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

[ChosenbyHim]

Just because different Bible translations word verses that show Jesus' deity slightly differently in some places does not mean that the translators are attacking Jesus' deity. Again, I could use your argument against the KJV, and "prove" that modern translations honor Jesus' deity more in these verses than the translators behind the KJV. But that is a ridiculous argument.

Again, all legitimate Bible translations honor Jesus' deity.

Not if they attack in several other places.

Sigh. Yeah? Then the KJV translators attack and diminish the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ in Titus 2 and 2 Peter.

No they don't.

And I showed you evidence that those weren't real attacks on Jesus' deity, and that modern translations go out of their way to proclaim Jesus' deity.
[/SIZE]

No you did not Arwen. Those attacks were and are real attacks on Jesus' deity. And no Arwen, the modern translations do not go out of their way to proclaim Jesus' deity.

They do no such thing.

It seems to me that this KJV only issue is causing division in the body of Christ. By not being KJV only, I am not attacking the KJV. I'm simply saying it isn't the only legitimate translation, and I'm saying that God's truth is in all Bible translations. It isn't attacking the word of God, or doubting what God has said (even though I know you think it is).

Arwen, I understand that there is some truth in every bible out there. That's not the issue. The issue is is there a pure, perfect, inerrant and absolutely infallible Bible out there that is the Absolute Final Authority? That's the real issue in the Bible Version Controversy.

And I also understand that there are a few other translations out there, especially foreign that are based on the correct Hebrew and Greek texts.

But again, the basic truth in the Bible Version Issue is that nearly all modern translations produced since 1881 are based on both the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Greek texts. What today is referred to as the Westcott and Hort Greek text. Most of the modern day English translations are based on those two corrupt Greek texts. Very, very, very few modern English translations are based solely on the Textus Receptus.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

There are many, many, many places in modern translations that point to Jesus deity, loud and clear. Attacking Jesus' deity means to do what the NWT does -- inserting "a god" instead of "God" in John 1:1. Inserting the word "other" so it makes it look like Jesus was created. Other examples of attacks on Jesus' deity would be if it said in the preface to these Bibles, "of course we know that Jesus is not God in the flesh." Or if the translations had footnotes that explained away Jesus' deity....such as, "Although the word "God" here is used, we cannot assume that it is ascribing deity to Jesus."

The American Standard Version (1901) attacked the deity of Jesus in a footnote they placed at the bottom, regarding John 9:38.


And here is yet another excerpt from Douglas D. Stauffer's book (One Book Stands Alone).

Excerpt from: One Book Stands Alone



By Dr. Douglas D. Stauffer


Chapter 2 — Deity Denied​

Jesus — Accepts Worship

The American Standard Version died out long ago. It is no longer an acceptable version, having been replaced by the more than 200 more modern choices. For this reason, only a single verse from the ASV, along with its corresponding footnote, will be considered in the present study.


(KJB) John 9:38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.


Amazingly, we have agreement between the two texts. The ASV says the exact same thing as the King James Bible.


(ASV) John 9:38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.


In this case, the problem does not involve a change in the text itself. Instead, the attack manifests itself in the footnotes of the ASV. Both versions reveal that the Lord Jesus Christ received worship. However, the footnote corresponding to this verse in the ASV blasphemes God. Here, in the great granddaddy of all the modern versions, the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ is vehemently and overtly attacked. By examining this footnote, one can quickly see that the revisers did not believe Jesus to be God.


The footnote: "The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature (as here), or to the Creator." 2


Translators of the American Standard Version and the English Revised Version believed our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to be a created being. Since Jesus was the One being worshipped in this passage, the translators reveal their unbelief that He is the Creator of the universe. Many other passages could be considered. However, such a flagrant attack on the deity of Christ should suffice to illustrate the point.

- Douglas Stauffer (One Book Stands Alone, Ch. 2: Deity Denied)​

None of the legitimate translations do this, so please stop claiming that they are attacking Jesus' deity.

The modern versions do indeed do this, and I just showed an example of where they do.

And no, I will not proclaiming the truth about the modern versions and how they attack the deity of Jesus Christ.


Interesting that you brought up the NWT. You do know that New World Translation is primarily based upon the Vaticanus (B) manuscript, don't you?


Many of the verses which the NIV (New International Vatican) omits, the NWT also omits those same verses from its very text!

Check out the link below to see how similar the NWT is with the NIV and other modern perversions:


THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCRIPTURAL CORRUPTION AND PLAGUES

I didn't say that no one was confused about Jesus' deity. What I meant was that it isn't because of the modern Bible translations. It's an issue that even some people who only read the KJV have.
It's an issue that doesn't have to do with the KJV vs. modern translation debate.



All the more reason why people should have access to a Bible translation that they are able to read and understand. Biblical illiteracy is not caused by the number of Bible translations available.

Yes it is caused by the number of conflicting modern translations that are on the market today. It sure does. One (CEV) says one thing, this other one (NLT) says another thing, and then this one (ESV) says yet another thing. It is utter confusion.

It's caused because people are not reading the Bible

Well that is definitely another cause for the Biblical Illiteracy.

Many people are intimidated by the language in the KJV. If that were the only Bible translation available, I think even fewer people would be reading it.

Well Arwen, for the first 300 years after the publication of the King James Bible, the church did fine with one English Bible. Christianity was very strong before 1881. And the reason why Christianity was very strong was because Christians held to the Authority of ONE BOOK. And that was the Authorized Version.

I will watch the video.
[/SIZE]

Okay, thanks.

 

[ServantStrike]

ChosenByHim,

You have failed to respond to the Antiochian manuscripts brother Praus discussed.

Nor have you responded to the comments I made about Scrivener and the 1769 Cambridge KJV AV.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

ChosenByHim,

You have failed to respond to the Antiochian manuscripts brother Praus discussed.

Nor have you responded to the comments I made about Scrivener and the 1769 Cambridge KJV AV.

I'll get to them shortly. Just trying to respond to one post at a time.

 

[VCO]

So you are saying that God's word is always in a state of flux. Something that was deemed valid scripture for 400 years can, in the future become invalid with "better evidence".

NO, we are saying that the WORD of GOD, is what the verses mean by what they say, or we would not DARE translate them out of the original languages, much less even to English a language that did not even exist when Christ and the Apostles were ALIVE.

THEREFORE, all Translations done by followers of the Holy Trinity who Prayed for Spiritual Guidance from GOD as they Translated; are coequally the WORD OF GOD.

You are arguing to have your PERSONAL PREFERENCE, elevated and placed ABOVE all other versions, which NEITHER GOD, nor the KJV Translators Authorized. Even the KING of England did not officially issue a proclamation stating that HE PERSONALLY ORDERED the KJV Translation be made. That was NOT in the Original 1611 Preface, in fact they spent a great deal of time in that Preface justifying and answering the arguments of critics who felt making this new 1611 Translation was not needed and was Tampering with the Word of GOD. And low and behold, History repeats itself, if you do not learn from it. So apparently even the word "Authorized" was put there BY THE PUBLISHER because of those critics, to make the KJV more ACCEPTABLE and more SELLABLE; and thus this false, exaggerated, unauthorized, elevated status of the KJV became a snowball rolling downhill, until we NOW have this huge falsehood that GOD ONLY recognizes the KJV as HIS WORD.

 

[VCO]

Jesus is sometimes referred to as "the Rock," because all of YHWH (God) is referred to as the Rock. What applies to YHWH also applies to Jesus because Jesus is YHWH.

Isaiah 43:11 (HCSB)
[SUP]11 [/SUP] I, I am Yahweh, and there is no other Savior but Me.


Amen Brother!

2 Samuel 22:47 (HCSB)
[SUP]47 [/SUP] The LORD lives—may my rock be praised! God, the rock of my salvation, is exalted.

 

[Praus]

Well Arwen, for the first 300 years after the publication of the King James Bible, the church did fine with one English Bible. Christianity was very strong before 1881. And the reason why Christianity was very strong was because Christians held to the Authority of ONE BOOK. And that was the Authorized Version.

It was very strong before 1881 because the Authorized Version was still printed with Apocrypha and all of the original 1611 side notes. This is from a scan of an original 1769 Blayney:

 

[Arwen4CJ]

Ok, Arwen I disagree, but that's ok because you do agree it could be Jesus. And I do think your heart is right and you are truly seeking truth. So let's go further.

Their Rock is not the true Rock. If the Rock represents God or Jesus, then what does the vine represent?

Deu 32:32 For their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah: their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter:

Right, so we need to look at all of Deuteronomy 32 for context.

It's talking about Israel's disobedience/idolatry. Instead of worshiping and serving the one true God, the people were worshiping false gods. Then it goes on to talk about Israel's enemies, people who worshiped false gods. The "vine of Sodom" and the "fields of Gomorrah: their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter;" is the fruit of following after idols and worshiping false gods.

That is how I understand Deuteronomy 32.

 

[Arwen4CJ]

And here is the answer sister Arwen:

One Book Stands Alone - Chapter 3

Thank you for providing some of the sources you are using, and I am pleased that you consider me your sister.

Alright, Now I am going to cite an excerpt from Douglas D. Stauffer's work (One Book Stands Alone) since he answers your question:

He does provide an answer -- but I feel like I could make a similar argument for the modern translations when they translate things different from the KJV. I asked the questions in order to show how ridiculous I think some of these arguments about Bible translation are.

Although you and I do not favor the same Bible translation, I think we agree on all of the basic biblical doctrines. Let's come together and try to encourage people to believe in important doctrines like Jesus' deity, the Trinity, salvation, etc. I see that there are many on this forum who have beliefs that are different from the creeds. Perhaps we can be allies on other threads?

I don't think our argument over Bible translations will get anywhere. I'm glad we are having this discussion, but I just don't want to spend too much more time on it. I feel like we're just going to keep going around in circles.

 

[Arwen4CJ]

The American Standard Version (1901) attacked the deity of Jesus in a footnote they placed at the bottom, regarding John 9:38.

(ASV) John 9:38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.

In this case, the problem does not involve a change in the text itself. Instead, the attack manifests itself in the footnotes of the ASV. Both versions reveal that the Lord Jesus Christ received worship. However, the footnote corresponding to this verse in the ASV blasphemes God. Here, in the great granddaddy of all the modern versions, the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ is vehemently and overtly attacked. By examining this footnote, one can quickly see that the revisers did not believe Jesus to be God.

The footnote: "The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature (as here), or to the Creator." 2

Translators of the American Standard Version and the English Revised Version believed our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to be a created being. Since Jesus was the One being worshipped in this passage, the translators reveal their unbelief that He is the Creator of the universe. Many other passages could be considered. However, such a flagrant attack on the deity of Christ should suffice to illustrate the point.

- Douglas Stauffer (One Book Stands Alone, Ch. 2: Deity Denied)
​

The modern versions do indeed do this, and I just showed an example of where they do.

And no, I will not proclaiming the truth about the modern versions and how they attack the deity of Jesus Christ.

I wouldn't really call the American Standard Version a "modern" translation. Compared to the KJV, maybe, but the ASV is over 100 years old, so it isn't exactly modern.

I don't know much about the ASV, so I'm not going to try to defend it. If the source from that article is correct, then I would say that it does appear that the translators who translated the ASV were attacking the deity of Jesus. I'll just add ASV to the list of translations I won't read (which currently has the Message and the NWT in it.)

Interesting that you brought up the NWT. You do know that New World Translation is primarily based upon the Vaticanus (B) manuscript, don't you?

Many of the verses which the NIV (New International Vatican) omits, the NWT also omits those same verses from its very text!

Check out the link below to see how similar the NWT is with the NIV and other modern perversions:

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCRIPTURAL CORRUPTION AND PLAGUES

I was under the impression that the people responsible for "translating" the NWT didn't actually know Greek or Hebrew, and thus it couldn't have been an actual translation. I heard that they took the ASV and just deleted things they didn't like or reworded them.

The reason I don't like the NWT is due to how they "translated" passages like John 1:1 and other passages that I quoted earlier. The modern translations all differ from the NWT on these issues.

Yes it is caused by the number of conflicting modern translations that are on the market today. It sure does. One (CEV) says one thing, this other one (NLT) says another thing, and then this one (ESV) says yet another thing. It is utter confusion.

The various translations are not all that different. Yes, the wording changes slightly, but the meaning is the same. It is possible to read along silently with someone who is reading a passage out loud, and they are reading from a different translation from the one you are reading from. I do that all the time in church. Do I think it is confusing? Not for adult readers. For children, yes. That's why it's a good idea to give children in a Sunday school class the same translation to read while in class.

Well Arwen, for the first 300 years after the publication of the King James Bible, the church did fine with one English Bible. Christianity was very strong before 1881. And the reason why Christianity was very strong was because Christians held to the Authority of ONE BOOK. And that was the Authorized Version.

There are multiple factors for why Christianity -- at least orthodox Christianity started to go into decline in the 1800's.

I've gotten part way through the video. I'm going to have to listen to the rest later. I'm 18:43 minutes into it. I'll have to pick up there another day.

 

[Arwen4CJ]

I'm just glad that no one in this thread seems to be making this issue an issue of salvation, so I am grateful for that There are some who claim that if someone doesn't read the KJV, they are going to hell.

 

[ServantStrike]

I wouldn't really call the American Standard Version a "modern" translation. Compared to the KJV, maybe, but the ASV is over 100 years old, so it isn't exactly modern.

I don't know much about the ASV, so I'm not going to try to defend it. If the source from that article is correct, then I would say that it does appear that the translators who translated the ASV were attacking the deity of Jesus. I'll just add ASV to the list of translations I won't read (which currently has the Message and the NWT in it.)



I was under the impression that the people responsible for "translating" the NWT didn't actually know Greek or Hebrew, and thus it couldn't have been an actual translation. I heard that they took the ASV and just deleted things they didn't like or reworded them.

The reason I don't like the NWT is due to how they "translated" passages like John 1:1 and other passages that I quoted earlier. The modern translations all differ from the NWT on these issues.[/URL]

You might want to add the NIV to that list. The gender neutral wording is a bit disingenuous in a bible where God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit are all referred to as male - not to mention all of the prophets, all of the apostles, and the old testament patriarchs. It was more caving to market demand than an attempt to maintain sound translation.


And yeah, making this into a salvation issue would be pretty messed up.


The one exception to that would possibly be the the NWT, where the "translators" so deliberately tried to force counter biblical doctrine on people that they changed key verses of the bible wholesale. Kind of hard to read about the triune nature of God when the translators have removed it completely from the bible.

But that is a Jehovah's Witness' translation. Of course it's going to be messed up.

It was very strong before 1881 because the Authorized Version was still printed with Apocrypha and all of the original 1611 side notes. This is from a scan of an original 1769 Blayney:

Those side notes are still there in some of them, though usually as a center column reference. I agree, I have no idea why so many publishers print KJV's without all of those very handy scriptural references.

 

[KJV1611]

Right, so we need to look at all of Deuteronomy 32 for context.

It's talking about Israel's disobedience/idolatry. Instead of worshiping and serving the one true God, the people were worshiping false gods. Then it goes on to talk about Israel's enemies, people who worshiped false gods. The "vine of Sodom" and the "fields of Gomorrah: their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter;" is the fruit of following after idols and worshiping false gods.

That is how I understand Deuteronomy 32.

Actually, a vine is not fruit, a vine produces fruit. The vine of Sodom is exactly the opposite of the "true" vine.

Joh 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

 

[Arwen4CJ]

You might want to add the NIV to that list. The gender neutral wording is a bit disingenuous in a bible where God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit are all referred to as male - not to mention all of the prophets, all of the apostles, and the old testament patriarchs. It was more caving to market demand than an attempt to maintain sound translation.

The NIV that I have is fine. I haven't seen the 2011 NIV, so I can't really comment there. The last few years I have been using mostly the NASB.

And yeah, making this into a salvation issue would be pretty messed up.

Unfortunately, people do that. And when people do, that is when I would say that the situation is really important because those that do that have changed the gospel. They are adding a work to grace (reading only the KJV Bible).

The one exception to that would possibly be the the NWT, where the "translators" so deliberately tried to force counter biblical doctrine on people that they changed key verses of the bible wholesale. Kind of hard to read about the triune nature of God when the translators have removed it completely from the bible.

But that is a Jehovah's Witness' translation. Of course it's going to be messed up.

I agree -- although even they couldn't remove Jesus' deity completely from the Bible. Sadly, the JW will change their Bible when they become aware that they missed a passage that promotes Jesus' deity.

Those side notes are still there in some of them, though usually as a center column reference. I agree, I have no idea why so many publishers print KJV's without all of those very handy scriptural references.

Other translations do this, too, especially some study Bibles.

It's probably cheaper for the publishers to print Bibles without extra notes.

 

[Arwen4CJ]

Actually, a vine is not fruit, a vine produces fruit. The vine of Sodom is exactly the opposite of the "true" vine.

Joh 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

I didn't mean literal fruit. And, yes, Jesus calls Himself the true vine.

 

[VCO]

It was very strong before 1881 because the Authorized Version was still printed with Apocrypha and all of the original 1611 side notes.

The KJV with the Apocrypha is still available on the Bibe software I use, and the software and that Apocrypha version of the KJV are FREE, totally free, with no pop up nag screens. PLUS there are 6 other Free versions of the Bible and over 200 FREE books that are available to download after you have installed the program - WORDsearch Basic; and it has video tutorials under the HELP menu to make it super easy to learn the program. https://www.wordsearchbible.com/basic

YES IT REALLY IS TOTALLY FREE.

 

[VCO]

I didn't mean literal fruit. And, yes, Jesus calls Himself the true vine.

Galatians 5:22-26 (HCSB)
[SUP]22 [/SUP] But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith,
[SUP]23 [/SUP] gentleness, self-control. Against such things there is no law.
[SUP]24 [/SUP] Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
[SUP]25 [/SUP] Since we live by the Spirit, we must also follow the Spirit.
[SUP]26 [/SUP] We must not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

​

I am still trying to read through all of this 1611 VERY OLD ENGLISH Original Preface of the KJV:
King James Version Original Preface
AND I am still finding some gold and jewels of information:

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.
. . .
Yet before we end, we must answere a third cavill { argument? } 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?

"the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?​

By Will Kinney​

* “Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?As for the Preface to the Reader found in the King James Bible, many anti-KJB folks like to use certain quotes from the KJB translators (usually taken out of context) in an effort to prove that the translators themselves would approve of the multiple, conflicting and contradictory Bible Babble Buffet versions seen on the bible market today.* It should first be pointed out that we do not hold the King James Bible translators as our final authority. Neither their Prefatory remarks, nor their individual or collective theology (though I personally agree with much of it) nor their personal lives nor opinions form any part of our Final Written Authority.* They were not always right in what they said or did, just as king David, Solomon, Peter, Paul or John were not always right in what they did or thought.* They were sinful and imperfect men, but they were all God fearing, blood bought children of God who believed they were handling the very words of the living God.* It is the TEXT of the Authorized King James Holy Bible that we believe and defend as the complete and 100% true words of God.* If God cannot use fallen, sinful man as His chosen vessels in the process of preserving His inspired words, then we never would have had the inspired originals to begin with!* Think about it.

They ask: “Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?

This quote is always taken out of context by the KJB critics. Throughout the Preface there are repeated references to the contrast between between the Bible translation work of Christians of the Reformation faith and those of the Catholic church.

The whole quote in context is this. “Now to the latter we answer, That we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that THE VERY MEANEST TRANSLATION of the Bible in English SET FORTH BY MEN OF OUR PROFESSION, (for we have seen NONE OF THEIRS of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay is the word of God.”

It should be clear that Miles Smith (the man who wrote the Preface) is referring to the Douay-Rheims ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT here, which was published by the Roman Catholics in 1582, the Old Testament not appearing until some five or six years AFTER the King James Bible translators began their own work of translation. Thus the reason for Smith's notation that they had "SEEN NONE OF THEIRS OF THE WHOLE BIBLE AS YET."**

Even the Catholics themselves acknowledge that the King James Bible translators severely criticized and mocked the Catholic versions.* Here is their own Catholic Cultur.org site where they talk about their Douay-Rheims bible.

*http://www.catholicculture.org/cult...=4300&CFID=64452699&CFTOKEN=99023368** Here in their own words they mention: "Further, the translators of the KJV make specific reference to the Douay version in their translators' preface, where they devote space to attacking the word choices made by the translators of the Douay. "We have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their [use of words like] AZIMES, TUNIKE, RATIONAL, HOLOCAUSTS, PRAEPUCE, PASCHE, and a number of such like [words], whereof their late Translation is full" ("The Translators to the Reader," King James Version, 1611 ed.).

“Men of our profession” refers to the Protestant, Reformation Christians and the “theirs” refers to the Catholics. In the previous paragraph to this quote we read them say regarding “the translations of the Bible maturely considered of and examined” that “all is sound for substance in one or other of OUR editions, AND THE WORST OF OURS FAR BETTER THAN THEIR AUTHENTICK VULGAR” (which refers to the various Latin Vulgate versions)

The context of the Preface by Miles Smith shows the contrast between early English Protestant translations and the "Bible" of the* Roman Catholic Church. Translations like Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, the Great Bible, Geneva's, Bishops' and such were translations "set forth by men of our profession" and thus, "containeth the Word of God, nay is the Word of God."*

Throughout the Preface there is a constant contrast between "our" and "their" translations, and between Protestant thought and Catholic thought. They also state in their Preface - "also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their asimes, tunike, rational, holocausts, praepuce, pasche, and a number of such like, whereof THEIR LATE TRANSLATION, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof, it may be kept from being understood.”

In another part they stated: "“So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish Persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God’s holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness”.*

The translators of the AV saw their task as the perfecting of the earlier English translations that followed the Traditional Greek texts as found in the Reformation bible translations of Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible.*

The supreme irony today is that these same modern versions most anti-King James Bible folks are promoting are in fact the new “Catholic” bible versions.* See "Undeniable Proof the NIV, NASB, ESV are the new 'Catholic' versions" here-* Please read both parts

Real Catholic bibles - Another King James Bible Believer

All of grace, believing The Book,*

Will Kinney*

Return to Articles -*Articles - Another King James Bible Believer

 

[ChosenbyHim]

I'm not promoting Alexandrian scholarship and you're not promoting Alexandrian scholarship

Why would you bring it up at all other than as a straw man?

Well actually Praus, if you or someone else are teaching the idea that the Bible is not perfect and that there are mistakes in it, well then that is Alexandrian philosophy.

The alexandrian mentality is that there is no perfect Bible and that its up to you to decide and prefer a bible.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

Don't you get it? He reads the Antiochian manuscripts, not the Alexandrian ones.

Every single text Praus just said he reads comes from the work Erasmus did on his Greek New Testament - the text the KJV was translated from. He said Scrivener, not Westcott and Hort, and not Nestle-Aland.

Who do you think was actively involved the 1769 KJV? Scrivener!



What version do I use? I use a 1769 Oxford. They removed the masonic woodcuts that were in the original 1611.

In fact I have several 1769 KJV's. It's a beautiful translation, very protestant. I can buy a KJV from a publishing house that doesn't print any thing with counter biblical doctrine. I can quote it, re print it, or plaster my walls with it as wallpaper. Praise God!


But guess what bible I had when I was saved? A 1984 NIV. Horror of horrors. You will still get doctrinally correct statements from an NASB, an ESV, and even an NKJV (although I feel kind of cheated reading an NKJV when I could just read an Oxford). I would have said that about the NIV until the 2011 version too. There are a large number of saved people who read translations other than the KJV, some of which aren't even in English.

Hello there ServantStrike,

I understand what you are saying. But what I just mentioned to Praus, is that, the Alexandrian scholarship and philosophy is that there is no perfect Bible.

You see, the Alexandrians won't attack a Christian who uses and prefers the King James Bible. But once an Alexandrian finds out that that Christian BELIEVES the King James Bible, then all of a sudden that same Christian is called a "ruckmanite" or a "cultist" by the heretical Alexandrian scholars' union.

The question ServantStriker is not whether or not you "use" or "prefer" the King James Bible, but the main question is: Do you BELIEVE the King James Bible? Do you believe that it is the word of God?

There are many Christians that read and use the King James Bible, but again, the question is: Do they BELIEVE it?

Just because someone is KJV-Only, that does not necessarily mean that they are a King James Bible BELIEVER.

And while there are Christians who will only read and use the Antiochan text and so forth, that does not mean that they have the Antiochan Mindset and Mentality. A Christian can use the Antiochan text while still having an Alexandrian mindset. Do you see the point I am making?

There are also some Christians who may have the right mentality. They may have the Antiochan mentality, which is they believe that the Bible is the absolute, perfect and inerrant word. But while they have the antiochan mindset, they may still be using the Alexandrian text (NIV, ESV, NLT, NASB, etc.) In other words, let's say you have a new convert, who just got saved and he goes into a Christian bookstore to buy a bible. And right now he does not know about the Bible Version Issue, so he goes and buys an NIV. And while that NIV is a wicked and corrupt counterfeit, that new baby Christian may actually think and believe that he has a geniune bible in his hands. He may believe that it's perfect. Since he doesn't know any better. So while that new baby Christian has the wrong bible (text), that same Christian still has the Antiochan mentality, in other words, he BELIEVES that the book he holds in his hand is the word of God. So he just needs a mature Christian to share with him the Bible Version Issue, and to show him which TEXT is the right text. That way he can have both the right text (King James Bible) and the right mentality (Antiochan).

To conclude:

Again, The Alexandrian philosophy is that there is no perfect written Final Authority at all.

The Antiochan mentality is that God has preserved His pure words and that the Holy BibBible that we do have today is the inerrant and infallible word of God.