King James Bible vs. Modern Translations (Honoring The Deity of Jesus Christ)

[Arwen4CJ]

Well the NIV is a wicked, vile, depraved, corrupt and wicked counterfeit.

ANY TRANSLATION that would attack the precious Son of God and His Deity, that same translation is a satanic counterfeit.

Furthermore, these wicked modern perversions also try to make a liar out of God.

I don't know if you are following the "Many Scriptures Disprove the Trinity" thread that was started by a Jehovah's Witness, but there have been several people in that thread who prefer the KJV, and they are non-Trinitarian. At least one of them would agree with you that it is the best translation.

However, they read the text and cannot see Jesus' deity. This disproves the argument that it is modern translations that "confuse" people about the Trinity. People can still read the KJV and deny Christ's deity. They can read any Bible version and deny Jesus' deity, regardless of how clear I think it proclaims Jesus' deity.

A person posted Colossians 1:15-20 of a translation other than the KJV to try to show Jesus' deity. A non-Trinitarian responded, saying that the KJV calls Jesus a creature there, not the Creator. He claimed that the translation that the person quoted one was biased towards Jesus' deity, and changed the text to make it sound like Jesus was supreme over all creation.

So there we have a case where someone reads only the KJV, and they have come to a non-Trinitarian view. If they read any other translation, I can guess that you would argue that it was the translation that was at fault, and that it was an imperfect translation that was causing confusion.

The point is that both Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians clearly see that there is evidence for Jesus' deity in all Bible translations, not just the KJV. Non-trinitarians can use any Bible translation, including the KJV, to deny Jesus' deity because of how they are interpreting various words used in the translation.

If people have trouble understanding early modern English, then shouldn't they have Bible translations in modern English that they can understand?

 

[Arwen4CJ]

I should also point out that the non-Trinitarian in the other thread sort of questions what is real and what isn't in the Bible because they did research on modern Bible scholarship and learned that 1 John 5:7-8, as it is in the KJV, was not in the oldest copies of the manuscripts.

Because he only reads the KJV, he is unaware that many translations have a footnote about this.

He distrusts the Bible, wondering what else might be "wrong" in the Bible. He has no reason to believe that what we have in the Bible is close to the original texts, and I think that many other people would be in this boat.

That's one good thing about having translations available that reflect modern scholarship. People can have reasonable evidence that what we have reflects, as close as possible, to what the original text probably said.

The KJV is a valuable, good translation, but so are others. Each translation has its strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Reformedjason]

No we don't have to search out any manuscripts. The King James Bible is the 100% pure and perfect word of God. God preserved His words in a Book.

Therefore no Christian needs to search through 5,000+ manuscripts to find out what God said because we already have access to what God said. And its in a Book.

What makes the pure word the Kjv? Why not the Geneva ? Just because you say it is the Kjv , that does not convince me. Yes God preserved his word, that does not mean it is in a 17th century Anglican version of the bible.

 

[ServantStrike]

Alll those Bibles you just listed cannot all be the perfect and inerrant word of God at the same time. Only one of them can be. Why? Because they all conflict with each other in hundreds, if not thousands of places.

God is not the author of confusion.

The Bible (singular) is the inerrant word of God.

And the only one in that list that is the perfect and inerrant word of God is the KJV.

Actually, genuine translations all line up with one another doctrinally. Yes, every single word is not the same, but they all line up doctrinally. The trouble comes in that there are a lot of non-genuine translations.


As for your earlier statement. I'm a bible believer period. I believe that God has preserved his word so that people of all tongues can receive it - not just English speakers.


I think the Antiochian manuscripts are better, despite the fact that they are newer.

There are some literal word-for-word translations based upon the Alexandrian manuscripts that are still doctrinally sound. They are of course, missing some verses that the KJV has, but I still say a saved person could read them and profit from them.


I'm not going to pull a Sam Gipp and say that those who want the pure word of God have to learn English and read a King James bible. I'm just not.

I said that I didn't doubt that they did own it.

I'm simply telling you that I think the argument that the Zondervan publisher publishes a Bible translation, and Zondervan is owned by Harper Collins, thus the NIV is evil is ridiculous.

Oh, look.....I just found this on Zondervan's website:
Zondervan - Study Bibles
Zondervan - Reference Bibles
Zondervan - Children's Bibles
Zondervan - New Testament & Portions
Zondervan - Daily Reading Bibles
Zondervan - Church & Ministry Bibles
Zondervan - Young Adult Bibles
Zondervan - Side by Side Bibles

Look at all those KJV Bibles that Zondervan publishes. That must mean that the KJV is evil. (I hope you know I'm being sarcastic -- but that's also the exact same argument being made about the NIV in that video).

You're welcome to think that the NIV is a wicked, satanic, and corrupt counterfeit all you want. But it contains the same gospel and message as the KJV.

A Zondervan KJV is an evil KJV. A Zondervan bible is just a bad idea period. Harper Collins publishes the Laveyan Satanic bible. Should proceeds from your bible benefit that publisher? Isn't that serving two masters? And by extension, even if it wasn't a bad translation post 2011, since Zondervan holds the copywright to the NIV, an NIV printed by a different publisher is still off limits.

The 2011 NIV however, contains a different message than the NASB, the ESV, the NLT, the BLT, and the KJV (I made up the BLT one).

The TNIV and now the current NIV are screwed up translations. The gender neutral wording is a red flag considering Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit are all male, as are the apostles and almost all of the Old Testament prophets. No amount of discussion could ever convince me that gender neutral wording is anything less than an attempt at pandering.

 

[Arwen4CJ]

Actually, genuine translations all line up with one another doctrinally. Yes, every single word is not the same, but they all line up doctrinally. The trouble comes in that there are a lot of non-genuine translations.

As for your earlier statement. I'm a bible believer period. I believe that God has preserved his word so that people of all tongues can receive it - not just English speakers.


I think the Antiochian manuscripts are better, despite the fact that they are newer.

There are some literal word-for-word translations based upon the Alexandrian manuscripts that are still doctrinally sound. They are of course, missing some verses that the KJV has, but I still say a saved person could read them and profit from them.


I'm not going to pull a Sam Gipp and say that those who want the pure word of God have to learn English and read a King James bible. I'm just not.

A Zondervan KJV is an evil KJV. A Zondervan bible is just a bad idea period. Harper Collins publishes the Laveyan Satanic bible. Should proceeds from your bible benefit that publisher? Isn't that serving two masters? And by extension, even if it wasn't a bad translation post 2011, since Zondervan holds the copywright to the NIV, an NIV printed by a different publisher is still off limits.

The 2011 NIV however, contains a different message than the NASB, the ESV, the NLT, the BLT, and the KJV (I made up the BLT one).

The TNIV and now the current NIV are screwed up translations. The gender neutral wording is a red flag considering Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit are all male, as are the apostles and almost all of the Old Testament prophets. No amount of discussion could ever convince me that gender neutral wording is anything less than an attempt at pandering.

Harper Collins is a huge publisher. Do you check the publishing companies of every single book you buy to make sure that it is not a division of Harper Collins? If you personally feel that strong about it, then avoid books published by them, yes.

HarperCollins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to that, you'll also have to avoid Thomas Nelson published books to, and you'll have to check the list for other publishing subdivisions to make sure you aren't giving them business.

While of course the the Laveyan Satanic bible is evil, I doubt that Harper Collins is trying to promote Satanism. They're just selling books. They see it as one more book to sell.

Whether or not a person supports a particular publishing company is a matter of individual personal conviction. One little division of Harper Collins publishes the Laveyan Satanic bible, and it is published through some romance division, Avon books.

The Satanic Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Avon (publisher) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm pretty sure that these little divisions of HarperCollins have very little to do with one another. I doubt that the Avon Books and Zondervan divisions of HarperCollins are run by the same people. HarperCollins is just a huge publishing company that has eaten up a lot of smaller ones. I don't see buying a book from one of HarperCollins many divisions as serving two masters. If you do, then that is fine.

If HarperCollins were known for publishing exclusively Satan or occult books that would be another thing. Considering all their divisions and all the smaller companies they have bought out, they are pretty eclectic, and even their Avon Books division doesn't specialize in the occult. They probably do sell other occult books, but that is not their sole aim as a company. They just see themselves as doing business.

I don't know much about the 2011 NIV. Do you have an online link to the actual text so that I can check it with the hard copies (and also the online Bibles) that I use?

I do have a hard copy of the TNIV, and it doesn't do as you suggest. It does not use gender inclusive language for God, unless there is an updated edition of it that I don't know about. (I have a 2003 version). I checked it today. It refers to God as "He," and never as "She," and never as "He/She" or "She/He" or "It," or "Godself." It retains traditional language, referring to the Father as the Father, the Son as the Son, and uses Kingship language for God.

If they did use language like that, I would have an issue with it.

What it does do, though, is use inclusive language for human beings. It says "all people," or "humankind" or whatever instead of "mankind." This is no big deal, as it doesn't change doctrine. They are not using inclusive language for obviously male people. If a person is a male, they use male pronouns for him.

 

[VCO]

I should also point out that the non-Trinitarian in the other thread sort of questions what is real and what isn't in the Bible because they did research on modern Bible scholarship and learned that 1 John 5:7-8, as it is in the KJV, was not in the oldest copies of the manuscripts.

Because he only reads the KJV, he is unaware that many translations have a footnote about this.

He distrusts the Bible, wondering what else might be "wrong" in the Bible. He has no reason to believe that what we have in the Bible is close to the original texts, and I think that many other people would be in this boat.

That's one good thing about having translations available that reflect modern scholarship. People can have reasonable evidence that what we have reflects, as close as possible, to what the original text probably said.

The KJV is a valuable, good translation, but so are others. Each translation has its strengths and weaknesses.

Mormon Missionaries will have a King James Version in their back packs, when they come to your door; BUT THEY WILL TELL YOU, that it does not matter how much of the Bible, Joseph Smith's teachings contradict, because they are taught that the Bible is FULL of contradictions, no matter what Translation you try to show them.

If you ask a Jehovah Witness, if I can show you that what the Watchtower teaches, contradicts what the King James Bible says or any other Translation says, other than the NWT, which will you believe? The hard core Jehovah Witness will tell you, "The Watchtower of course, it has NEVER lead me astray?"

My point is, the Cults are taught to TRUST their organization's Teachings, over and above the BIBLE, no matter what Translation you show them.

 

[thecreationtutor]

I am sorry but the Holy Spirit declares to us the things of Jesus Christ, with or without the written word - definitely not dependent on a translation

 

[ServantStrike]

Harper Collins is a huge publisher. Do you check the publishing companies of every single book you buy to make sure that it is not a division of Harper Collins? If you personally feel that strong about it, then avoid books published by them, yes.

According to that, you'll also have to avoid Thomas Nelson published books to, and you'll have to check the list for other publishing subdivisions to make sure you aren't giving them business.


I don't know much about the 2011 NIV. Do you have an online link to the actual text so that I can check it with the hard copies (and also the online Bibles) that I use?

I do have a hard copy of the TNIV, and it doesn't do as you suggest. It does not use gender inclusive language for God, unless there is an updated edition of it that I don't know about. (I have a 2003 version). I checked it today. It refers to God as "He," and never as "She," and never as "He/She" or "She/He" or "It," or "Godself." It retains traditional language, referring to the Father as the Father, the Son as the Son, and uses Kingship language for God.

If they did use language like that, I would have an issue with it.

This is a bible, not just any old book. The standards are higher, since you're using it for doctrine. If the publisher has morally questionable qualities, why on earth would you buy anything they have had their hands on for spiritual edification.

But you honestly mean to tell me you're coming to the defense of a bible version you've not investigated for yourself? Even the KJV-onlyists don't do that.


For starters, changing the gender to become neutral means a non-literal interpretation of the underlying text. I hope you put about as much stock in the TNIV and the 2011 NIV as you do in "The Message." But, if you don't, get ready for some statistics, and yes, some verses.

Here, this might be a start

Robert Slowey did a statistical analysis of the changes in the new NIV and found that 31.3% of the new NIV is identical in wording to the TNIV text against the 1984 NIV, while only a paltry 0.6% of verses agree with the 1984 NIV against the TNIV. In all, almost 92% of the new NIV is identical to the TNIV, so those who thought the TNIV was dead are in for a surprise.

Or this?

theologian Wayne Grudem and others report that, in moving from the 1984 NIV to the TNIV, translators 608 times changed from the singular to the plural to avoid use of “he,” “him,” and “his”—and the 2011 NIV retains 385 of those changes. For example, in John 14:23 Jesus says, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching.” The 1984 NIV has the emphasis on the 1-to-1 bonding that then occurs: “My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.” The 2011 NIV collectivizes it: “My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.”

Now, scripture

I grabbed this Hebrews 2:6 example here

Here in the TNIV, the divinity of Christ is destroyed in Hebrews 2:6
What are mere mortals that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?

Here's how it read in the 1984 NIV
NIV Hebrews 2:6 What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?

And this wasn't in the article, but here's how it reads in the 2011 NIV. It still denies the divinity of Christ, while returning to the male wording.
"What is mankind that you are mindful of them, a son of man that you care for him?


I don't know who a son of man is, that could be any one. I know who the son of man is though, and that's Christ.

By the way, that verse is also the same verse in Psalm 8:4. They wrecked an Old Testament verse pointing to the divinity of Christ.

 

[Arwen4CJ]

This is a bible, not just any old book. The standards are higher, since you're using it for doctrine. If the publisher has morally questionable qualities, why on earth would you buy anything they have had their hands on for spiritual edification.

Most Bibles are published by publishers with "questionable qualities," even the Christian publishing companies, such as the mainline denominational ones. The publishers are not on the translation committee -- they are just there to sell things. I know that the Bible is not just any old book. But that is how the publisher's view all of their books. They might pride themselves on selling Bible translations, but they're just there to sell.

If you don't want to buy a Bible from a "questionable publisher" you're going to have to copy the whole Bible by hand, or by typing, whatever translations you prefer.

Publishing companies are made up of sinners, so you can dig up some dirt on all the companies.

But you honestly mean to tell me you're coming to the defense of a bible version you've not investigated for yourself? Even the KJV-onlyists don't do that.

I know what the 1984 NIV says, as that is the only copy of it that I own.

Ok -- so looking on Bible Gateway, I guess that they do post the 2011 version of it. I thought there was some in between version that was from the 1990's, but apparently not.

As for the TNIV, I haven't read it. I own it, and it was used for a brief period at one of the churches that I went to.

For starters, changing the gender to become neutral means a non-literal interpretation of the underlying text. I hope you put about as much stock in the TNIV and the 2011 NIV as you do in "The Message." But, if you don't, get ready for some statistics, and yes, some verses.

The NIV was never a literal, word for word translation. It was more literal than some, but it also had a thought for thought feel to it, too.

I haven't been using the NIV as much lately, as I've been using the NASB more. But I still like the 1984 NIV. This 2011 NIV -- I'd need to actually read it more, other than the quotes that I have pulled off of it when chatting to people online. (Like with my regular reading, I've been quoting more from the NASB than from the NIV, anyway.)

I defend the NIV based on what I read in the 1984 NIV. I'm not going to go into an attacking spree on the TNIV or the 2011 NIV.

I'll look at your research, but my guess is that the overall gospel message is the same, as are all the doctrines.

 

[chelsieinmilton]

I am kind of new to responding to these threads, however, I personally prefer to study multiple translations of the Bible. Which include many of the versions listed thus far, as well as, the KJV. I find that each allows me to bring something new from my studies, or understand another layer. Honestly, this seems more like bashing and less like Jesus. I have read comments about how other versions lessen the Deity of Jesus but, really if a non-believer read through as much of this as I have, I think this would scare them away. We should all be working together to strengthen the Kingdom, rather than bashing based upon preferences.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

I don't know if you are following the "Many Scriptures Disprove the Trinity" thread that was started by a Jehovah's Witness, but there have been several people in that thread who prefer the KJV, and they are non-Trinitarian. At least one of them would agree with you that it is the best translation.

However, they read the text and cannot see Jesus' deity. This disproves the argument that it is modern translations that "confuse" people about the Trinity. People can still read the KJV and deny Christ's deity. They can read any Bible version and deny Jesus' deity, regardless of how clear I think it proclaims Jesus' deity.

Well here is the thing you have to understand Arwen and that's this. That JW (Russellite) is lost. The russellite receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:14).


And while there may be those who read the Holy Bible and still deny Christ's deity, well then that is their peril. The Deity of Jesus Christ can be clearly seen in the Holy Bible, the Authorized Version. Understand though that there are still going to be those who willingly reject the truth and will continue in their willful ignorance and rebellion.

A person posted Colossians 1:15-20 of a translation other than the KJV to try to show Jesus' deity. A non-Trinitarian responded, saying that the KJV calls Jesus a creature there, not the Creator. He claimed that the translation that the person quoted one was biased towards Jesus' deity, and changed the text to make it sound like Jesus was supreme over all creation.

Colossians 1:15-20

Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)


15 who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 and he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20 and, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.


Colossians 1:15-20 in the Authorized Version teaches that all things were created by Jesus Christ and that by Him all things consist. Therefore He is the Creator of all things.

So there we have a case where someone reads only the KJV, and they have come to a non-Trinitarian view. If they read any other translation, I can guess that you would argue that it was the translation that was at fault, and that it was an imperfect translation that was causing confusion.

Well again Arwen; you have those who will simply choose to remain willfully blind and ignorant to the clear truths of the word of God.


Do you know what the problem may be with that person who has come to their non-Trinitarian view?


The real and main problem may be that they do not believe the King James Bible. They may use it and they may read it, but that does not believe that they believe it to be the word of God. Did you ask this person if they believed that the King James Holy Bible is the word of God?


If you have not, ask them that, and see what is that person's response.

The point is that both Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians clearly see that there is evidence for Jesus' deity in all Bible translations, not just the KJV. Non-trinitarians can use any Bible translation, including the KJV, to deny Jesus' deity because of how they are interpreting various words used in the translation.

Well here is the thing Arwen, that may be so. But that reality still does not change the truth that the modern versions do omit verses, and phrases from the word of God. It also does not change the fact that there are blatant attacks made on the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ in the modern versions.

If people have trouble understanding early modern English, then shouldn't they have Bible translations in modern English that they can understand?

Arwen, the real question is: What are they understanding?

If the Doctrine is changed, and it surely is changed in the modern versions, then what is it that they are actually understanding?

 

[ChosenbyHim]

I am sorry but the Holy Spirit declares to us the things of Jesus Christ, with or without the written word - definitely not dependent on a translation

The Holy Spirit declares to us the things of Jesus Christ with the written word of God.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

What makes the pure word the Kjv?

The spiritual fruit it has produced and the evidence and witnesses affirming that the hand of God is upon it and has blessed it:

Absolute Standard - Another King James Bible Believer

Why not the Geneva ?

Sure. Get a copy of the Geneva Bible. It is a wonderful Translation.

Just because you say it is the Kjv , that does not convince me. Yes God preserved his word, that does not mean it is in a 17th century Anglican version of the bible.

Well Jesus said that His words would not pass away (Matt. 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33).

He also said that if a man love Him, that he would keep His words (John 14:23).

Therefore we must have His words. And we do. They are in a Book. And that blessed Book is the King James Holy Bible.

 

[VCO]

I am kind of new to responding to these threads, however, I personally prefer to study multiple translations of the Bible. Which include many of the versions listed thus far, as well as, the KJV. I find that each allows me to bring something new from my studies, or understand another layer. Honestly, this seems more like bashing and less like Jesus. I have read comments about how other versions lessen the Deity of Jesus but, really if a non-believer read through as much of this as I have, I think this would scare them away. We should all be working together to strengthen the Kingdom, rather than bashing based upon preferences.

Welcome and I agree. On my Bible software, I usually have the following versions open at all times, because I know it is what the verse means by what it says that is the WORD of GOD, rather than just the print on the page. Sometimes, it is just easier to see that one true meaning, when you read it in more than a couple Translations.

I use the:
KJV, NKJV, NASB, HCSB, NRSV, ESV, NIV, GWT, and YLT.


Even in the old days before Computers, when I did hand written Bible studies, similar to the posts that I do now, I used four Bibles. I would sit at the dining room table, with the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and the NIV; plus a Exhaustive Strong's, The Vine's, and an Exhaustive NASB Concordance; all spread out on the Dining Room Table. When my wife complains about how long I am on the computer, all I have to do is remind her how long I used to have those books spread out on the table, just to do ONE hand written study.

 

[Arwen4CJ]

For starters, changing the gender to become neutral means a non-literal interpretation of the underlying text. I hope you put about as much stock in the TNIV and the 2011 NIV as you do in "The Message." But, if you don't, get ready for some statistics, and yes, some verses.

Here, this might be a start


Or this?



Now, scripture

I grabbed this Hebrews 2:6 example here

Here in the TNIV, the divinity of Christ is destroyed in Hebrews 2:6
What are mere mortals that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?

Here's how it read in the 1984 NIV
NIV Hebrews 2:6 What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?

And this wasn't in the article, but here's how it reads in the 2011 NIV. It still denies the divinity of Christ, while returning to the male wording.
"What is mankind that you are mindful of them, a son of man that you care for him?


I don't know who a son of man is, that could be any one. I know who the son of man is though, and that's Christ.

By the way, that verse is also the same verse in Psalm 8:4. They wrecked an Old Testament verse pointing to the divinity of Christ.

Perhaps I'm more desensitized to general neutral language. When I was in graduate school, which was a seminary, even though my program of study was counseling, and not M. Div., it was required that we use gender inclusive language. Not using gender inclusive language for God, although not required, was frowned upon.

I was never comfortable using general neutral language for God, and was bothered by the efforts that some people went through to get rid of the titles "Father," "Son," "King," and male pronouns for God. I think that being gender neutral for God does change doctrine. As I said before, the TNIV does not use gender inclusive language for God. I haven't seen the Bible gateway 2011 Bible gateway use it either. Since they do not use the gender inclusive language for God, then I'm still okay using these versions, although they would not be my preferred version.

As for gender inclusive language....it does bug me a bit. I'm not bothered by male language when it refers to humanity. I don't think it is oppressive to women, and I am not offended by it personally. However, I do understand why they insist on gender inclusive language. And I can read it in the Bible, when it isn't referring to Deity, and I can tolerate it. After all, all my textbooks that I had to read and all the papers that I had to write had to also include gender inclusive language. My pastor uses gender inclusive language.

I think using gender inclusive language is more popular in academic circles than in the general population. By making the NIV gender inclusive, it might have received more respect in some scholarly circles...maybe. I don't know. The NIV has a bad reputation among theologically liberal scholars. As I said before, they thought it was too conservative, but that was before the 2011 NIV came out. They probably still won't like it, as they'll probably still find it too conservative for them, so I'm not sure that having a gender inclusive NIV has helped the Bible gain acceptance in theologically liberal circles.

As for Hebrews 2, this isn't as clearly a Messianic passage as some others. Could it be? Yes. Is it definitely? I'm not sure. It could be a reference to both Jesus and humanity, but I tend to think of it as being Messianic, yes. I hadn't thought of it as applying to humanity at all until I read this reading in a book that my church is studying for adult Sunday School. They quoted the passage from another translation, probably the NRSV, as that is the "official" denomination's translation.

The author of that particular reading took it to apply to humanity, and I didn't agree with what they had to say. But it did make me question whether or not it was really referring to Jesus or to humanity in general.

But since it isn't a crystal clear passage, and different translations render it differently, I wouldn't make an argument for Jesus' deity using that passage. Rather, I'd look at Hebrews chapter 1, which is a clearly speaking about Jesus vs. angels. Using even the 2011 NIV, we can see Jesus' deity.

Yes, I know that is a reference to Psalm 8:4 -- I'll have to look at that particular Psalm tomorrow and see if that is a clearer reference to Jesus' deity than the Hebrews passage is.

Again, I think the Hebrews 2:6 passage is a reference to Jesus' deity, rather than talking about humanity in general. When I read it in my NASB it seems pretty clear.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

I should also point out that the non-Trinitarian in the other thread sort of questions what is real and what isn't in the Bible because they did research on modern Bible scholarship and learned that 1 John 5:7-8, as it is in the KJV, was not in the oldest copies of the manuscripts.

Because he only reads the KJV, he is unaware that many translations have a footnote about this.

He distrusts the Bible, wondering what else might be "wrong" in the Bible. He has no reason to believe that what we have in the Bible is close to the original texts, and I think that many other people would be in this boat.

Well, that answered my question. This guy is certainly not a Bible believer. That's his main issue and problem. He does not believe the Book.

That's one good thing about having translations available that reflect modern scholarship. People can have reasonable evidence that what we have reflects, as close as possible, to what the original text probably said.

Arwen, we do not need modern, conflicting, contradicting translations which only cause confusion in the Church, the Body of Christ.

We simply need the word of God.

The KJV is a valuable, good translation, but so are others. Each translation has its strengths and weaknesses.

The King James Holy Bible is the perfect, pure, inerrant and infallible word of God. Arwen, start believing the Book.

 

[Reformedjason]

I have a geneva bible

 

[ChosenbyHim]

I have a geneva bible

That's great Jason. The Geneva Bible is a wonderful Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

 

[LClark]

The King James Holy Bible is the perfect, pure, inerrant and infallible word of God. .

This is a claim that only applies to the original autographs. When making unfounded claims about any one version/translation, you bring discredit on God's holy word and Christianity.

This is a thread that should be allowed to die.

 

[VCO]

Well the NIV is a wicked, vile, depraved, corrupt and wicked counterfeit.

ANY TRANSLATION that would attack the precious Son of God and His Deity, that same translation is a satanic counterfeit.

Furthermore, these wicked modern perversions also try to make a liar out of God.

Do remember you said that about GOD's Word, when you stand before HIM in judgment.

QUOTE:

KJV 1611 ORIGINAL PREFACE:

"
Therefore blessed be they, and most honoured be their name, that breake the ice, and glueth onset upon that which helpeth forward to the saving of soules. Now what can bee more availeable thereto, then to deliever Gods booke unto Gods people in a tongue which they understand? Since of an hidden treasure, and of a fountaine that is sealed, there is no profit, as Ptolomee Philadelph wrote to the Rabbins or masters of the Jewes, as witnesseth Epiphanius: and as S. Augustine saith; A man had rather be with his dog then with a stranger (whose tongue is strange unto him.)
. . .
Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest{ poorest } translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.
. . .
No cause therefore why the word translated should bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting foorth of it.
. . .
No cause therefore why the word translated should bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting foorth of it.
. . .
Yet before we end, we must answere a third cavill {cavil = make petty or unnecessary objections.} and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our Translations [sic] so oft; wherein truely they deale hardly, and strangely with us. { Exactly what the KJV Only people do to us, who prefer modern translations. } For to whom ever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to goe over that which hee had done, and to amend it where he saw cause? "

END QOUTE


Maybe it would be a far better idea to FOLLOW the example of the Translators of your PRECIOUS 1611 KJV.