Are Doctrines affected by Modern Versions?

[Free]

Hey All,
I found this online awhile back and believe it to be relevant to this discussion. Since it is so large, I have to break it into two posts.

So this is 1 of 2:


Missing and Incorrectly Translated Verses in The NIV
By Dr. Rocco Badenhorst

Matthew 6:13
Here the NIV omits an important part of the “Lord’s Prayer, “For Thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory for ever, Amen.”

Matthew 17:21
Did some of the translators of the NIV not believe in prayer and fasting?

Matthew 19:17
This verse should be stated correctly as, as in the KJV “Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God:”

Matthew 23:14
The NIV omitted this verse completely. Some of the translators of the NIV evidently did not like the word “damnation.”

Matthew 23:23
The word “faith” and the word “faithfulness” do not mean the same. The KJV of the Bible says, “By faith we are saved,” not by “faithfulness. I do not believe that “faith” and “faithfulness” have the same meaning.)

Mark 9:29.
The NIV omitted “fasting.” Our Lord Jesus fasted for 40 days and 40 nights.

Mark 13:33
The KJV says, “Watch and Pray.” It is not the same as “be on guard! Be alert!” as translated in the NIV. To be a watchful and praying Christian is paramount.

Mark 15:28
This verse was omitted from the NIV. It was a prophecy from the Old Testament proclaiming the Deity of Christ.) ,&/://;

Luke 4:4
Words omitted in this verse, “but by every Word of God.” All of existence was brought into being by the Word of God. Jesus IS The Word of God. (This is one of the most important verses in the Bible)

Luke 4:8
“Get thee behind me Satan,” in the KJV. Why did the NIV translators not put these words in?

Luke 6:40
“Perfect” is not the same as “fully trained,” as stated in the NIV. Jesus wants us to be perfect in Him, not “fully trained.”

Luke 5:20
Jesus did not call the sinner “friend,” as translated in the NIV. He called him, “man,” as translated in the KJV.

Luke 11:2-4
When we pray the Lord’s Prayer, we pray “Our Father which art in Heaven”. The NIV omitted the words “Our” and only mentions “Father.” Are they referring to another father? In addition, “deliver us from evil” was omitted in verse 4 by the NIV translators. Did they not see a need for deliverance?

Luke 12:31
Here again the NIV omits these important words. It should say “The kingdom of God.” The NIV says, “his kingdom.” To which kingdom are they referring?

Luke 21:19
“Patience” is a gift of the Holy Spirit — “Standing firm” is not the same.

John 4:42
The NIV omitted the “Christ” which means “Anointed One.”

John 9:35
In this particular verse, It should be “Son of God” and not, “son of man,” as the NIV translates it.

Matthew 8:29
NIV translators omitted the name, “Jesus,” thou Son of God.

John 6:47
NIV says, “he who believes.” Should be, “He who believes on Me has everlasting life.” Believing is not enough.

Acts 8:18
NIV says, “spirit – should be “Holy Spirit.” Man has a spirit also.) Which spirit are the translators of the NIV referring to ?

Acts 10:30
(NIV omitted “fasting.” Fasting is powerful for seeing answers to our needs.

Acts 8:37
NIV omitted this entire verse – it is vital to Salvation (Did the translators of the NIV feel ashamed of the Name of Jesus?

Acts 10:30
NIV omitted the word “fasting” – fasting is powerful for seeing needs being met.

Acts 22:16
NIV says “Calling on his name.” KJV says “The Name of the Lord.”

Romans 11:6
The NIV is not very clear on this verse and the KJV explains “Grace and Works.” The NIV omits, ”But if it be of works, then it is no more grace.” This is an important part of the Gospel.

1 Corinthians 14:2
Two errors are in this verse. Firstly, it should read, “unknown tongue” and secondly it is by “the Spirit” (Holy Spirit) and not the spirit of man as in the NIV. Speaking in tongues is not by man’s understanding of the “unknown tongue.” The spirit of man has nothing to do with the “unknown tongue.” It is a gift of the Holy Spirit.

11 Corinthians 7:4
KJV says, “boldness of speech.” NIV says, “I have great confidence in you.”

11 Corinthians 10:5
KJV “Casting down imaginations” is correct. NIV says, “demolish arguments.” See Isaiah 2:11-12 for the importance of casting down imaginations.

Galatians 4:7
KJV says “servant,” and not “slave,” as translated in the NIV. A servant has the choice of leaving his master and a slave does not have a choice. The importance of this translation is that we have a choice of serving Christ or of deserting Him, whereas, a slave does not have that choice.

Galatians 5:22
The NIV translators used the word “faithfulness” in place of the word ”faith.” We are saved by faith and not by being faithful.

Galatians 6:15
NIV omits “for in Christ Jesus” in this verse.

Ephesians 3:9
NIV omitted “created all things by Jesus Christ.” Revelation 22:19 warns us about taking away from the Word of God.

Ephesians 3:14
KJV says, “I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” NIV says, “I kneel before the Father.” (Which father are they talking about?)

Philippians 3:21
KJV says, “Vile bodies.” NIV says, “lowly bodies.” These words have different meanings. Vile means sinful and lowly means humble.

Ephesians 5:9
KJV says “Fruit of the Spirit.” NIV says, “Fruit of the light.”

Philippians 4:13
KJV says, “I can do all things through Christ which strengthens me.” NIV says, “I can do everything through him.”(Who are they talking about here?)

Colossians 1:2
The NIV omitted, “and from the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Colossians 2: 18
The NIV says, “What he has seen.” The KJV says, “Things he hath not seen.” A careless translation.

1 Timothy 2: 7
KJV says, “Truth in Christ.” NIV says, “Truth.” (There is only truth in Christ)

1 Timothy 3:16
NIV says “He appeared in a body.” What type of body? The KJV says, “God was manifest in the flesh.”

2 Timothy 3:17
KJV says, “That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” NIV says, “So that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (A soldier can be equipped for warfare, but not perfect. Only Christ brings perfection.)

Hebrews 3:6
We are “rejoicing” and not “boasting” as translated in the NIV.

Hebrews 3:18
KJV says, “To them that believed not.” NIV says, “ Not to those who disobeyed.”

Hebrews 4:12
KJV says, “The Word is quick and powerful,” not as in the NIV “quick and active.” One can be active without being powerful. It is the “Power of God,” that sets us free, not “activity.”

Hebrews 13:21
Should be “make you perfect” (KJV) not “equip” you as in the NIV. There is a vast difference. (See comments on 2 Tim 3:17)

I Peter 1:22
Should be “with a pure heart” as in KJV not just heart. NIV everyone has a heart, but only Gods children have pure hearts.

1 Peter 2:2
“Milk of the Word” is correct and easy to understand even for a child, but what does the NIV mean by spiritual milk? The emphasis should be on the Word of God, and not on milk.

2 Peter 1:21
Should be “holy men,” that is men touched by the Holy Spirit, and not “men” as translated in the NIV.

1 John 5:13
The NIV left out the last part of this verse which is important and reads, “and that ye may believe on the Name of the Son of God.”

Jude 1
The NIV left out the word “sanctified.” We are sinners who are sanctified (cleansed by the blood of Jesus, when He paid for our sins with his precious blood).

Revelation 1:11
The NIV omitted the very important Name of Jesus which reads “I AM THE ALPHA AND OMEGA, THE FIRST AND THE LAST.” This is in the original manuscripts.

Revelation 21:24
The nations “which are saved” in the KJV, and not just “the nations” as the NIV says. We need to be saved, born again of the Spirit of God.

These are all fallaciously begging the question. They presume that the KJV and the text behind it are correct in each instance. This is the main error in reasoning with the KJV Only position.

 

[reddogs]

Hey All,
This is #2 of 2; and we will now look at the Old Testament changes between the KJV and the NIV Bibles.

Missing and Incorrectly Translated Verses in The NIV
By Dr. Rocco Badenhorst
(Part 2)

There are many more verses in both the New Testament as well as the Old Testament, which are in error in the NIV. Added words, deleted words, changed the meaning or completely left out whole verses, The Lord warns against this practice in the book of Revelation 22:18-19.

Now lets look at some verses in the Old Testament, keeping in mind that not all the books in the NIV are in error. Many translators worked on the NIV; some were sincere, others were used by the devil to corrupt the Word of God. (I don't agree with Dr. Badenhorst here. There may have been simple human error at work here as well. )

Isaiah 14:12-15
Here the NIV drops the name, ”Lucifer,” which is another name for the Devil and replaces it with “Morning Star” in place of “son of the morning” as in the KJV. Jesus is referred to as “Morning Star” as in the book of Revelation 22:16. The translators make it sound like our Lord Jesus fell from grace, and not Satan, the devil. The devil was cast out of heaven because of pride.

Exodus 6:3
The word “Jehovah” was replaced with the word ”Lord” in the NIV, this is incorrect because of the following reason, the Name “Jehovah” also known as “Yahweh” is a Name by which God is worshipped as the ”Self-Existent One;” One who reveals himself through his creation. In this instance the name ” Lord” would not have done justice to the greatness of God. There are also people who are called Lord. The title ”Lord” in this instance does not speak of the greatness of God.

Psalm 8:5
The NIV replace the word angel with a heavenly being, never heard of a heavenly being, why not stick to what the original manuscripts said.

Proverbs 8:18
“Righteousness” is correct as in the KJV. Not “prosperity” as translated in the NIV. One can be prosperous without being righteous, the world can make you prosperous but it can never make you righteous (in right standing with God) which only comes from God.

Jeremiah 29:11
Here the NIV replaces the word “Peace” with “prosperity.” We can be prosperous without having peace, God is not against His children prospering, but we need to keep the verses in context.

Daniel 3:25
The NIV misses the mark completely here by saying, “the fourth looks like the son of the gods.” “The Son of God,” as translated in the KJV, and not “the gods,” as translated in the NIV. Some of the translators of the NIV have tried to make the Word of God acceptable to all religions. The Word of God cannot be changed to accommodate man, man needs to conform to the Word of God.


by Dr. Rocco Badenhorst

What are you looking for?
©2007-2023 by Bible Senders


So as you can see, the changes are extensive and impactful. The one just above in Daniel 3:25 changes the, KJV from "God," to NIV "gods."
KJV
Daniel 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
NIV
Daniel 3:25 He said, “Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods.”

This is disturbing; because where have we seen this before?
The Jehovah's Witnesses bible in John 1: 1.

Now I will grant that I have a bias toward KJV. But the NIV just reads too different for me.

Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

Much harm to the Word and done with intent is the worse part..

 

[Free]

Much harm to the Word and done with intent is the worse part..

But, again, it is all based on errors in reasoning; mainly by begging the question by presuming the KJV is correct and or that the text behind the KJV is correct and newer translations purposely mistranslate the text.

Take Dan 3:25 for instance, the KJV could be in error for not italicizing “the” in “the Son of God.” The article is not in the Aramaic, which is why in other versions it is either italicized (to indicate that) or “a” is used (indefinite). Also, since both the Aramaic ('ĕlâhı̂yn) and Hebrew ('ĕlohı̂ym) word for God is plural, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that a pagan would speak it as plural (“of the gods”).

Also, look at more context:

Dan 3:8 Wherefore at that time certain Chaldeans came near, and accused the Jews. (KJV)

While there is some debate, Daniel was most likely originally written with 2:4-7:28 in Aramaic, the language of the Chaldeans. So, it depends, in part, on whether one looks at the Aramaic text or the Hebrew text.

Additionally:

Dan 3:28 Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God. (KJV)

So, which is it, the Son of God or God's angel? Is there anywhere else in Scripture where Jesus is said to be an angel? Certainly not according to Hebrews 1.

In short, it’s much more complex than simply believing that the NIV, or any other modern version, purposely changed what was written. It seems more likely the KJV is incorrect, given the above.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Biblical-Hebrew.html

https://www.gotquestions.org/Chaldeans.html

https://www.drtimwhite.net/blog/2020/1/15/the-aramaic-of-daniel

 

[reddogs]

But, again, it is all based on errors in reasoning; mainly by begging the question by presuming the KJV is correct and or that the text behind the KJV is correct and newer translations purposely mistranslate the text.

Take Dan 3:25 for instance, the KJV could be in error for not italicizing “the” in “the Son of God.” The article is not in the Aramaic, which is why in other versions it is either italicized (to indicate that) or “a” is used (indefinite). Also, since both the Aramaic ('ĕlâhı̂yn) and Hebrew ('ĕlohı̂ym) word for God is plural, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that a pagan would speak it as plural (“of the gods”).

Also, look at more context:

Dan 3:8 Wherefore at that time certain Chaldeans came near, and accused the Jews. (KJV)

While there is some debate, Daniel was most likely originally written with 2:4-7:28 in Aramaic, the language of the Chaldeans. So, it depends, in part, on whether one looks at the Aramaic text or the Hebrew text.

Additionally:

Dan 3:28 Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God. (KJV)

So, which is it, the Son of God or God's angel? Is there anywhere else in Scripture where Jesus is said to be an angel? Certainly not according to Hebrews 1.

In short, it’s much more complex than simply believing that the NIV, or any other modern version, purposely changed what was written. It seems more likely the KJV is incorrect, given the above.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Biblical-Hebrew.html

https://www.gotquestions.org/Chaldeans.html

https://www.drtimwhite.net/blog/2020/1/15/the-aramaic-of-daniel

Lets just make it simple so all can see the corruption in these modern versions, look up Mark 7:19 in the NIV and compare to the KJV. It puts in basically a lie, that Christ here declares all food clean. It simply does not say that and ESV and NASB and the others put in the same lie either directly or with brackets, talking about outright deception and adding to the Word, here they are caught in a boldface lie made out of whole cloth as they say. Damnation awaits on just this..

 

[Free]

Lets just make it simple so all can see the corruption in these modern versions, look up Mark 7:19 in the NIV and compare to the KJV. It puts in basically a lie, that Christ here declares all food clean. It simply does not say that and ESV and NASB and the others put in the same lie either directly or with brackets, talking about outright deception and adding to the Word, here they are caught in a boldface lie made out of whole cloth as they say. Damnation awaits on just this..

I've already dealt with this, at length, but you didn't respond, HERE. But, I'll copy and past it here since it's relevant:

Let's look at the verse from different versions of the Bible and see:

Mar 7:19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.) (NASB)
Mar 7:19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) (ESV)
Mar 7:19 For it does not enter into his heart but into his stomach, and goes out into the latrine"—thus declaring all foods clean. (LEB)
Mar 7:19 For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.") (NIV)

So, why do they all say that? Because it is in the KJV and in the Greek:

Mar 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? (KJV)

Comparing all of them, one clause at a time:

"because it does not go into his heart" (NASB)
"since it enters not his heart" (ESV)
"For it does not enter into his heart" (LEB)
"For it doesn't go into his heart" (NIV)
"Because it entereth not into his heart" (KJV)

So far, so good.

"but into his stomach" (NASB)
"but his stomach" (ESV)
"but into his stomach" (LEB)
"but into his stomach," (NIV)
"but into his stomach" (KJV)

Again, so far, so good.

"and is eliminated?" (NASB)
"and is expelled?" (ESV)
"and goes out into the latrine" (LEB)
"and then out of his body." (NIV)
"and goeth out into the draught," (KJV)

Once again, so far, so good. So, what's left?

"(Thus He declared all foods clean.)" (NASB)
"(Thus he declared all foods clean.)" (ESV)
"thus declaring all foods clean." (LEB)
'(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")' (NIV)
"purging all meats?" (KJV)

The question at this point should be, "What does 'purging all meats' mean?" Well, let's take a look.

2511 [e] 3956 [e] 3588 [e] 1033 [e]
katharizōn panta ta brōmata
καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα
purifying all the food

Here is the Greek: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/7.htm

So, the next question is, if the meat (food) is expelled into the latrine/privy/toilet ("draught" in the KJV), then how is it even possible that that can purify or make clean (the meaning of the word "purge" in the KJV) all the food? It can't; that's impossible because it is in a latrine. So, something else must be meant by the words of Christ; and Mark provides the meaning.

It's also worth keeping in mind the similarity of what God tells Peter in Acts 10:15, regarding eating unclean food: “What God has made clean, do not call common" (ESV). Of course, the two texts are referring to different things, but what is said is very similar. It's also worth noting that Peter is considered the one who dictated to Mark.

This leads to just one reason why the KJV should be left alone for serious study, or at least why other versions should be used alongside it: meanings of words change over time and many English words in the KJV simply don't mean what they used to. So, when someone applies a meaning today to words that meant something else in 1611, or don't study what the Greek words behind the English text mean, misunderstanding occurs.

 

[reddogs]

I've already dealt with this, at length, but you didn't respond, HERE. But, I'll copy and past it here since it's relevant:

Let's look at the verse from different versions of the Bible and see:

Mar 7:19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.) (NASB)
Mar 7:19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) (ESV)
Mar 7:19 For it does not enter into his heart but into his stomach, and goes out into the latrine"—thus declaring all foods clean. (LEB)
Mar 7:19 For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.") (NIV)

So, why do they all say that? Because it is in the KJV and in the Greek:

Mar 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? (KJV)

Comparing all of them, one clause at a time:

"because it does not go into his heart" (NASB)
"since it enters not his heart" (ESV)
"For it does not enter into his heart" (LEB)
"For it doesn't go into his heart" (NIV)
"Because it entereth not into his heart" (KJV)

So far, so good.

"but into his stomach" (NASB)
"but his stomach" (ESV)
"but into his stomach" (LEB)
"but into his stomach," (NIV)
"but into his stomach" (KJV)

Again, so far, so good.

"and is eliminated?" (NASB)
"and is expelled?" (ESV)
"and goes out into the latrine" (LEB)
"and then out of his body." (NIV)
"and goeth out into the draught," (KJV)

Once again, so far, so good. So, what's left?

"(Thus He declared all foods clean.)" (NASB)
"(Thus he declared all foods clean.)" (ESV)
"thus declaring all foods clean." (LEB)
'(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")' (NIV)
"purging all meats?" (KJV)

The question at this point should be, "What does 'purging all meats' mean?" Well, let's take a look.

2511 [e] 3956 [e] 3588 [e] 1033 [e]
katharizōn panta ta brōmata
καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα
purifying all the food

Here is the Greek: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/7.htm

So, the next question is, if the meat (food) is expelled into the latrine/privy/toilet ("draught" in the KJV), then how is it even possible that that can purify or make clean (the meaning of the word "purge" in the KJV) all the food? It can't; that's impossible because it is in a latrine. So, something else must be meant by the words of Christ; and Mark provides the meaning.

It's also worth keeping in mind the similarity of what God tells Peter in Acts 10:15, regarding eating unclean food: “What God has made clean, do not call common" (ESV). Of course, the two texts are referring to different things, but what is said is very similar. It's also worth noting that Peter is considered the one who dictated to Mark.

This leads to just one reason why the KJV should be left alone for serious study, or at least why other versions should be used alongside it: meanings of words change over time and many English words in the KJV simply don't mean what they used to. So, when someone applies a meaning today to words that meant something else in 1611, or don't study what the Greek words behind the English text mean, misunderstanding occurs.

It adds to the word, no question, so they are caught doing exactly what God said not to do. I don't think even you can disagree with that..

 

[follower]

It adds to the word, no question, so they are caught doing exactly what God said not to do. I don't think even you can disagree with that..

If an unclean person eats unclean food,
can that person thus become clean by eating clean and unclean food ?

 

[Free]

It adds to the word, no question, so they are caught doing exactly what God said not to do. I don't think even you can disagree with that..

I certainly am disagreeing with that. I have twice now shown otherwise. You stated that newer versions added to Mark 7:19, but I have shown that the KJV says the exact same thing. Perhaps you could address what I have posted and show where it is wrong.

 

[reddogs]

I certainly am disagreeing with that. I have twice now shown otherwise. You stated that newer versions added to Mark 7:19, but I have shown that the KJV says the exact same thing. Perhaps you could address what I have posted and show where it is wrong.

When the truth is changed, its not hard to see and even discern. But when one wants that truth changed to a lie, that's were it gets hard...

 

[Free]

When the truth is changed, its not hard to see and even discern. But when one wants that truth changed to a lie, that's were it gets hard...

I think, if anything, it is the other way around. Of course, there are several reasons why if something is changed and is true, some people still won’t correct their beliefs.

 

[reddogs]

I think, if anything, it is the other way around. Of course, there are several reasons why if something is changed and is true, some people still won’t correct their beliefs.

And you see how the text from the Alexandrian codicies were cut up and changed and missing whole sections, and you think these are better. No, my brother, the modern versions which use these as their basis are corrupted as they and not to be trusted..

 

[Free]

And you see how the text from the Alexandrian codicies were cut up and changed and missing whole sections, and you think these are better. No, my brother, the modern versions which use these as their basis are corrupted as they and not to be trusted..

Yet, you haven’t provided any evidence. You’re also beginning with the premise that the KJV is the only correct version and then concluding the same. That is the error in reasoning called begging the question. KJVOism thrives on fallacies, which is sad since we’re supposed to love God with all our mind.

The facts are, the KJV was written using minimal manuscript evidence and the vast majority of evidence has been found since then. The more evidence that is available, the more certain we can be about what the original autographs stated.

 

[reddogs]

Yet, you haven’t provided any evidence. You’re also beginning with the premise that the KJV is the only correct version and then concluding the same. That is the error in reasoning called begging the question. KJVOism thrives on fallacies, which is sad since we’re supposed to love God with all our mind.

The facts are, the KJV was written using minimal manuscript evidence and the vast majority of evidence has been found since then. The more evidence that is available, the more certain we can be about what the original autographs stated.

When you have a agreed upon text by Christians for centuries, then any changes are suspect... https://www.gotquestions.org/Textus-Receptus.html

 

[KV-44-v1]

Now look how by changing "Christ" to "God" they deny that Jesus is God.

This is most absurd statement.
Christ IS God. both Names/Titles are interchangable.

18 But Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. - NASB
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2010:18&version=NASB

The ultimate proof Jesus is God, perfectly preserved in NASB. KJVonlyism without warrant.

 

[KV-44-v1]

It adds to the word, no question, so they are caught doing exactly what God said not to do. I don't think even you can disagree with that..

So by your logic, we should all skip all English Bibles and just read the original manuscripts. Riiiight.

 

[KV-44-v1]

When you have a agreed upon text by Christians for centuries, then any changes are suspect... https://www.gotquestions.org/Textus-Receptus.html

The facts are, the KJV was written using minimal manuscript evidence and the vast majority of evidence has been found since then. The more evidence that is available, the more certain we can be about what the original autographs stated.

The Bible did not change.
NEW Bibles were made.
KJV was not changed into a NASB, a NEW ver. was made.
NEW manuscripts were found. old ones were NOT changed.

so many ppl get CONFUSED... between a NEW THING and something CHANGING..

 

[KV-44-v1]

It adds to the word, no question, so they are caught doing exactly

"It introduces to the word, no question, so they are caught doing precisely"
What have i "added"?

 

[Free]

When you have a agreed upon text by Christians for centuries, then any changes are suspect...

Not at all. The Church agreed with science that the Earth was the center of the universe for some 1,800 years, but they were wrong, because they lacked evidence.

Have you ever read the preamble to the 1611 KJV, given by the translators themselves? Every KJVOist has either never read it or they have not understood it. It flatly rejects any such understanding of the KJV, as the translators themselves recommend a variety of readings due to their own fallibility and difficulties with interpretation. The reject inerrancy and used thousands of marginal notes due to possible variations in reading because they were unsure.

"Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. . . . They that are wise,had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings,than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other."

https://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvpref.html

'The KJV for a long time was the most widely used translation in the world; it also served for several centuries as the classic expression of the English language. Indeed, its translators coined phrases that will be forever embedded in our language (“coals of fire,” “the skin of my teeth,” “tongues of fire”). However, for the New Testament, the only Greek text available to the translators of the 1611 edition was based on late manuscripts, which had accumulated the mistakes of over a thousand years of copying. Few of these mistakes — and we must note that there are many of them — make any difference to us doctrinally, but they often do make a difference in the meaning of certain specific texts. Recognizing that the English of the KJV was no longer a living language — and thoroughly dissatisfied with its modern revision (RSV/NRSV) — it was decided by some to “update” the KJV by ridding it of its “archaic” way of speaking. But in so doing, the NKJV revisers eliminated the best feature of the KJV (its marvelous expression of the English language) and kept the worst (its flawed Greek text). This is why for study you should use almost any modern translation other than the KJV or the NKJV.' (Fee, Gordon D.; Stuart, Douglas. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (pp. 43-44). Zondervan Academic. Kindle Edition.)


"First, I want to affirm with all evangelical Christians that the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant, inspired, and our final authority for faith and life. However, nowhere in the Bible am I told that only one translation of it is the correct one. Nowhere am I told that the King James Bible is the best or only ‘holy’ Bible. There is no verse that tells me how God will preserve his word, so I can have no scriptural warrant for arguing that the King James has exclusive rights to the throne. The arguments must proceed on other bases.

Second, the Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places."

https://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today

https://www.gotquestions.org/Textus-Receptus.html

From your link:

'However, the Textus Receptus is not a “bad” or misleading text, either theologically or practically. Technically, however, it is far from the original text. Yet three centuries were to pass before scholars had won the struggle to replace this hastily assembled text with a text which gave evidence to being closer to the New Testament Autographs.'

 

[KV-44-v1]

Have you ever read the preamble to the 1611 KJV, given by the translators themselves? Every KJVOist has either never read it or they have not understood it. It flatly rejects any such understanding of the KJV, as the translators themselves recommend a variety of readings due to their own fallibility and difficulties with interpretation. The reject inerrancy and used thousands of marginal notes due to possible variations in reading because they were unsure.

"Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. . . . They that are wise,had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings,than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other."

booom!! by KJVO logic they HAVE to not be KJVO!
KJVO = Self-Refuting!

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Since the beginning, there have been those who have inserted changes to fit their own doctrinal bias. Because they are predisposed to mans 'ideas' and 'interpretation', rather than the truth, their can be changes by unscrupulous men or those who do not fear God. This was the reason the Jews would not change the text, but do a word for word translation or manuscript, and this is not the case at the least for most of these 'modern' versions.

No translation is perfect, including KJV. The more you study the bible and its original Hebrew and Greek, and more errors and inaccuracies you'll discover. So far not a single translation gets king Saul's age right in 1 Sam. 13:1, because his real age - 52 - was calculated out of the word "son" (בנ) in Hebrew gematria, if you don't know, all you can get is something like "Saul reigned for a son", which makes no sense. Another example is Jesus's occupation before his ministry - tekton. Most translations follow KJV and render it as "carpenter", but this word means a smith, mason or craftsman of any material, it doesn't have to be wood, and it can't be wood, considering the fact that there's hardly any trees in the middle east area, even king Solomon had to import wood from foreign lands. And this is just the English translation, most bible versions in other languages are translated from KJV, can you imagine how far gone they would be? If the original bible were a 4k bluray video, what we're reading is at best a grainy VHS tape.

That being said, these examples are just trivial details which won't hurt our understanding of the gospel message. Some modern translations, though, have intentionally tampered with the message by adding and/or reducing it, as you have exposed in the OP. I only have one NKJV and that's the only translation I read, relatively it's closer to the original than other modern ones, but I can still sense a pro-rapture doctrinal bias in some of the texts.