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.
Are Doctrines affected by Modern Versions?
- Thread starter reddogs
- Start date
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
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..
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..
If an unclean person eats unclean food,
can that person thus become clean by eating clean and unclean food ?
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...
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..
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
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.
So by your logic, we should all skip all English Bibles and just read the original manuscripts. Riiiight.
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..
"It introduces to the word, no question, so they are caught doing precisely"
What have i "added"?
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
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.'
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.