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!

Question for KJ only crowd

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by prophecynut, Jun 9, 2005.

  1. tragic_pizza

    tragic_pizza New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    3,395
    Likes Received:
    0
    [ June 10, 2005, 08:54 PM: Message edited by: dianetavegia ]
     
  2. prophecynut

    prophecynut New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  3. tragic_pizza

    tragic_pizza New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    3,395
    Likes Received:
    0
    [ June 10, 2005, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: dianetavegia ]
     
  4. prophecynut

    prophecynut New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    How about this awkward passage from the KJV:

    Gal. 2:7
    "But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter.

    This verse has contributed to the heresy of two different gospels.

    What does the NIV say:

    "On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews."

    The NIV claims there is one gospel - clarity unmatched by the KJV.
     
  5. Ps104_33

    Ps104_33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    The KJV MUST be God's inspired Word because the Devil always seems to send his minions out of the wood work to attack it.
     
  6. prophecynut

    prophecynut New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    Call Clark Pest Control.

    I have a twin brother who lives in Clear Water across the bay from you. Your area recently had a tropical storm pass by, looks like another bad season coming like last year.

    Don't worry, you need not fear my brother for he does not know God like I do. [​IMG]
     
  7. Ps104_33

    Ps104_33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    1Tim. 3:16 "God was manifest" is changed to "He was manifest." The reference is to Christ manifest in the flesh, etc. The MAJORITY Text tells us that this Christ was God. There are 252 copies of Paul's Epistles which have "God" and only 2 copies which have "he." The MINORITY Text leaves us in doubt as to who "he" is. The doctrine of the Deity of Christ is greatly harmed here by the corrupt text.
     
  8. tamborine lady

    tamborine lady Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,486
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG]

    And yet the NIV uses the 2 copies that use he. Now isn't that strange for people that are trying to translate a more correct bible.

    Hmmmm----------

    Selah,

    Tam
     
  9. prophecynut

    prophecynut New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    1 Tim. 3:16

    The NIV has in a footnote in reference to "He": "some manuscripts God "

    The NIV rendering hardly can be called a corruption.
    The personal pro noun "He" in "He appeared in a body" refers to the nearest antecedant which is the "living God" of the previous verse.

    Looks OK to me, let me known of any other seemily corrupted passages.
     
  10. tamborine lady

    tamborine lady Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,486
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG]

    Col 1-14 in the NIV leaves out "the blood".

    John 3-16 in the NIV says "one and only son", when reality, Adam was called Gods son. The CORRECT redering is only begotten son.

    whats your answer to those??

    Peace,

    Tam
     
  11. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Take a look at the context:

    The KJV
    1 Timothy 3:13-16 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

    14 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:

    15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

    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.

    The ASV
    1 Timothy 3:13-16 For they that have served well as deacons gain to themselves a good standing, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

    14 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly;

    15 but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

    And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.

    The antecedent is a person. It goes back to verse 13. If I were reading along I most definitely would think that "He" would refer to the person of Jesus Christ in verse 13, not to "church of the living God" where church is the the subject of a prepostional of phrase, and God is only part of that prepositional phrase. The subject there is church, not God. One must go back to verse 13 to find out that the last person referred to is Jesus Christ.
    Thus the He takes away from the deity of Christ. When it plainly says God, there is no doubt who Christ is: God come in the flesh. There is no argument by anyone--not the J.W.'s, the Mormons, or any other cult. "He" waters down that point considerably.
    DHK
     
  12. prophecynut

    prophecynut New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  13. prophecynut

    prophecynut New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    You got me on this one DHK. The antecedent does point to Christ Jesus in 13; I've connected "He" and "Christ Jesus" with a line in my Bible.

    I would not say "He" waters down the point considerably, rather only slightly. You know from Scripture that Jesus appeared in a body; was vindicated by the Spirit (Act 2:24-36; Rom. 8:11); was seen by angles (Phil. 2:9-11; Col. 2:15; Heb. 1:6); was preached among the nations (Col. 1:23); was believed on in the world (1 Cor. 1:18-2:5) and was taken up in glory (Eph. 4:10).

    If verse 16 never appeared in Scripture would that change your view of Jesus Christ?
     
  14. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    No, one can demonstrate the deity of Christ using other Scripture. That is true. But this is one of the most clear cut verses that states the deity of Christ in such a forth-right manner.

    It is like Acts 20:28:
    Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
    It was God that purchased the church with his own blood, not just Christ, but God himself. How much more clearly can it be said that Christ is God.
    But to get around the denial of the deity of Christ, the New Word Translation, without any warrant whatsoever translates the end of this verse this way:
    "with the blood of his own son."

    The same kind of thing is done in 1Tim.3:16. It waters down the deity of Christ, and makes it harder to prove his deity to cults. As one man put it: "Using the KJV you cannot disprove the deity of Christ to me," he said to a J.W. He was right.
    DHK
     
  15. tamborine lady

    tamborine lady Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,486
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG]

    John 3-16 in the NIV says "one and only son", when reality, Adam was called Gods son. The CORRECT rendering is only begotten son.

    The NIV also uses "one and only son" in John 1:14,18; 3:18 and 1 John 4:9. Begetting is a male parent procreating or generating offspring. "Begat" the archaic past tense of beget is used extensively in the OT of humans procreating and probably best not be used to depict God's super natural impregnation of Mary and birth of Jesus.


    Only begotten is correct because God(Holy Ghost)did not cause anyone else to become pregnant. Only Mary. So Jesus didn't just happen, he was begotten!!

    John 1-12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

    We become sons of God too, so you see, "one and only son" is not correct!!

    Luke 2-33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.


    The NIV says"The childs father and mother". That is not correct because Joseph was NOT the father of Jesus!

    Selah,

    Tam
     
  16. prophecynut

    prophecynut New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tam

    Lk. 2:33
    Luke was already aware of the virgin birth of Christ and previously wrote about it (1:26-35), here he is referring to Joseph as Jesus' legal father.

    Verse 41 in your Bible states: "Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover." Does this verse contradict your perception of verse 33? By the way, "passover" should be capitalized.

    Surely either one of you can come up with better examples of corrupted NIV renderings than already given.
     
  17. prophecynut

    prophecynut New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was reading posts under the thread "Sunday Sermons" and came across several examples of "unicorn " used in the KJV, whereas most other versions have "wild ox." This is new to me and strange indeed.
     
  18. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,735
    Likes Received:
    296
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The rendering "unicorn" in the earlier pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV is likely from the influence of the Latin Vulgate's rendering "unicornis" or the Greek Septuagint's rendering "monokeros" [one horned].

    Concerning this word, the 1895 SUNDAY SCHOOL TEACHERS' BIBLE [KJV] pointed out: "The LXX
    translation has passed into our A. V., but is erroneous, as the mention of two horns on one reem (Deut. 33:17) proves."

    Likely following the Greek LXX or Latin Vulgate, the early English Bibles (Wcliffe's, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Taverner's, Geneva, and Bishops') all had 'unicorn' [singular] at Deut. 33:17. The KJV changed this noun that was singular in number in the Hebrew Masoretic text and in all the earlier English Bibles to a plural.
     
  19. tamborine lady

    tamborine lady Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,486
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG]

    I could give more examples, and you could come back with your sometimes weak rebuttels, but in the end, we would both stand by what we believe.

    My contention is that the NIV taken as a whole, waters down the gospel. When a new Christian starts reading the NIV, they could come out with a whole "new" gospel, that leaves more room for sin, and a lot of other things.

    Selah,

    Tam
     
  20. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,735
    Likes Received:
    296
    Faith:
    Baptist
    While I don't recommend the NIV, to be fair to it
    the following information about Luke 2:33 should be noted. Several of the earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision have "his father" at Luke 2:33. Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, 1557 Whittinghams, and 1568 Bishops' Bible have "his father"
    because some editions of the Greek Textus Receptus
    have this reading. Luther's German Bible also has "Vater" [father] at Luke 2:33. The 1560 Geneva Bible is the only one that has "Joseph"
    before the 1611 KJV. Would you claim that the KJV is a revision of earlier English Bibles that
    weakens or tones down the gospel or the virgin birth?
     
Loading...