1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Major Doctrines affected by Modern English Translations

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Dr. Bob, Oct 6, 2004.

  1. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    How many manuscripts differ?

    But the Mormons make such a great claim about understanding in their heart. So I just ask them to show me how they know it is of God. Always, no answer, everytime.
     
  2. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen! Terry, I second! God bless you! [​IMG]
     
  3. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    How many manuscripts differ? </font>[/QUOTE]99% MSS supported the KJV; 1% MSS supported MVs.
     
  4. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    Then that is what you should use, if this is the case. I personally don't care what Bible you use.

    I will stay with the KJV and I will continue to attend KJVO churches. In fact, I would not knowingly step foot in any other type of church.

    You can do whatever you want to, it doesn't affect what I do in the least.
     
  5. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    MVs omitted important names of our Lord Jesus Christ in the New Testament alone 200 times! They affected the Christology. They omitted the doctrine of Jesus Christ not because of any MSS supporting, but because of MSS that were mutilated, changed or added names of Jesus Christ.

    Compare to B and Aleph disagreeing each others in the Gospels alone 3,000 times! Look at Mark 16:9-20 was missed there.

    MVs' footnote said MSS did not contain Mark 16:9-20. Their footnote is false. MVs denied that they affected the doctrine of Mark 16:9-20. Again, it is false.
     
  6. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Well, at least you admit that the versions differ from the KJV in that soemtimes they have used the name of Jesus Christ where the KJV did not. What standard do you use to make such a claim? In others words, if it is not KJV it is wrong if does not use the name and Christ and wrong if it does?

    Talk about damned if you do and damned if you don't!
     
  7. mioque

    mioque New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    Terry
    "However, I do speak English and I know that the KJV is the best Bible for the English-speaking people"
    "
    I can read the Bible in a number of different languages and the KJV does not especially stand out, not among the English translations of the Bible and even less when compared to translations of the same era in other languages.
     
  8. David J

    David J New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    Name a doctrine that does not exist in the NASB(1995).

    Show me in full context please. No spin.
     
  9. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Same for the NKJV.
     
  10. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Askjo said "God beget God AND Son????"

    Yes. Jesus is God. Jesus is Son. Same person. The Son is begotten of the Father. There is only one God. This is basic Trinitarian doctrine, Askjo. If "begotten Son" does not mean his Sonship had a beginning, then "begotten God" does not mean his Godship had a beginning.

    Lacy said "The bottom line is this: Every major doctrinal difference that is brought to the attention of a MV user is denied vehemently by thirsty horses knee deep in pure sweet fresh water."

    Lacy, we were talking about John 1:18, and you dropped out of that discussion. I denied the doctrinal difference, but I also explained why. If "begotten Son" does not mean his Sonship had a beginning, then "begotten God" does not mean his Godship had a beginning. Are you going to respond to that?

    Askjo said "MVs omitted important names of our Lord Jesus Christ in the New Testament alone 200 times!"

    False witness.
     
  11. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    I gues you have not studied the issue otherwise you would not make such a remark. This issue has been discussed on the BB before.

    There is a huge diference between an oral tradition and what is found on a manuscript or isn't found. If it isn't there you cannot say it is. It's that simple. So do you expect the textual critics to lie to support you viewpoint.
    We have an example of that from a sermon preached about the man with camel knees. It is totally false. That is an example of an oral tradition.

    I suppose you are obedient to Mark 16:9-20 and have joined the snake charmers in your area? The problem with those snake charmers is that some have died due to snake bites. I guess they forget to tell you that some have died yet they continue to believe they won't. Who is right? The snake charmer or the person who started a lie that was not found in any manuscripts until if I remember right something like 1100 years later. Wow what evidence! None for 1100 years. So then how did it come on the scene so late?

    So which one of four endings of Mark do you support and have evidence for?
     
  12. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    How many manuscripts differ? </font>[/QUOTE]99% MSS supported the KJV; 1% MSS supported MVs. </font>[/QUOTE]Ever thought about the idea that the KJV and MV"s agree more than 99 percent of the time.

    If you read the book by D.A. Carson he shows many times where the KJV is weaker doctrinally and translated poorly. (I doubt I will get nothing more than no response by asking the next question, but I will). Have you read Carson's book?
     
  13. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I suppose you are obedient to Mark 16:9-20 and have joined the snake charmers in your area? The problem with those snake charmers is that some have died due to snake bites. </font>[/QUOTE]Askjo, You say these verses change doctrine, whether they are there or not. How? Be specific with your answer, don't just ramble that they do. Tell me WHY they effect our doctrine today.

    If these verses are actually real, they refer to promises made during the period of time when the disciples did have the power of miracles. People who cling to this belief today are taking promises not made to them.

    Either way, where does doctrine change? There are plenty of other verses espousing miracles of the first century.
     
  14. AVL1984

    AVL1984 <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    7,504
    Likes Received:
    62
    Faith:
    Baptist
    How many manuscripts differ? </font>[/QUOTE]99% MSS supported the KJV; 1% MSS supported MVs. </font>[/QUOTE]askjo, where do you get such strange logic? What are your sources. I don't find this information in ANY book I possess, not even those written by KJVO's.
     
  15. AVL1984

    AVL1984 <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    7,504
    Likes Received:
    62
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No, askjo, what it actually says is this:

    The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.

    It wasn't just the MSS that didn't have it. Also, how do you know it was contained therein? Were you there to see that it was??? On top of that, it is a FOOTNOTE in the NIV and those verses are still contained therein. So, you've got a straw man argument. You also, like most KJVO's, try to say the MV's "left out" this or that by using data that is thus....the underlying text for the KJV says this and that, but the MV's don't say that. You have to compare the underlying texts of the MV's to the MV's. Quit being as dishonest as many KJVO's have been. They are just as true to their underlying texts as the KJV is to it's underlying texts.
     
  16. AVL1984

    AVL1984 <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    7,504
    Likes Received:
    62
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Same for the NIV!!!
     
  17. TC

    TC Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,244
    Likes Received:
    10
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The footnote is not the text. At least, that is what most KJVO's say in reference to the foot(side)notes in the originial 1611KJV. Is that a new double standard? Footnote in 1611KJV has no bearing on the text, but a footnote in any other version has bearing on the text.
     
  18. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    ASKJO will wait until the tide passes before he answers with his expert evidence. What evidence?
     
  19. AVL1984

    AVL1984 <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    7,504
    Likes Received:
    62
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Why "askjo"? He has no answers to any of the questions. Pity. :(
     
  20. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yet, when it is pointed out that the footnote in the KJV for "lucifer" is "day starre", KJVO's retort that the footnote is wrong, and that footnotes are not scripture. Here is a clear example of a KJVO double standard.
     
Loading...