Doctrinal Differences

There are not substantive differences, doctrinally, in MVs to the KJV. To suggest otherwise simply isn't accurate.

Well you can't compare the NWT with any Christian translation. The NWT isn't a Christian translation. It is a reprobate version of the Bible developed by Jehovah's Witnesses to promulgate their twisted brand of heresy.

Absolutely not, if anything they clarify. (This isn't to say the KJV is a doctrinally hazy translation...it isn't) This is to say, given modern textual scholarship linked with modern theological scholarship there is more clarity given to certain phrases in the MVs.

For most KJVo proponents the accusation that MVs don't teach doctrines accurately is a red herring inserted into a losing argument to attempt to allow the KJVo proponent a moment to reset their argument.

 

There are only doctrinal differences found in the minds of those who have an agenda.

 

Well, I can think of one verse especially, Acts 8:37

Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

There is not a more important verse in the scriptures concerning baptizing babies than this verse. Acts 8:37 teaches that a person must believe on Jesus Christ before they can be baptized. This refutes Baptismal Regeneration.

Most MVs omit this verse but include it in the footnotes. I say that footnotes never carry the weight or authenticity of the scriptures themselves. Some MVs omit this verse and do not show it in the footnotes.

 

Here are other verses that can give a very different impression to the reader affecting doctrine.

KJB-

John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

John 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

The King James says the world was made by Jesus. What do the MVs say?

NIV-

John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

John 1:10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.

The NIV says "through" him. That is a subtle difference but very important. We know that God created the world, so if Jesus created the world we know he is God.

But saying the world was created "through" him can mean something quite different. The Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus is God, they believe Jesus to be an inferior being to God the Father, but that God the Father worked through Jesus to create the world. Here is how they translate these same two verses.

NWT-

John 1:3 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

John 1:10 10 He was in the world, and the world came into existence through him, but the world did not know him.

As you can see, the New World Translation of the JWs agrees with the NIV and many other MVs. This subtle difference allows the JWs to claim that Jesus is not God. For if the world was created "by" Jesus, then Jesus is God, for even the JWs admit that God created the world.

NWT-

Gen 1:1 1 In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

 

I am saying that these verses can be interpreted to say that, and that is exactly what the Jehovah's Witnesses will argue.

While it is true the JWs used the KJB for many years (they founded before the MVs), they abandoned it and chose the Wescott and Hort texts because they more agreed with their doctrine.

If you are asking whether Jesus is God is an important doctrine, I would say yes.

Another verse along this line:

KJB-

1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

With the KJB there is no doubt whatsoever that it is proclaiming Jesus to be God. The MVs state this verse very differently.

NIV-

1 Tim 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He* appeared in a body,* was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

The NIV simply says "He appeared in a body". What is so special about that? Everybody appears in a body, I appear in a body, and you appear in a body.

The NIV does state in the footnotes "some manuscripts God", but once again I say that footnotes never carry the weight or authenticity of the scriptures themselves. All they do is introduce doubt as to what the verse really said. And some people do not read footnotes.

The NWT of the JWs agrees with the MVs on this verse.

1 Tim 3:16 16 Indeed, the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great: ‘He was made manifest in flesh, was declared righteous in spirit, appeared to angels, was preached about among nations, was believed upon in [the] world, was received up in glory.’

The JWs will agree in a heartbeat that Jesus was manifest or appeared in the flesh. So what? Everybody does. But they deny that Jesus is God. The MVs support their false belief, the KJB does not.

 

That sounds great, but many denominations are based on a few select verses taken out of context.

If I have twenty verses that say Jesus is God, that is hard to deny. But if I only have one or two it is easy to explain them away. This is exactly what the JWs and some other groups have done with these very verses I have shown. One reason they accepted the Wescott and Hort texts is because their translation is easier to interpret that Jesus is not God.

 

Ask any JW if this verse is speaking of God. They will deny it and say it is speaking only of Jesus who appeared in a body.

Yep, and a JW will argue that the Wescott and Hort texts are much older and more reliable, and that the Received Text was much younger and corrupted, and that the word "God" is error and should not be in this verse.

Then they can pull out numerous MVs and show you all those footnotes to prove they are right.

Let me ask you Ann, should this verse say "God"?

 

I know enough of the doctrine to know that baptizing babies is NOT based on this verse. Including or excluding this verse does nothing at all to the doctrine. This is demonstrated conclusively by the fact that infant baptism existed long before the modern texts failed to include this passage. All excluding it does is take away a proof text for those who argue against infant baptism.

So, this does most certainly not represent a change in doctrine - merely a loss of a favorite proof text. And, FWIW, its a poor proof text at that. And i say that as one who disagrees with the practice of infant baptism.

 

Well, you may know, but lots of folks don't, especially new converts. If their particular church teaches them that babies should be baptized, and that they can be saved by being baptized, they are probably going to believe it, especially if there is no scripture in the Bible they use to refute it.

But what if they read the KJB? They might ask, "Father, my Bible says you can only be baptized if you believe, and babies can't believe on Jesus, why do we baptize babies?".

This argument that doctrine is shown in numerous places is not valid. Many churches will preach from certain portions of scripture and ignore others. Go to any Pentacostal church and you are going to hear lots of preaching from Acts chapter 2 and those portions of 1st Corinthians that speak about everybody having spiritual gifts like tongues. But they will avoid those scriptures that say at most by two or three and only if an interpreter is present, and they will ignore scripture that teaches women should not teach men.

I have already showed you three verses in the MVs that cast doubt on whether Jesus is God, or could be interpreted to say Jesus is not God. Groups like the JWs will gladly accept a version like this. They don't want their folks seeing 1 Tim 3:16 in the KJB whatsoever.

 

Given your argument in the Blood of Christ thread, I find the above deliciously ironic. Let me just quote you to demonstrate the fallacious (and inconsistent) nature of your point here:

Synonyms
11. By, through, with indicate agency or means of getting something done or accomplished. By is regularly used to denote the agent (person or force) in passive constructions: It is done by many; destroyed by fire. It also indicates means: Send it by airmail. With denotes the instrument (usually consciously) employed by an agent: He cut it with the scissors. Through designates particularly immediate agency or instrumentality or reason or motive: through outside aid; to yield through fear; wounded through carelessness.

You yourself recognize that the words are synonyms (FWIW, same exact word in the Greek in both the CT and TR). So, if they are synonyms, then it is absurd to claim that some doctrine has been changed. The difference is so subtle as to be non-existent. Both versions carry the same exact meaning - it was through/by the agency of Christ that the world was created.

You would find it absurd if i were to use such difference between the KJV editions to try and prove it errant in doctrine. But bring in the MVs and such absurd nitpicking becomes valid?

Furthermore, if you look at your own quote, "through" is a more powerful and immediate word than "by". If anything, "through" makes the deity and agency of Christ more clear, not less. If anything, it is the KJV rendering which is weaker. Your claim falls utterly flat.

 

Oh really? Would you mind sharing with the rest of us all the scriptures that show babies should not be baptized? There must be many as you say Act 8:37 is not necessary to refute this false doctrine.

I did not quote one single verse, I showed many that support my view. I even showed translations that supported my interpretation.

You still can't admit that "by" often means "with". So if I say I am going "by train" to Chicago I don't have to go with a train? I can go by a bus or airplane and that would still be "by train"??

Why do you even bother to ask questions? You have already made up your mind on everything. No amount of evidence will persuade you.