.

As further evidence in favour of the verses, Burgon (14) p423, (3) p 169, cites: 2nd Century: Old Latin and Peshitta Syriac versions, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian; 3rd Century: Coptic and Sahidic versions, Hippolytus, Vincentius, 'Acta Pilati'-by an unknown author, Apostolic Constitutions; 4th Century: Curetonian Syriac and Gothic versions, Syriac table of Canons, Eusebius, Macarius Magnes, Aphraates, Didymus, The Syriac "Acts of the Apostles," Epiphanius, Leontius, Ephraem, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine; 5th Century: Armenian version (some copies), Codices A and C, Leo, Nestorius, Cyril of Alexandria, Victor of Antioch, Patricius, Marius Mercator; 6th and 7th Centuries: Codex D, Georgian and Ethiopic versions, Hesychius, Gregentius, Prosper, Archbishop John of Thessalonica, Bishop Modestus of Jerusalem.

The TBS also cites the Philoxenian Syriac of the 5th century as containing the verses. Hills and Ruckman also cite Tatian (2nd century) as quoting the verses. Hills (3) p 162, (38) p 134, states that besides Aleph and B, the Sinaitic Syriac-from the same source as Aleph, 2 manuscripts of the Georgian version and 62 of the Armenian version omit the verses. The Old Latin manuscript k has the "short conclusion" instead of verses 9-20. See notes for NEB, NWT. Burgon (33) p 81-2, explains how this short ending has been obtained solely from Codex L, an 8th or 9th century manuscript "with an exceedingly vicious text" (ibid). Hills explains the omission of verses 9-20 from the above handful of documents as indicative of the work of heretics, especially docetists who sought to de-emphasise post resurrection appearances of the Lord from the Gospel record, ibid p 166-8, p 138-41.

Burgon (33) p 49-60 also demonstrated that the supposed adverse testimony of ancient writers is spurious, resting on a quotation from Eusebius which does NOT deny verses 9-20. Berry's Greek text supports this passage.

Let's take a look at the two "oldest and best" manuscripts that delete the last twelve verses of Mark 16. The Vaticanus (Codex B) and Sinaiticus (Codex Aleph):

The Vatican copy stops short at the end of Mark 16, verse eight. But the copiest left a blank space sufficient to accommodate the twelve missing verses! This is the only vacant column in the whole Vaticanus manuscript! It seems that the copyist knew that there was a portion missing in the copy before him. Dean John William Burgon draws the obvious conclusion that the scribe who prepared Vaticanus "was instructed to leave them out, and he obeyed; but he prudently left a blank space in memoriam rei. Never was blank more intelligible! Never was silence more eloquent!" (op. cit., p. 67, "Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark," 1871).

As for the Sinaiticus manuscript, it is written in the same-size letters throughout until you come to the place where the last twelve verses of Mark belong, then the letters become large and spread out, taking up enough extra space to allow the last twelve verses of Mark to appear in the smaller letters that had been used up until this time. The double page containing the end of Mark and the beginning of Luke was removed at an early date and replaced with the four sides rewritten to exclude Mark 16:9-20! By slightly increasing the size of the letters and spaces, the writer was able to extend his shortened version to the top of the column preceding Luke one. Tischendorf, the discoverer of the Sinaiticus copy, alleged that these pages were written by the copyists of the Vaticanus manuscript.

So much for the so-called evidence from the two "oldest" manuscripts; if anything they testify to the authenticity of the last twelve verses of Mark."

 

NASB preverts any words or doctrines:

Adds various things 231 times!
Changes various things 2853 times!
Non-Masorectic text 14 times!
Non-Textus Receptus 123 times!
Omits various things 1011 times!

Therefore the NASB is not the Word of God.

 

Then please stop holding out on us and cite it. Give us your references so we can check them out.

 

Now that you have spewed someone else's claims out here without giving them credit (or discredit), would you care to cite some specifics? I for one would like to see the evidence for these charges... one by one if necessary.

BTW, when you say "adds", "changes", or "omits", what standard are you comparing to? If it is the KJV then you have once again ASSUMED your conclusion rather than proving it. The NASB should be judged by the best evidence for the originals, not the critical choices of a 16th century RCC scholar and translation choices of a bunch of 17th Anglicans.

 

Please name them and cite your evidence that these individuals were ungodly. </font>[/QUOTE]You do not know who they are because of your unbelief. </font>[/QUOTE]I am sorry but that is a ridiculous statement.

I do not know because I have never seen evidence for such a claim... and I strongly suspect that none of you KJVO's have either. This non-sense is probably either made up (a lie) or indiscriminately quoted from someone else who made it up (also a lie).

My beliefs about someone or something have absolutely nothing to do with whether someone else is ungodly or not... nor do yours or anyone elses.

Your "belief" that individuals involved with the NIV or NKJV are ungodly doesn't make it so. The facts concerning their lives prove or disprove such a charge. What kind of self-absorbed fantasy world do you live in?

 

THE DOCTRINAL CHANGES FROM MODERN VERSIONS IN THEIR PROPER NEW TESTAMENT ORDER ARE NOW LISTED:

MATTHEW

1:25 "her firstborn" is omitted. That Jesus was her firstborn indicates that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after the birth of Jesus and that others were born of her. The omission here seeks to add credence to the false doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Bible is clear that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

5:22 "without a cause" is removed. In the Sermon on the Mount the Lord warned of judgment for those who were angry with a brother without a cause. Should this change be accepted everyone who is angry with his brother may be judged. The effect is to bring Jesus into judgment for failing to observe his own words (see Mark 3:5). Such is contrary to the doctrine of the sinlessness of Christ.

6:4, 6, 18 "openly" is out. It is a Bible Doctrine that Christian work done unnoticed for the glory of the Lord will one day be rewarded openly (Col. 3:4).

6:13 "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever, Amen" is deleted. This ascription of praise to "Our Father" is found in 491 out of 500 existing manuscripts. This statement was made a century ago by Dean John Burgon.

8:29 "Jesus" is left out. The demons bore witness to the fact that Jesus was the Son of God. It was an identification of Jesus (in humanity) as the Son of God (in Deity). It affects the doctrine of the Person of Christ.

9:8 "marvelled" is changed to "were afraid." There is no reason to believe that the people were afraid because Jesus healed the sick of the palsy. There is every reason for them to marvel at the miracle.

9:13 "to repentance" is left out. The Bible doctrine of repentance is one that men would like to do away with. God requires that in order to be saved one must truly repent (Acts 17:30; 2 Peter 3:9). The word means "a change of mind" and there must be that concerning God, sin and salvation. Men think that sin does not really separate them from God--they must change their mind about that. Men think that salvation is by works--they must change their mind about that. There is nothing more evident today than the absence of repentance among those who are professing to be converted.

15:8 "draweth nigh unto me with their mouth" is left out. According to Isaiah 29:13 it belongs in because Isaiah prophesied of these hypocrites exactly that way.

16:2,3 "When it is evening ... the signs of the times" is all omitted. The Pharisees and Sadducees came looking for a sign and the signs were all around them. Jesus called them hypocrites because they could not tell the signs of the times.

17:21 Whole verse is left out. Power with God is to be had by prayer and fasting. That is a fundamental truth of the Word of God.

18:2 "Jesus" is left out. This is done many times by the corrupt Greek Text of Westcott and Hort. I have not chosen to remark about each instance because it would add many pages to this work. The MAJORITY Text continuously places the word "Jesus" in the narrative with the definite article preceding it. Thus it places him in the center of things and in command. It is doctrinally unsound for such prominence to be discarded for the word "he."

18:11 The whole verse is omitted. This verse tells us that man is lost, that he needs to be saved, and that the Son of man is the one who can do that. The doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ is affected by this change.

18:15 "against thee" is omitted. This omission sets us up as watchdogs over others and if one sins we are to go and tell him. Such is not the teaching of Scripture. Were we to declare every sin we would be constantly busy (bodies) judging the actions and motives of everyone. This change is a very bad error.

18:35 "their trespasses" is omitted. Same thought as mentioned in 18:15.

19:9 "and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" is removed. This is a very important doctrinal change which concerns divorce and remarriage. A man who divorces his wife and remarries commits adultery, and also the man who marries the divorced wife commits adultery.

19:16,17 "Good" before Master is omitted. In addition to that, the phrase "Why callest thou me good?" is changed to "Why askest thou me concerning the good?" Good Master is correct and Jesus responded to show the young man that only one was good and that one was God. The conclusion should have been obvious. Since Jesus was good he was necessarily God. The omission and change destroys the intended testimony to the Deity of Christ.

20:16 "for many be called, but few chosen" is left out. The Lord would have us know that many are called to inherit eternal life, but few are chosen by virtue of believing in Christ. It is a Bible doctrine that God wants all men to be saved but few will come to Christ for salvation.

21:12 "of God" is out. Jesus, who was God in the flesh, came to his own temple and said, "My house shall be called the house of prayer." It was the temple of God and the God of the temple was there.

22:30 "of God" is removed. There are good angels and fallen angels. The believers, in the resurrection, will be like the good angels "of God" who alone are in heaven.

23:8 "Master" is changed to "teacher." There are many teachers but only one master. The change here takes away the pre- eminence that God intends for his Son.

25:13 "wherein the Son of man cometh" is omitted. The warning to watch is tied to the imminent return of the Lord. The omission here does away with the doctrine of the Lord's second advent.

26:28 "new" is dropped before testament. The apostle Paul tells us that Jesus said, "this cup is the NEW testament in my blood." The change here is intended to corrupt the Word of God and to confuse Christians.

27:35 "that it might be fulfilled ... did they cast lots" is all omitted. It is very important in Matthew's gospel, where Jesus is portrayed as the King of Israel, to show that he is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. Here the parting of his garments and casting lots is the fulfillment of Psalm 22:18 which portrays the crucifixion of Christ. To omit this is to show the intended corruption of the Word of God by the textual critics.

28:6 "the Lord" is omitted. The very reverent angels said, "see the place where the Lord lay." They would not say, "see the place where he lay." The constant attempt to humanize Jesus and take away from his Deity does not endear the Westcott and Hort Greek Text to believers.

 

originally by Scott J

In the copy of the NASB I own it reads as I have posted. Obviously our NASB versions are different.

 

First Ken Barker never refuted it. His letter is well known and a photostat is available in New Age Bible Versions, and a copy is available from the NIV committe. The following link gives the letter of Mr. Barker, and Virginia Mollenkott's reply, along with the other sodomite Dr. Marten Woudstra. http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/woudstra.htm

A simple comparison of translation committe members between the NIV and NKJV proves that 9 members were on both teams. The fruit produced by the ungodly, antichrist NIV demonstrates their ungodliness as does the testimony of Mollenkott.

As to the NKJV changes to the eclectic text. read Final Authority pg 305 or count for yourself, by comparing to a minority text translation.

The listing I provided of NASV verses comes from the NASV bible I own, and the verses do pervert doctrine. If you cannot see that then you are either blind or deceitful.

As to the Nestle/Aland text and UBS text being the same greek text, are you blind? I have and have access to a multitude of different revisions for each and they differ in the text body in various places. They are not the same.
One listing of a small group: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/1999-January/003624.html
and some differences demonstrating the inferiority of the critical texts and its translations: http://www.esgm.org/ingles/appendh.h.htm
If you had done research as you claimed you would know that it depends on which NA and USB you compare, as to whether they are the same or not.


As to fruit in modern version churches Pastor Larry:
From age 12, when I started using the NIV, until about age 26, I attended churches using modern versions. Here is their fruit: more concerned over what was in style than spirituality, no concern for the poorer members of the church, or the poor in general, ecumenicism,increase in modernism, sodomites and women as preachers, women wearing pants (Deut 22:5), women wearing makeup when the bible calls for them to be shamefaced, having short hair and no head covering when the bible tells them to grow their hair long and wear head covering while praying and prophesying, men with long hair, effeminite men, no soul winning, no care for the poor, no revival, no holiness, lots of fornication in the teen groups, adultery among the married, pastor's wives dressing as whores to get military men to attend church, adulterous men as deacons, my own father who left our family and married some other woman and is a deacon even though scripture says he is a denier of the faith and worse than an infidel (1Tim 5:8), teaching of the heresy known as theistic or progressive evolution, lack of repentance among the members, wordly and monetary focus, having debt (rom13:8), causing God to be blasphemed among the heathen through their vile testimony. I have gone to the churches in this town and others, as have my friends, that use the modern versions, and they are all apostate, and none of them obey scripture. If you think this to be godly fruit then you are truly a fool.

 

For those who can read, Barker made it clear that Mollenkott had a small role and her own words (if they are really hers) indicate that she had only English style influence and no passage to do with homosexuality was in her possession.

The NIV is explicity on homosexuality and your attempts to attack God's word are shamefui and rebellious against God.

So what? They were on the committee because they know their stuff, unlike you. You are given to lies and false teaching.

Grady is a known liar who has put his lies in print and he contradicts the evidence of the NKJV and the testimony of those who are committed to truth.

You lie again because there is no NASV&gt; There never was. There is a NASB; I have read it numerous times and i know beyond doubt that you are lying about this. It is clear to anyone who picks up a NASB that doctrine has not been perverted.

Yet another out and out lie. I never said they were the same text. Listen to what I said: From Oct 29 at 9:38 (I think that is the time): The reality that the UBS/NA texts (they are different texts by the way)

Now quite clearly, like some of your other friends here, you have been caught in clear dishonesty. You have shown yourself yet again to be untrustworthy. You saw my words and then said something that was not true.

They are both Greek texts which was the subject of the discussion.

No kidding ...

This is a laughable load of nothingness. It is hilarious to read these lists of fruits. Sounds to me like you have very little understanding fo these issues (something confirmed by your posts here). Not a one of these issues can be attributed to the version of the Bible. I know of churches who use MVs who will stand against every single sin you listed here. My church is one of them.

The truth is that modern versions bring fruit because they are the word of God. Your shameless attack should cause you to repent on your face before God. It is sin to attack the word of God in the way that you have. You have taken his precious word, his revelation to us, and sat in judgement on it. You have blamed it for things that it has nothing to do with.

If you think this is the result of a version, then you are the fool. Any one can see that this the result of preaching. Every sin that you listed can be condemned from the NIV, the NASB, the NKJV, and even teh RSV and NRSV. It is pure ignorance to say that this is the result of a Bible version. Sounds like you have very little discernment and very little knowledge, but things which can be corrected by the use of God's word and proper discipleship.

I worked in a KJVO church for some time. It was dead and lifeless; there was no one being saved; there was immorality in the congregation; the church was in debt and struggling week to week to pay bills; the SS teachers did not even attend church a lot of the time; there was no one sharing the gospel with their friends and neighbors to see them saved. Do you want to be consistent and blame that on the use of the KJV?? Or do you want to admit that you are wrong about your claims above?? All of us here can see that you are wrong. It is unfortunate that you continue to show yourself so inept at dealing with these issues. There is hope for those who will submit their minds and theology to Scripture. I hope that you will.

 

At last, some specifics. I have maintained that there are no differences in the modern versions that affect any major Christian doctrine in light of the teaching of Scripture as a whole. Let's put that claim to the test with these examples.

NASB Luke 2:7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

NIV Luke 2:7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

So the modern versions clearly teach that Jesus was Mary's firstborn.

You fail to make the crucial distinction between being *tempted* to sin and actually *committing* sin. The Scriptures teach that anger in and of itself is not a sin, but that anger which is not controlled or mastered can lead to sin (cf. Gen. 4:5-7). If actual sin results in actual judgment for a person, then doesn't the temptation to sin place a person in danger of judgment? When Jesus grew angry, he was tempted to sin (and so was in danger of judgment), but he never crossed the line and committed sin that resulted in actual judgment, as the modern versions indicate:

NASB Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

NIV Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are-- yet was without sin.

So the modern versions clearly teach the sinlessness of Christ.

NASB 1 Corinthians 3:13-14 each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work.14 If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward.

NIV 1 Corinthians 3:13-14 his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work.14 If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward.

So the modern versions clearly teach that works done for the glory of the Lord will be rewarded openly.

NASB Luke 9:2 And He sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to perform healing.

NIV Luke 9:2 and he sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick.

NASB Mark 12:24 Jesus said to them, "Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you do not understand the Scriptures or the power of God?

NIV Mark 12:24 Jesus replied, "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God?

NASB John 11:4 But when Jesus heard this, He said, "This sickness is not to end in death, but for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by it."

NIV John 11:4 When he heard this, Jesus said, "This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God's glory so that God's Son may be glorified through it."

So the modern versions clearly teach about the kingdom, the power, and the glory of God.

NASB Luke 8:28 Seeing Jesus, he cried out and fell before Him, and said in a loud voice, "What business do we have with each other, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg You, do not torment me."

NIV Luke 8:28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out and fell at his feet, shouting at the top of his voice, "What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg you, don't torture me!"

So the modern versions clearly teach that the demons recognized Jesus as the Son of God.

And what doctrine does this affect?

NASB Luke 5:32 "I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance."

NIV Luke 5:32 I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

So the modern versions clearly teach the doctrine of repentance.

And what doctrine does this affect?

And what doctrine does this affect?

NASB Acts 14:23 When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

NIV Acts 14:23 Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.

So the modern versions clearly teach about prayer and fasting.

Number of times the KJV uses the name of Jesus - 983
Number of times the NASB uses the name of Jesus - 986
Number of times the NIV uses the name of Jesus - 1274

So the modern versions use the name of Jesus more often than the KJV.

NASB Luke 19:10 "For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost."

NIV Luke 19:10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost."

So the modern versions clearly teach that Jesus came to save the lost.

(continued in next post...)

[ November 01, 2003, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: Archangel7 ]

 

(...continued from previous post)

NASB Matthew 18:21 Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?"

NIV Matthew 18:21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?"

So the modern versions clearly teach from the context how we are to deal with those who sin against us.

Same response as above.

NASB Matthew 5:32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

NIV Matthew 5:32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

So the modern versions clearly teach that the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

NASB Mark 10:17 As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"

NIV Mark 10:17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

NASB John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

NIV John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

So the modern versions clearly teach the deity of Christ.

NASB Matthew 22:14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."

NIV Matthew 22:14 "For many are invited, but few are chosen."

NASB 1 Timothy 2:3-4 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

NIV 1 Timothy 2:3-4 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

NASB Matthew 7:14 "For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

NIV Matthew 7:14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

So the modern versions clearly teach God wants all men to be saved but few will come to Christ for salvation.

And what doctrine is affected?

NASB Matthew 22:30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

NIV Matthew 22:30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

NASB Matthew 18:10 "See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven.

NIV Matthew 18:10 "See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.

NASB Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

NIV Revelation 12:9 The great dragon was hurled down-- that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

So the modern versions clearly teach God's angels are in heaven, and fallen angels are not; and that believers will be like the angels in heaven.

NASB Luke 5:5 Simon answered and said, "Master, we worked hard all night and caught nothing, but I will do as You say and let down the nets."

NIV Luke 5:5 Simon answered, "Master, we've worked hard all night and haven't caught anything. But because you say so, I will let down the nets."

So the modern versions clearly teach that Jesus is our Master.

NASB Matthew 25:31 "But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne.

NIV Matthew 25:31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory.

NASB 1 Thessalonians 4:15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.

NIV 1 Thessalonians 4:15 According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.

NASB James 5:8 You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near.

NIV James 5:8 You too, be patient and stand firm, because the Lord's coming is near.

So the modern versions clearly teach the Lord's second coming.

NASB Luke 22:20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.

NIV Luke 22:20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

So the modern versions clearly teach about the new covenant established through the blood of Christ.

NASB John 19:23-24 Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His outer garments and made four parts, a part to every soldier and also the tunic; now the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece. So they said to one another, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, to decide whose it shall be"; this was to fulfill the Scripture: "THEY DIVIDED MY OUTER GARMENTS AMONG THEM, AND FOR MY CLOTHING THEY CAST LOTS."

NIV John 19:23-24 When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom. "Let's not tear it," they said to one another. "Let's decide by lot who will get it." This happened that the scripture might be fulfilled which said, "They divided my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing."

So the modern versions clearly teach that Jesus' garments were divided and distributed by lot in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy.

NASB John 20:2 So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him."

NIV John 20:2 So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"

So the modern versions clearly teach that Jesus was acknowledged as Lord at His resurrection; and as has already been shown, the modern versions clearly teach the divinity of Jesus.

At the end of all these examples, my original claim stands: there's not a single difference between the KJV and the modern versions that affects any major Christian doctrine in light of the teaching of Scripture as a whole.

 

Dear askjo,

Things? What are things?

Do you mean words or phrases?
There are are legitimate questions as to the original language texts and those words and phrases that are omitted and/or added.

These words affect perhaps 2-4 % of the actual text (using the TR as the basis of comparison).

The KJV both adds and deletes words from the TR, does that make it also NOT the Word of God?


HankD

 

I think Archangel has done an excellent job yet again of showing the absolute foolishness and dishonesty that pervades this conversation. We see yet again that the charges of "doctrinal changes" have been completely refuted and shown to be based in false teaching. How I wish that people would begin to accept God's word rather than the teaching of man ...

 

Askjo said:

The fact that you did noy know is that I have information concerning Erasmus and the Vaticanus manuscript.

I'm sure you have plenty of information. However, as this thread has more than amply demonstrated, the information possessed by KJV-onlyists frequently is not in accord with reality, and often not in accord with information held by other KJV-onlyists.

How many errors of fact, errors of logic, errors of history, and outright falsehoods do Christians have to put up with before we can fairly consign KJV-onlyism to the fate it so richly deserves, a footnote in the book of late 20th century folly?

 

I have the NASB 1977 and NASB 1995 on CD. They both read the same in these passages.

I have no idea what you have. Would you mind typing the exact texts in... I will send them to Lockman and ask for an explanation.

BTW, I don't hold the NASB translators as infallible nor do ascribe such a divine characteristic to the producers of the critical texts. They are simply scholars every bit as honest but fallible as Erasmus or the KJV translators.

 

Then please stop holding out on us and cite it. Give us your references so we can check them out. </font>[/QUOTE]Click: ERASMUS REJECTED THE READINGS OF VATICANUS AND SIMILAR

This website that I found concerning Erasmus and Vaticanus is here:

"ERASMUS REJECTED THE READINGS OF VATICANUS AND SIMILAR

As we have seen Vaticanus is the primary pillar of our modern versions. This is the manuscript that is supposed to be so much better and ancient that those used by Erasmus. However, according to Wilkinson, Erasmus, through a certain Professor Paulus Bombasius at Rome, had access to, and received from his "such variant readings as he wished." And in 1533 a correspondent of Erasmus sent him "a number of selected readings from Codex B as proof of its superiority to the Received Greek Text." Erasmus, however, rejected these varying readings because he considered from the massive evidence of his day that the Received Text was correct. Therefore, modern Bibles are built upon a foundation that Erasmus rejected. And we can see the guiding hand of God in this rejection."