Why not...

Here is the article by Mr. Reagan about the printing errors.

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvupdt.html

Also, Larry, concerning the quotes from the learned scholars about the standard being the original Hebrew and Greek, if that is so, then why do the NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV and so many others depart scores of times from the Hebrew texts? And often not in the same places, so they end up disagreeing even with each other.

As for no doctrines being changed, I have several concrete examples of the truth being perverted in the new versions, but I will give you just one for now to consider.

Is this true doctrine in the NKJV, NIV, and NASB?

Respecter of Persons

There is a subtle twisting of God's inspired words taking place in many modern versions in how they are rendering the phrase "respecteth not persons". This is so subtle, that I believe most Christians have not noticed it. The change in meaning produced by versions like the NKJV, NIV, and NASB unfortunately fits in with so much of modern, popular theology, that many would actually consider it to be an improvement over the KJB's reading. It fits the philosophy of the natural mind of man.

The concept that "God has created all men equal" does not come from the Holy Bible. God obviously has not created all men equal, nor does He deal with every single individual or nation in what seems to us as a fair and impartial manner. Many have become so influenced in their thinking by the reasoning of the world, that they cannot discern this obvious truth.

God has created, formed and made each of us. Yet He has not given to all equal intelligence, good looks, physical skills, nor spiritual gifts. "He divideth to every man severally as He will." Exodus 4:11 tells us "And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?".

Not all are born in a country which even has the word of God in its culture, or where it would be openly taught and encouraged. Psalm 147:19,20 "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD." Some are born in abject poverty, disease and ignorance, while others are blessed with abundant crops, education and families that care for them. "The rich and poor meet together: the LORD is the maker of them all." Proverbs 22:2.

The phrase "to accept the persons of men" or "to respect persons" does not mean, as the modern versions have translated it, "to show partiality" or "to show favoritism". One of the chief arguments of the Arminian side against the doctrine of election is: "God does not show partiality or favoritism, so election cannot be true." The new bibles are reinforcing this fallacious argument.

Not to show partiality is to treat all men equally; and this God does not do, as His word clearly testifies. Daniel Webster's 1828 dictionary defines "respecter of persons" as a person who regards the external circumstances of others in his judgment, and suffers his opinions to be biased by them. God's dealings with a man are not based on outward appearance, position, rank, wealth or nationality. Rather, His own sovereign purpose and pleasure of His will are the only deciding factors.

We are told in Deuteronomy 7:6-8 "For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people: for ye were the fewest of all people: But because the LORD loved you". Deuteronomy 10: 14-17 "Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD'S thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is. Only the LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day." Verse 17 "For the LORD thy God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which REGARDETH NOT PERSONS, nor taketh reward." Here both election and not regarding persons are used in the same context.

God says He chose only the fathers (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) and their seed to be His people, and not the others. That He "regardeth not persons" means that He does this, not on the basis of their nationality, nor their good moral character (for they were a stiffnecked and rebellious people), but because is was His good pleasure to do so. Other Bibles that agree with the KJB here are the Revised Version, the ASV of 1901, the Geneva Bible, the 1936 Hebrew-English, Youngs, Darbys, the Spanish versions and Websters Bible. However the NKJV, NIV and NASB have "shows no partiality". If God chose Israel to be His people, and not the others, is not this showing partiality?

Deut. 14:1,2 "Ye are the children of the LORD your God...and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth." Why did not God choose the other nations to be his children and to know his laws? Isn't this showing partiality or favoritism?

One verse among the hundreds that have been messed up by the NKJV, NIV and NASB is 2 Samuel 14:14. Here Joab saw that king David's heart was toward his son Absalom. So Joab sends a wise woman to speak to the king. In verse 14 she says: "For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again: NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him." In other words, we all must die, whether rich, poor, Jew, Gentile, man or woman, king or servant; God does not look at our social station and on this basis exclude some from death.

Agreeing with the King James reading here are the 1917 Hebrew English, Young's, the Geneva Bible, Websters Bible, the KJV 21, Third Millenium Bible, and the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras. But many bibles, including the NKJV, NIV and NASB have the ridiculous reading of "YET GOD DOES NOT TAKE AWAY LIFE", instead of "neither doth God respect any person". This is a lie and a contradiction. In this very book in chapter 12:15 "the LORD struck the child" of David and Bathsheeba and it died. In I Sam. 2:6 we are told "The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up", and in Deuteronomy 32:39 God says "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand."

It is not that the Hebrew will not allow the meaning found in the KJB, that the NKJV, NIV and NASB have so badly mistranslated 2 Samuel 14:14. They all likewise have translated these same words in other places as they stand in the KJB and others.

Thi phrase "no respecter of persons" is found six times in the New Testament, and every time the modern versions have distorted the true meaning. Romans 2:11, Ephesians 6:9, Colossians 3:25, James 2:1 and 9, and Acts 10:34. In each case it has to do with not receiving the face, outward position, nationality or social rank of another. But God does not treat all people the same, nor are we told to do so either. We are to withdraw from some, avoid, exclude, reject, seperate from, and not cast our pearls before others. Most importantly, God Himself chose His elect people in Christ before the foundation of the world and "of the SAME LUMP" makes one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour - Romans 9:21. This is definitely showing partiality, but it is not respecting persons.

Romans 2:11 says "For there is no respect of persons with God." So also read the ASV, Geneva, Revised Version, Spanish "acepción de personas", Lamsa, Webster's, 21st Century KJB, TMB, and the KJB II of Green. Young's says there is no "acceptance of faces".

But the NKJV, NASB say "no partiality" and the NIV says "not show favoritism". The Worldwide English N.T. says: "God does not love some people more than others". Yet this very book declares in Romans 9 "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of him that calleth...Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated...I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy...So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy...Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth."

Please consider the true meaning of the phrase "no respecter of persons" and contrast it with the modern rendering. I hope you will see that it is not the same at all. Only the KJB contains the whole truth of the counsel of God.

Will Kinney

 

I don't know whether this is your statement or someone else's but either way it contains unfounded presumptions and at least one clear error of fact.

Both of the respected Dr.s affirm that they do care for what the majority readings are. They are weighed together with the other evidence to determine what is most likely the original reading.

It is a clear error (or worse) to say the "UBS of Westcott and Hort." W & H produced a text of their own that is distinct from the UBS editions. If I am not mistaken, both the UBS and NA while agreeing with a critical approach give much more weight to the majority than did W & H.

P.S.- If you would make your posts more concise, more people could interact with you... or at least be willing to read your arguments.

 

No , that's one of those new Southern Baptist fundalmentalist "thangs" ... while not all men and women have equal abilities, God views each individual as equal in value (Galatians 3:28).

Discrimintating against people because "it's in the Bible" is the single greatest failing of organized religion today (and we in the SBC seem to be getting worse at it). This discrimination IS not in the Bible (and if anyone thinks it is, they are misinterpreting), be it KJV or any version. Our God is a God of love.

Period.

And ain't it grand!

--Ralph

[ January 02, 2003, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: Author ]

 

Why are there printing errors in a perfect book? Can you not see how ridiculous that sounds?? Is your God not able to get it right? Why did it take him so long? Can you imagine a God who can preserve his word perfectly with error for 1500 years of hand copying, then let Erasmus make 5 attempts to get it right, then have it translated and printed with a dozen or more attempts to get it right, only to still not have it right? What kind of God is that? Or have you misunderstood the doctrine of Scripture? The latter is obviously the case. However, the changes are not just printing errors. IF you say that, then you are not informed as to the changes. If you look at any list of changes, you will see words and phrases that have been added or omitted. You cannot have it both ways in the real world. A perfect book does not need changing.

Maynard's comments have been refuted. I would be more interested in seeing these comments from a reputable source. Maynard is not reputable at this point as far as I know. There is not really any serious debate about 1 John 5:7 among those who do not have a point to prove. Most just accept the evidence as it stands. The only people who doubt it are those who have to find a way to shoehorn in the text to prevent their personal belief from being discredited.

Your post on HEb 10:23 is creative but misguided. The word there is always translated as "hope" except that one place. It is a mistake in translation.

Your post regarding the changing of doctrine is likewise wrong. It has been shown to be so time and time again. There is no doctrine changed or omitted by the modern translations. It is incorrect to say that it has.

Your post on inspiration does not show a proper understanding of biblical doctrine of Scripture and of the historical realities of textual transmission and translation. The biblical doctrine precludes the possibility of the KJOnly view. It is incompatible.

 

It is not happening now but the principle is the same. God's word does not have to be available to be preserved. Your Bible does not show the lineage that you would like for it too. It sputters out around the 5-7th centuries, leaving the formative years of the church without the readings, so far as we know. You can suppose they were there but all it is is a supposition. It cannot be proven, as you should know.

They are not new readings. They are older than the readings in the KJV. They had not been used because they were unavailable. We might with confidence suppose that God hid them until such a time as the church was able to preserve and deal with them as they shoudl be dealt with. Now it appears there are a lot of people who want to stand in the way of people having God's word ... Of course, I speak slightly in jest but the point should be clear. It is not yours or anyone else's prerogative to say that certain copies of God's word are unreliable because they do not agree with your particular preference. The church survived for years without the "perfection" of the KJV and will continue to, should the Lord tarry, when the KJV is long passed from the scene. I am not grasping at straws in the least. I am dealing with the historical realities

 

You are aware what you ask me to do is review something that is in the neighborhood of 140,500 +/- words and report to you? As a US Marine, I must say, We Don't Have An Attitude, We Are Just That Good. But be reasonable.
</font>[/QUOTE]I am not asking you to read the entire LITV. You were talking about the "received text", and I am simply asking your opinion about an English translation that is more accurate to the "received text" than the KJV is - ie. would an English translation that is closer to the readings of the "received text" be superior to the KJV? Why or why not? You do not have to actually read the LITV to answer the question.