No major doctrines changed?
- Thread starter John146
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
You said in post 43, “Anyone who has studied Shakespeare in high school can understand the KJV.”
I responded in post 57, “Just like anyone who has studied Latin in high school can understand the Vulgate.”
Given that someone today would likely need some help understanding Shakespeare, and having studied it would better understand other English texts of that era, there is fundamentally no difference between the KJV and the Latin of the Vulgate, if someone has studied Latin. The point is the required preceding study of similar language. Yes, the modern reader with no other exposure to 16th-century English would likely understand some of the KJV, but that's not my point. Rather, I stated that in places the KJV is incomprehensible. LucyPevensie provided some perfect examples in post #74.
I responded in post 57, “Just like anyone who has studied Latin in high school can understand the Vulgate.”
Given that someone today would likely need some help understanding Shakespeare, and having studied it would better understand other English texts of that era, there is fundamentally no difference between the KJV and the Latin of the Vulgate, if someone has studied Latin. The point is the required preceding study of similar language. Yes, the modern reader with no other exposure to 16th-century English would likely understand some of the KJV, but that's not my point. Rather, I stated that in places the KJV is incomprehensible. LucyPevensie provided some perfect examples in post #74.
So do since I do parallel Bible study with the Holy Spirit and even better because it spans several translations and not just one translation that isn't entirely accurate (KJV).
It's fine if you just want to stick with one translation but it's wrong to tell others who are also being led by the Holy Spirit, directing them to use other translations that are easier for them to understand.
I used to work for a homeless ministry and many of the homeless can't read very well. We have to use the Bibles that use the simplest words to share with them because they can't even understand the NIV Bible or other standard English Bibles. Forget even offering them KJV because they won't understand that version at all.
So pushing KJV only isn't of God. It just puts a stumbling block in front of people that won't be able to grasp what it says.
❧
It's fine if you just want to stick with one translation but it's wrong to tell others who are also being led by the Holy Spirit, directing them to use other translations that are easier for them to understand.
I used to work for a homeless ministry and many of the homeless can't read very well. We have to use the Bibles that use the simplest words to share with them because they can't even understand the NIV Bible or other standard English Bibles. Forget even offering them KJV because they won't understand that version at all.
So pushing KJV only isn't of God. It just puts a stumbling block in front of people that won't be able to grasp what it says.
❧
-
3
- Show all
Well this is debatable, as someone who was raised with two languages it does not compare to having studied a language especially a language which is completely out of use. I studied Latin.
This again is relative, and the words/phrases that @Lucy-Pevensie were out of context since we read in context, this is a very poor rebuttal.
The reader's skill level is a significant part of the function, so again a poor example.
If you have research I will look at, otherwise I have been drawn into generalities which generally go nowhere, I really should have known better.
This again is relative, and the words/phrases that @Lucy-Pevensie were out of context since we read in context, this is a very poor rebuttal.
The reader's skill level is a significant part of the function, so again a poor example.
If you have research I will look at, otherwise I have been drawn into generalities which generally go nowhere, I really should have known better.
-
1
- Show all
You could start by purchasing and carefully studying The Revision Revised by John William Burgon. That is only the tip of the iceberg, since Burgon wrote many other books to prove that the Minority Text is thoroughly corrupt.
That is where you need to personally do your due diligence.
But I will give you just one glaring example -- the OMISSION of Acts 8:37, which (1) totally undermines the doctrine that only sincere believers may be baptized and also Romans 10:9-10: That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Indeed it undermines (2) a plain understanding of Scripture, and also undermines (3) the doctrine of the preservation of the Word of God and (4) the commandment to not tamper with a single word of the Bible. The NIV adds and substracts words from Scripture at will.
A question was asked in verse 36 and in the King James Bible the correct answer was provided in verse 37. But according to the NIV NO ANSWER WAS GIVEN to a very critical question!
NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION: ACTS 8 PARAPHRASED AND DISTORTED
26 Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Go south to the road—the desert road—that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.”
27 So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of the Kandake ["which means" ADDED] “queen of the Ethiopians”. This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship,
28 and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading ["the Book of" ADDED] Isaiah the prophet.
29 The Spirit told Philip, “Go to that chariot and stay near it.”
30 Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
31 “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
32 This is the passage of Scripture the eunuch was reading:
“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before its shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
33 In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants? [The Greek genea = generation not "descendants"]
34 The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?”
35 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?”
[37] [c] [FOOTNOTED and how many will bother with false and misleading footnotes?]
38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.
39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing.
40 Philip, however, appeared at Azotus and traveled about, preaching the gospel in all the towns until he reached Caesarea.
************************************************
KING JAMES BIBLE
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
That is where you need to personally do your due diligence.
But I will give you just one glaring example -- the OMISSION of Acts 8:37, which (1) totally undermines the doctrine that only sincere believers may be baptized and also Romans 10:9-10: That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Indeed it undermines (2) a plain understanding of Scripture, and also undermines (3) the doctrine of the preservation of the Word of God and (4) the commandment to not tamper with a single word of the Bible. The NIV adds and substracts words from Scripture at will.
A question was asked in verse 36 and in the King James Bible the correct answer was provided in verse 37. But according to the NIV NO ANSWER WAS GIVEN to a very critical question!
NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION: ACTS 8 PARAPHRASED AND DISTORTED
26 Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Go south to the road—the desert road—that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.”
27 So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of the Kandake ["which means" ADDED] “queen of the Ethiopians”. This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship,
28 and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading ["the Book of" ADDED] Isaiah the prophet.
29 The Spirit told Philip, “Go to that chariot and stay near it.”
30 Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
31 “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
32 This is the passage of Scripture the eunuch was reading:
“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before its shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
33 In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants? [The Greek genea = generation not "descendants"]
34 The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?”
35 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?”
[37] [c] [FOOTNOTED and how many will bother with false and misleading footnotes?]
38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.
39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing.
40 Philip, however, appeared at Azotus and traveled about, preaching the gospel in all the towns until he reached Caesarea.
************************************************
KING JAMES BIBLE
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
No, I really don't have to go along with anything you say. You have tunnel vision which tells me that you don't listen to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. You have no authority to dictate anything to me.
Also the "KJV isn't entirely accurate" thing has already been covered in this thread and so many other KJV only threads.
Also the "KJV isn't entirely accurate" thing has already been covered in this thread and so many other KJV only threads.
-
1
- Show all