Doctrines introduced or changed over time?

--------------------------------------------------
The text was corrupted long before modern translations, the KJV and even the TR.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is not what historical facts show.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

The historical facts also show no support for single-translation-onlyism. Neither does scripture.

 

13. Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them.
14. But Jesus said, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
15. After laying His hands on them, He departed from there. (NASB, 1995)

Dear Brother James,

I find it just a bit difficult to believe that the little children being brought to Jesus for Him to bless them were first trimester fetuses! Notice that Jesus expressly says, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me.” And Matthew expressly tells us that before departing from there, Jesus laid his hands on the children. Personally, I believe that this was a real, historic event rather than a spiritualization of some deeper truth. Jesus literally laid his hands upon those real live boys and girls and blessed them.

Several years ago I was strolling through a large public park where homeless families go to find some comfort from the shade of the trees, the plush lawns, the beautiful flowers, the drinking fountains, and the public restrooms. On this particular day there were some small children there who were most pitifully suffering from severe want, and I could see by looking into their faces that their suffering was not just a happenstance of that one day, but that their suffering characterized their very lives. And less than 100 yards away were several hundred Christians from some very large and extremely wealthy churches who were marching and carrying signs and banners protesting abortion while some other homeless people were out scouring for food in the trash cans so that those children could eat a few bites of garbage.

There are approximately 2,000 references in the Bible to poverty—but not even one reference to voluntary abortion. The priorities of God could not be more obvious, but of course an anti-abortion bumper sticker is a much cheaper way to assuage one’s guilt than to provide food, clothing, shelter, and medical care for the hundreds of thousands of children in the United States who suffer everyday from severe want, not to mention literally millions of other children world-wide who suffer everyday from an even more severe want!

If 50,000 evangelical Christians in one of the richest cities in the entire world cannot afford to care for those children in their own city park, the evangelical Christians in America have a much greater problem to worry about than first trimester fetuses.

In a single day I have enjoyed both the snow of the mountains and a warm sunny beach. In a single day I have also seen both the eyes of a child who is living a life of severe poverty and the eyes of a child whose parents possess more wealth than most of us could possibly imagine. In the eyes of the child living a life of severe poverty I have seen an unspeakable dimness and despair; and in the eyes of the child living in the very lap of luxury I have seen a bright sparkle of joyous expectation. I do not believe that God has called me to save the life of a first trimester fetus so that one day it can stare at me with those eyes filled with hopelessness and despair.

As long as there is even one pair of those eyes filled with hopelessness and despair, they are going to be my priority; and the thought of being responsible for another pair of those eyes coming into this world is a thought too horrible for me to contemplate.

</font>[/QUOTE]Perhaps this is a debate for a new thread, brother. I know exactly what you are talking about, but I can't honestly say that God would rather have us kill a child than have one born into poverty.

 

Oh, but the historical facts show you are wrong. Why do you think there are so many textual variants among all the manuscripts.

 

Give us some facts.

 

Let's assume that this us true for a moment. It raises several questions:

Define "division and strife, doubt and confusion among the bretheren".

Define "MV".

Tell us if you think non-"MV"'s have ever brought "division and strife, doubt and confusion among the bretheren".

Tell us how this would support a single-translation-only doctrine. This is an important question, since we're forbidden from adding doctrine to scripture.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Perhaps this is a debate for a new thread, brother. I know exactly what you are talking about, but I can't honestly say that God would rather have us kill a child than have one born into poverty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Really? If this is true, then why then was Jesus Christ himself, born of poverty, and born in a manger, nor have any place to lay his head? Does God desire us to be materially rich in this life? I think not, as God said do not stock up treasures on earth, which will all pass away, but stock up treasure in Heaven, where neither moth, nor rust eateth it away. Based upon what you have stated you believe God would have us to do and believe, then it would not be far from saying that you believe God would have you to kill Jesus Christ himself. If this was true, why then was Jesus Christ brought to Egypt to escape the killing of children by Herod? Did God look kindly on this? The beliefs pouring out of some on these threads are absolutely SHOCKING for christians to be not only thinking and believing but condoning. Boy, we sure are living in perilous times.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Define "division and strife, doubt and confusion among the bretheren".

--------------------------------------------------


I think I have many times, over on the Bible Version debate forums, to which you are very familiar with. Remember what Jesus Christ said:

Luke 12

49. I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?
50. But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!
51. Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
52. For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
53. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
54. And he said also to the people, When ye see a cloud rise out of the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is.
55. And when ye see the south wind blow, ye say, There will be heat; and it cometh to pass.
56. Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time?
57. Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?
58. When thou goest with thine adversary to the magistrate, as thou art in the way, give diligence that thou mayest be delivered from him; lest he hale thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and the officer cast thee into prison.
59. I tell thee, thou shalt not depart thence, till thou hast paid the very last mite.


Now ask yourself this. Is it Jesus Christ and his truth that brings the division? Or is it rather those who REJECT and ARGUE the truth that bring the division? Those who cannot see, or refuse to see, are the ones who cause division. The alterations and omittions that are evident in the modern versions, have not only caused many who love the words of God to warn others of them, to which those who are being shown this deny it, compromise with it, refuse to see it, and attak those who come to share it and slap a false man made label upon them and then accuse them of believe a false doctrine. They are the ones causing the strife and the division, because they refuse to see and admitt the truth regarding this issue. This is indeed caused by the mv's to which are based upon corrupt texts and methods. This has also sown doubt to many, as many now believe that no one has God's inerrant, infallible words, and that they are only found in the "origionals" which do not exist. They also sow doubt to those who see God's words in the footnotes, and take away the authority of the verse in the footnote, all because modern scholars rely upon faulty and unbelieving methods to translate from corrupt texts, only found in history, in one location of this earth, and at the expense of and very well knowing that these verses have long been believed and accepted, and existed in the churches even up until this day. Shall I say that I believe you are believing in a false doctrine? A doctrine that says all that calls itself the word of God, or a Bible is accurate and true. Nonsense. We are to prove all things. Many mv'ers, also neglect to see the providence and power of God regarding his pure words, not only in history, but in a translation also. This denies the power of God, and places this power on man, and makes mans fallibility more powerful and true over that of God and his abilities, character, attributes, and power.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Define "MV".
--------------------------------------------------


Any modern version translation today that relies upon the critical text (corrupt texts and methods), or any that gives any credence to them.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Tell us how this would support a single-translation-only doctrine. This is an important question, since we're forbidden from adding doctrine to scripture
--------------------------------------------------


Herin lies your confusion, based upon your slapping some false label upon those sharing the truth, and trying to make it seem as though we believe such a thing as doctrine. There were many translations of God's words, in the English language that were prior to the KJB. These were all God's perfect words, in their day. As the language was forming and becoming established. The need to improve it, and refine it was made, and accomplished in 1611, with spelling, printing, typeface errors corrected in following editions. Most of the reformation Bibles were all based upon the same texts and mirror one another. This is not the case with the versions of today, coming from completely different texts, and methods. They are not the same. Nor can they be compared as being the same.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle, this is not a good thing you are saying. If it was God's perfect word in earlier times, it still is God's perfect Word. To elevate the position of the kjVERSION to the only perfect Word of God is false, even by your own admission here. This proves again that the "doctrine" of the KJVo's position is false. Also, not one doctrine has changed over time, even with the introduction of the MV's. There is no slapping of "false labels" as you continue to insist over and over throughout these threads. Just because MV's may use different words to describe the same things doesn't make them different and unable to mirror. Nor did the past versions do this, as they have conflicting statements which have been pointed out time and time again. There is NO SUPPORT of one version onlyism, and it is a false doctrine introduced only within the last few decades.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Also, not one doctrine has changed over time, even with the introduction of the MV's.
--------------------------------------------------

God says:

2 Tim. 3

12. Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
13. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
14. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15. And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17. That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


God also does say much about his words and the scriptures and even gives warnings to those who would add to or take from them - this includes every jot and every tittle, as Jesus said they would not pass away, until all be fulfilled, to IF DONE CAN and does affect doctrine and weaken it. The rest of your post, has already been addressed and discussed at length and to which further discussion on it will do not any good.


Until you can reason with the scriptures on this issue, I will not continue with you in further discussion on it. The scriptures are my final authority on all matters, including this one, and NOT my opinions, or yours.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Yes, I'm familiar with it. You've never been able to demonstrate your claim with any evidentiary support, or any scriptural support.

I asked you here a basic question. Your refusal to answer the question has been noted.

I have several translations that are based on the same TR used by the KJV 1611 translators. Most notably, the MKJV. By your own definition, it's not an MV.

 

There's no confusion at all. It's your words, not mine, that attest to this. You believe that ONLY the KJV is the perfect infallible word of God for all people. I've asked 41 times for scriptural support for this as doctrine, and never gotten any.

Which does not support the false doctrine you espouse. Actually, it refutes the doctrine.

Your presumtion has two flaws. First, it presumes that English finished evolving in 1611. Second, it presumes that any changes made to the KJV after 1611 were simply corrections to spelling, printing, typeface errors. Neither of those statements is correct. English has continued to evolve since 1611, and, as a result, the KJV underwent several major revisions that, in addition to correcting spelling, printing, and typeface errors, also updated the language. An 18th century KJV differes significantly from the 1611 KJV in its language.

Again, two flaws of thinking in that paragraph. First, you're making a case here for single-source text-onlyism. If we presume that single-source text-onlyism is valid, then it does not in any way support single-translation-onlyism. Your doctrinal stance is not one of single-source-text-onlyism. It's single-translation-onlyism. Nothing in your post lends support to us only being allowed one tanslation of the TR today.

Second, we now have the Dead Sea Scrolls. The DSS, dating to the time of Christ, support non-TR Greek texts more than they do the TR. One must either conclude that the earlier texts are indeed more accurate, or that the Dead Sea Scrolls are of no value. Since there's no historical support for the latter, the former is probably likeliest situation.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Yes, I'm familiar with it. You've never been able to demonstrate your claim with any evidentiary support, or any scriptural support.
-------------------------------------------------


What view is this? Some imaginary doctrine that you have all conjured up, and place upon us, that do not believe it nor teach it? I have given much scriptural support concering the scriptures, and to why the mv's are to be rejected, and not trusted, to which you IGNORE or EXCUSE away, or make it seem I and others are taking it out of context, without any scriptural support on your end. Please! You are just in plain denial of the hard truth staring you in the face. You are also very blinded by the label that others have placed upon those sharing the truth with you. You end up attacking and falsely accusing them also because of this.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
asked you here a basic question. Your refusal to answer the question has been noted.
---------------------------------------------------

I answered it. Are you really even more blind than you have shown to be already?


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
I have several translations that are based on the same TR used by the KJV 1611 translators. Most notably, the MKJV. By your own definition, it's not an MV.
--------------------------------------------------

Does it rely upon the critical greek text, give credence to it in any way? Used dynamic equivalency to the extreme? Unessessary paraphrasing, etc.? Has it changed long standing, known, and understood basic English words such as Lucifer to morning star, etc.? If not, then fine and wonderful. Your point is?


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
There's no confusion at all. It's your words, not mine, that attest to this. You believe that ONLY the KJV is the perfect infallible word of God for all people. I've asked 41 times for scriptural support for this as doctrine, and never gotten any.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------


When you say the KJV, are you referring to the label? Or the scriptures/words of God within?


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
There's no confusion at all. It's your words, not mine, that attest to this. You believe that ONLY the KJV is the perfect infallible word of God for all people. I've asked 41 times for scriptural support for this as doctrine, and never gotten any
--------------------------------------------------


Your refusal to see that it is you and others who have called something a doctrine that is not actually believed by those you accuse of believing. Again, you are looking for something to prove something that isn't even being claimed, and you therefore will never be satisfied, nor will you see the truth. Why are you blinding yourself so? Do you love the words of God? Are they precious to you? Do you find them sweeter than milk and honey?


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Which does not support the false doctrine you espouse. Actually, it refutes the doctrine.
-------------------------------------------------

I do not believe in any false doctrine. It is you and others who have placed this upon those of us who don't even claim this. You are thouroughly confused regarding this issue. Why? Because of this false label placed upon the truth, to blind others from seeing it.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle