Doctrinal Differences

None of this equates to a doctrinal change. These doctrines are not based on single verses like that. All it represents is a loss of a proof text, but it does not represent a change of doctrine. Anyone who really understands the basis for the doctrine of believers baptism won't have any difficulties whatsoever in demonstrating their position without this verse. You were asked to demonstrate changes in doctrine but all you can show are missing proof texts. Proof texting is a bad habit anyways. Any person who is persuaded by use of a single verse will just as easily be dissuaded by use of another single verse.

The problem is not with the versions, but with such a naive and deficient approach to doctrine.

But yeah, if doctrines are proven or disproven by means of proof texting, then you are absolutely right, the MVs represent a change in doctrine. I utterly and vehemently reject the premise though. It's a naive and counterproductive approach to doctrine.

Here is a list of some verses where the KJB casts doubt on whether Jesus is God (I bolded the ones that are particularly bad):

Matthew 1:1
The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Matthew 1:16
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Matthew 1:18
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Matthew 1:21
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Matthew 1:25
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Matthew 2:1
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
Matthew 3:13
Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
Matthew 3:15
And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
Matthew 3:16
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
Matthew 4:1
Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
Matthew 4:7
Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

I could go on and on and on and on, but this should be sufficient to prove my point. Clearly, the KJV is a horrible translation because it casts so much doubt on Christ's deity.

 

"Things that are different are not the same". That's all you are going to get... as the posts thus far have shown. If it isn't the KJV then it ain't right and it never will be in the eyes of some.

Many of the KJV camp like to tout that the KJV has been around for 400 years, and it has. And for 400 years there have been cults and false doctrines arise out of the KJV... many, many, many more than have arisen out of all modern translations combined.

The only doctrinal differences are those imposed upon the biblical text by those teaching/preaching. It doesn't matter what translation the individual is using, be it the NIV, NASB, ESV, or KJV

 

There are bunch. First of all, it must be understood that credobaptism is part and parcel of a system of thought. It has never been based on one verse, but upon a system of interpreting and understanding many passages. There are several different ways to approach proof of this doctrine, but all are too involved to deal with in one post like this. If you wish to read more, I can provide you with links to good articles.

Here though are just a few of the many verses used in support of credobaptism:
Matt 28:19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost

Baptize who? Baptize disciples.

Acts 2:38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Baptize after what? After repentance.

And these are just the tip of the iceberg.

Blatant false statement alert!!!! (Do you need the post numbers where false nature of your statement is explicitly negated?) Enough said for this thread about that. Now maybe you can deal with your own logic when it is applied to the verses you use here.

1. You say that as if any amount of evidence would persuade you. I will go out on a limb and say that I am at least as persuadable as you are. Take that for what its worth. And, FWIW, I have had some serious doctrinal shifts over the years as a direct result of discussing things on the Internet.

2. If you discuss on here to persuade other people, you are, to be frank, naive. I discuss on here to have a good discussion. Asking questions is part of that. It allows others to clarify their own position and thus helps me avoid using straw men or making invalid assumptions about another's position.

 

Cause its easier to obscure an equivocation.

 

not much time here, it us late so apologies...

Just to point out that all of Winman's challenges are resolved with proper understanding of Greek, textual criticism, and the hermeneutical nature of most translations.

I'll return later on...gooodnight for now.

 

Of course in the 1611 edition of the King James Translation 1 John 5v12 denies that Jesus is specifically the son of God.

But that's okay of course.