Inerrancy?

You admit that the original autographs, the collaborative work of God through men, do not "exist any more". Your statement does not seem to be a very positive endorsement that God has indeed preserved His written words.

 

'Progressive revelation' is recognized. Perhaps, you discribe a similar Sovereign activity we could call 'progressive transmission' (and then 'progressive translation' follows).

 

We've seen this many times. It is just a big circular argument. He uses the passages in the KJV as the basis if these verses should read the way they should read. No doctrine is changed(in the NIV, NASB, NKJV, ESV). I have asked kjvo advocates many times to name any major doctrine that is different and have yet to have anybody prove that there is any major doctrinal change. Articles like this show that one verse maybe different, but that doesn't change any doctrine.

 

No, there is only one possibility: There are NO perfect and inerrant translations done by human beings. Translations of literature cannot be "perfect" (that is, correspondingly identical) since they are merely approximations of the original material represented in another language.

The Holy Spirit has guided some biblical writers to include some translations in the Scriptures which ARE perfect and inerrent.

 

Give me a break, there are dozens of verses shown in the article I provided, and how they affect doctrine is shown many times.

One of the most famous verses omitted in many of the MVs which absolutely affects doctrine is 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.

When the Ethiopian eunuch asked Philip what hindered him from being baptized, Philip answered he could only be baptized if he believed with all his heart on Jesus. This verse is a tremendous problem for those who baptize babies because a baby cannot understand and therefore cannot believe on Jesus.

Your statement is easily shown to be ridiculous and untrue. This verse is omitted in the NIV, NLT, ESV, and many other versions. It's omission supports the false Catholic doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

 

Neither the ASV nor the RSV are inerrent. They cannot be inerrent because they are translations (NOT because "they are not the same").

What "letter of the word" do you find "being important"? Which "words" do you feel have "definite meaning"? Certainly, you must not be speaking of any original language words (in Hebrew, Aramaic & Greek) since they are not each and every one translated into English Bibles (any version, including the KJV). Some just don't translate well, and some are deliberately left out. Is that a problem for you?

 

I don't agree with you that a translation is by necessity error. If I ask for a glass of water in English or German, how is that error?

What is important is that the original intent and full meaning of the scriptures is provided.

For instance, I just showed Acts 8:37 where Philip told the Ethiopian eunuch he could be baptized only if he believed on Jesus Christ with all his heart.

Many of the MVs omit this, and it has a serious affect on doctrine. Many churches baptize babies and teach baptismal regeneration. This verse clearly shows that babies should not be baptized because they cannot possibly understand and believe on Jesus Christ.

So, in my opinion, the omission of this verse causes serious doctrinal error.

I have said before, if a person were to substitute modern words for the archaic words used in the KJV, as long as they give the intended and full meaning of the archaic words I would not have a problem with that.

Everybody keeps trying to insist that all these versions are saying the same thing. That is preposterous. I have showed several examples of differences between the KJV and MVs in my posts that affect doctrine.

 

Here is a verse which gives a very different meaning between the KJV and the NIV, Romans 8:1

KJV:

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

And now this same verse in the NIV:

Rom 8:Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,

Now, I don't know about you, but I see a major difference between these two verses. The KJV says there is no condemnation to those which are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit.

The NIV just says there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, doesn't matter if you are walking in the flesh or Spirit. Whatever you are doing, there is no condemnation for you.

That is a huge difference in meaning.

 

So by your logic, why isn't the NWT an accurate translation? So what that they add a word in John 1:1? There are other verses that show the deity of Christ. Do you use the NWT?

It is not accurate to say that it is sin to be angry.

Of course not. You know me better than that. But I am also not against common sense.

I have no problem with variants. It is helpful to point out the variants. But there are many verses in MV's which do change doctrine. Such as the one I have pointed out about being angry.

BTW, when I say "MV's", I'm referring to versions that are translated from different texts than the KJV, NKJV, MKJV and others.

 

Here's another omission that can create doctrinal confusion, Matthew 18:11. This verse is shown in the KJV, but omitted in the NIV.

Matt 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

This verse argues that Jesus died for all men and not just a few elect. For even Calvinists must admit that the non-elect are lost. So, the KJV would not be as popular with Calvinists, they would probably prefer the many MVs which omit this verse (and do). The ESV also omits this verse.

But the NAS includes this verse, so you cannot say the NAS agrees with the NIV and ESV.

 

Aee you saying then that the MV's don't teach that believing on Jesus Christ is the son of God? As I said in my previous post, you can show one verse here and there, but never an actual doctrine that is changed.

I'm glad that we have LOTS AND LOTS of other passages that teach against baptismal regeneration. Don't you see what you have done here? You didn't even come close to responding to what I said. Basically you are saying that the modern versions support the false teaching of baptismal regeneration, which is totally untrue.


Again, the kjvo fails to name a doctrine that is changed.

 

Meaning in THIS ONE VERSE! Not total doctrine in the Bible. What that verse says in the kjv is in the NIV too.

Matthew 18:11 is a textual variant. Not affecting doctrine at all.

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

 

Here is another verse that would give very different meanings between the KJV and NIV, Mark 10:24

KJV:

Mark 10:24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

Here Jesus warns his disciples that it is very difficult for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of heaven. But the NIV gives a completely different meaning.

NIV:

Mark 10:24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!

Now, it is true that verse 25 in the NIV mentions that it is more difficult for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God, but nevertheless, verse 24 gives the impression that it is very difficult for any man, rich or poor to enter in.

So, verse 24 in the NIV distorts what Jesus was saying. He was specifically warning against trusting in riches and teaching it is almost impossible for those that trust in riches to be saved.

The NIV gives the impression that it is almost impossible for any man to be saved. That may be true, but that is not what Jesus was teaching, the meaning of his teaching has been distorted by this omission.

 

Here is another example, Ephesian 1:13. The KJV contradicts the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity, while the NIV supports it.

KJV:

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

The KJV teaches that the unregenerate man can hear the gospel, and if he hears it and trusts it, then he receives the Holy Spirit.

Now look at the NIV:

Eph 1:13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,

The NIV teaches you were included "in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation". This gives a very different meaning, it lends support to those who teach a person must be first regenerated before they are enabled to hear the gospel. It is easy to see that any Calvinist would prefer the NIV.

The KJV does not teach we are "in Christ" when we hear the gospel. So, these two versions do not agree doctrinally.

I could go on and on, there are many differences between the KJV and the MVs. Anybody who says they are saying the same thing does not know what they are talking about.

 

Well, I guess if you take verse 24 out of context in the NIV, then you would have something. But again, you would have to take it out of context...

 

Well, I do know what I'm talking about, you still havn't given one doctrinal difference. You gave textual differences(where the same verse was in Luke) you gave one example(where you MUST take it out of context) and now this one where you are simply misreading the passage.

Eph 1:13

KJV: And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,

NIV: And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,

ESV: In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,

The passage teaches that we are saved after we have "head the word of truth" and "believed in him." There is nothing doctrinally wrong with the passage. The NIV isn't teaching here that you were in Christ before you were saved. I don't read the NIV, but do have a copy of it. I'm not that familiar with it's readings and don't usually take time to defend them. I'm more familiar with the KJV and the ESV, which I do believe say it better here in this passage. You can take this phrase in the NIV out of context and come to the conclusion you gave, but that would be the only reason.

 

No, the NIV clearly says we were "in Christ" when we heard.

And I don't expect you to admit these major differences between the versions, I have been in these types of discussions before.

And if you don't think Acts 8:37 is important and proves that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is false, I don't know what I or anyone else could possibly show you. People were burned at the stake by the Catholic Church because they would not allow their babies to be baptized based on this very verse.

Those folks knew the difference and were willing to die for it.

 

You don't have to agree, it is just a fact of translation (whether speaking of secular literature or sacred).

Of course, a "glass of water" (short sentence) would be no problem. We have already established that Bible versions agree with one another in over 90% of the text. It is in a lengthy written text that there is going to be translational difficulties (we would call 'error' or lacking exact equivalence).

The "intent" of which Scriptures? Hebrew & Greek ones, or something else?

 

Look, I am not going to continue this debate, I have presented several verses that show that the KJV and MVs are very different and give a very different meaning to many scriptures. I provided a link that shows dozens of more examples. There are numerous websites devoted to discussing the differences between these versions.

Believe what you wish.

 

Name one verse that specifically indicates God will preserve "scriptures" (written revelation); Nevermind, you can't (because there aren't any).

You must project your presupposition on the text that when terms like "word", "precept", "judgements", "promises" etc. are used in a verse that it must be referring to a written revelation (despite the fact that mostly these originate in oral cultures). But God's "word" is much more than only the written portion. Yes, I believe He has preserved ALL His revelation unto Himself; YET there is nothing explicit concerning a written text on Earth in every dispensation in the Bible itself! So, you may be looking for a perfect and inerrant text that was never promised.