Are Doctrines affected by Modern Versions?

[reddogs]

With all due respect, everything you have posted is a case of fallaciously begging the question and ignores the reality of manuscript evidence and how interpretation works. The vast majority of manuscript evidence was been found after the KJV was written. That is why changes Have been made in newer translations—because they found that some things in the KJV simply were poorly translated or incorrect. The KJV is based on inferior and very limited evidence.

Nowhere has any newer, legitimate translation tried to remove, confuse, or hide the deity of Christ. If they actually tried, it was done exceedingly poorly. It’s only about manuscript evidence and what the autographs most likely said.

Here is a good article on it..
'
The modern versions appear to be moving in the same direction. In just over 100 pages, Salliby shows how the New International Version (NIV) weakens doctrines directly related to Jesus. For example, in Luke 9:56 and Matt 18:11, the NIV leaves out the entire sentence which declares Christ's purpose in coming to earth.

Christ's role as Creator is diminished in Eph 3:9 where the NIV neglects to specify that God created all things "by Jesus Christ." A cloud is drawn across the teaching of the virgin birth in Luke 2:33 where "Joseph and his mother" in the KJV is replaced with "The child's father and mother," in the NIV. (See also Luke 2:43.)

In Luke 2:49, which did Jesus really say, "I must be about my Father's business" (KJV), or "I had to be in my father's house" (NIV)? One of these statements has to be wrong. The NIV completely omits Matt 23:14 where Jesus pronounces woe on the hypocritical Pharisees who "devour widow's houses, and for a pretense make long prayers." Is this any surprise? The NIV (as well as all the other modern translations) are based on the Westcott and Hort Greek text using Roman Catholic manuscripts. Who else would be embarrassed by this verse except the Revelation 17 and 18 prostitute church which "hath glorified herself and lived deliciously" at the expense of the poor, then pronounces pious "Hail Marys" over them.

"It is a strange book that continually tears away at, rather than builds up, its main character," concludes Salliby. Over several generations of Bibles, a continual chipping away at the nature, character and ministry of Jesus could reduce Him to just another wise teacher and the Bible becomes just another ecumenical religious book acceptable to all religions. Thus, a Christianity based on such a gutted Bible could easily join the one world religious system of the end times.

Salliby's book lists hundreds of changes and outright omissions in the NIV which weaken our understanding of who Jesus is and what he came into the world to do.'

 

[Free]

Here is a good article on it..
'
The modern versions appear to be moving in the same direction. In just over 100 pages, Salliby shows how the New International Version (NIV) weakens doctrines directly related to Jesus. For example, in Luke 9:56 and Matt 18:11, the NIV leaves out the entire sentence which declares Christ's purpose in coming to earth.

Christ's role as Creator is diminished in Eph 3:9 where the NIV neglects to specify that God created all things "by Jesus Christ." A cloud is drawn across the teaching of the virgin birth in Luke 2:33 where "Joseph and his mother" in the KJV is replaced with "The child's father and mother," in the NIV. (See also Luke 2:43.)

In Luke 2:49, which did Jesus really say, "I must be about my Father's business" (KJV), or "I had to be in my father's house" (NIV)? One of these statements has to be wrong. The NIV completely omits Matt 23:14 where Jesus pronounces woe on the hypocritical Pharisees who "devour widow's houses, and for a pretense make long prayers." Is this any surprise? The NIV (as well as all the other modern translations) are based on the Westcott and Hort Greek text using Roman Catholic manuscripts. Who else would be embarrassed by this verse except the Revelation 17 and 18 prostitute church which "hath glorified herself and lived deliciously" at the expense of the poor, then pronounces pious "Hail Marys" over them.

"It is a strange book that continually tears away at, rather than builds up, its main character," concludes Salliby. Over several generations of Bibles, a continual chipping away at the nature, character and ministry of Jesus could reduce Him to just another wise teacher and the Bible becomes just another ecumenical religious book acceptable to all religions. Thus, a Christianity based on such a gutted Bible could easily join the one world religious system of the end times.

Salliby's book lists hundreds of changes and outright omissions in the NIV which weaken our understanding of who Jesus is and what he came into the world to do.'

But, as I have pointsd out previously, these things all fallaciously beg the question. Those making this argument, Salliby in this case, begin by presuming that the KJV is correct, which is the very thing they conclude. They assume that the verses, phrases, and words supposedly omitted by modern versions are supposed to be there, when in fact it could just as well be that the texts the KJV is based on has had those things erroneously added.

It’s also all a poor argument because if the NIV, or any other modern version, was trying to diminish Christ or his work, they did a terrible job by leaving in so much explicit teaching that is in full agreement with the KJV. In some cases, as in John 1:18, it’s even clearer.

And to argue that “a Christianity based on such a gutted Bible could easily join the one world religious system of the end times,” is also fallacious and fear mongering. The needless divisiveness of KJVOism is a clear indication of its source, which isn't God.

Certainly there are some bad translations out there that no one should use, such as The Passion Translation, but the NIV, ESV, and many others are very good translations, even better than the KJV, in part because they use English that everyone can understand, but also because they use much greater textual evidence.

 

[WalterandDebbie]

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.

Lets compare one verse, 1 John 4:3:

NIV - but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

RSV - and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.

ASV and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.

KJV - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

We see here in 1 John 4:3 that the NIV takes out the whole point in the text, "NIV leaves out the fact that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh--yet another swipe at the divinity of Christ." https://mundall.com/erik/NIV-KJV.htm

Hello and how are you all? I use the different versions for different reasons as to the issues.

Love, Walter

 

[KV-44-v1]

NIV, ESV, and many others are very good translations, even better than the KJV, in part because they use English that everyone can understand, but also because they use much greater textual evidence

NASB 95 and 77 are better than KJV and NIV translations, imo.

 

[Free]

NASB 95 and 77 are better than KJV and NIV translations, imo.

It depends on what you mean by "better." If you mean in terms of formal equivalence, then of course, as that is the purpose of the NASB and not the NIV, which aims for dynamic equivalence. This makes the NASB a bit choppy to read and, at times, more difficult to understand the meaning of a passage. The NIV, however, can better preserve the original writers' thoughts and intents, leading to a better understanding of what a passage is actually saying. It is also flows better for reading.