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

[Arwen4CJ]

Yeah the comforter is not the spirit. It is exactly what I just understood and said to you. There is no spirit until you are tried by fire. John is telling you to go and get that which you need prior to the teachings of christ. This is for someone who tries to be saved straight away just because they have decided to be saved. You must first hate your native land then seek the comforter.

Okay --

John 14:16-17 (in the NASB, because I like it)[SUP]16 [/SUP]I will ask the Father, and He will give you another [SUP][b][/SUP]Helper, that He may be with you forever; [SUP]17 [/SUP]that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.

John 14:25-26 (NASB)
[SUP]25 [/SUP]“These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. [SUP]26 [/SUP]But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.


John 15:26-27 (in the NASB)
[SUP]26 [/SUP]“When the [SUP][h][/SUP]Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me, [SUP]27 [/SUP][SUP][i][/SUP]and you will testify also, because you have been with Me from the beginning.


John 16:5-15 (in the NASB)[SUP]5 [/SUP]“But now I am going to Him who sent Me; and none of you asks Me, ‘Where are You going?’ [SUP]6 [/SUP]But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. [SUP]7 [/SUP]But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the [SUP][c][/SUP]Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. [SUP]8 [/SUP]And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; [SUP]9 [/SUP]concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; [SUP]10 [/SUP]and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me; [SUP]11 [/SUP]and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.

[SUP]12 [/SUP]“I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. [SUP]13 [/SUP]But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. [SUP]14 [/SUP]He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. [SUP]15 [/SUP]All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.

If you read the passage ServantStrike quoted, in context, you will see that it most definitely referring to the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost. Only something with personhood could do all those things that I underlined. Jesus here was not talking about some mystical thing or experience that we must have.

But, since you don't think it's about the Holy Spirit, who/what do you think it is referring to?

 

[Arwen4CJ]

Rev 22 is also talking about the same person....the comforter.

Which part of Revelation 22 are you referring to?

 

[Arwen4CJ]

Not true servent....When you receive of the spirit you are perfect with God.

Please explain what you mean by this.

 

[Arwen4CJ]

So intellectual. ...do you have faith also?

Who are you talking to?

 

[Arwen4CJ]

Now you know why we refer to KJV-onlyism as a cult!

Happy Christmas sister Arwen, God bless you.

Aww....thank you. I hope that you have had a good Christmas so far. (It isn't just one day).

Yes, I can see why people are referring to KJV-onlyism as a cult.

Happy Christmas to you, too

 

[Arwen4CJ]

Ok, Arwen I agree it's hard to see if you don't read the KJV. I read the KJV and I understand the symbolism God uses in it.

Have you never the noticed that the entire bible is about contrasts? Light - dark, good - evil, heaven - hell, Christ - Antichrist. It's a theme that runs throughout the bible. Likewise, there are only 2 vines in the bible - the vine of Christ and the vine of Sodom. The vine of Christ is the pure inerrant word of God, the vine of Sodom is anything other than the pure inerrant word of God.... it is the poison of dragons (Satan). The newer translations don't line up with the KJV on many many points - if two disagree then they are not from the same vine. One is the vine of Christ and the other is the vine of Sodom.

Deu 32:31 For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges.
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:
Deu 32:33 Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.

I do not follow that logic....I mean, I can see the argument you are making, but it just doesn't line up with Scripture (in context).

Yes, there are often contrasting things in the Bible, but to say that there are only two vines in the Bible, and that it must be referring to the KJV vs. other translations is making a jump that I just can't make.

This KJV only point of view just seems silly to me.... the argument is basically like if I were to say this:

The NASB is the only true Bible translation. Anything that deviates from it is of Satan. I'll look at one version, the KJV, and compare it to what the NASB says, and I will show how the KJV does not honor the deity of Jesus Christ.

Look at Titus 2:11-14 in the KJV:
[SUP]11 [/SUP]For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
[SUP]12 [/SUP]Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
[SUP]13 [/SUP]Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

[SUP]14 [/SUP]Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

That sounds like the KJV translators are saying that God and Jesus are separate. It must, therefore, be a translation from Satan.

Let's look at see what the NASB says:

[SUP]11 [/SUP]For the grace of God has appeared, [SUP][a][/SUP]bringing salvation to all men, [SUP]12 [/SUP][SUP][b][/SUP]instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, [SUP]13[/SUP]looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of [SUP][c][/SUP]our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, [SUP]14 [/SUP]who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.

Oh, let's do the same thing with 2 Peter 1:1

2 Peter 1:1 in the KJV:
1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

2 Peter 1:1 in the NASB:

1 [SUP][a][/SUP]Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who have received a faith of the same [SUP][b][/SUP]kind as ours, [SUP][c][/SUP]by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:

Now, of course I don't really believe that. I'm just trying to show what the KJV only arguments sound like to me. Fighting over Bible translations is silly when there are people out there who are really undermining Christian doctrine, as has happened on this thread while I was gone. All legitimate Bible translations proclaim Jesus' deity, and the gospel.

 

[Arwen4CJ]

It's not quite eisogesis--the true roots of KJV-onlyism is Seventh-Day Adventism back in 1930--not trinitarian Christianity.

-> "Roots" of the KJV Controversy

"In the realm of King-James-Version-Onlyism, just such a genealogy of error can be easily traced. All writers who embrace the KJV-only position have derived their views ultimately from Seventh-day Adventist missionary, theology professor and college president, Benjamin G. Wilkinson (d.1968), through one of two or three of his spiritual descendants. In 1930, he wrote Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, a book of several hundred pages which attracted almost no attention in its day (no doubt chiefly because it was awash in a vast ocean of error). In that book, Wilkinson attacked the Westcott-Hort Greek text, in large measure by attacking Westcott and Hort personally (the common but fallacious ad hominem method; I exposed and refuted his line of argument in "Erasmus and His Theology," The Biblical Evangelist, vol. 19, no. 20, October 15, 1985, pp. 3, 4). He also expressed strong opposition to the English Revised Version New Testament (1881), in particular objecting to it because it robbed Adventism of two favorite proof-texts, one allegedly teaching Gentile Sabbath-keeping (Acts 13:42 ), the other misused by the Adventists to teach soul sleep (Hebrews 9:27)."


So let's look at the verses that are so offensive to the Adventists, using the 1881 ERV.

"allegedly teaching Gentile Sabbath-keeping"

Acts 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. (KJV PCE)

Acts 13:42 And as they went out, they besought that these words might be spoken to them the next sabbath. (ERV)

"misused ... to teach soul sleep": "as" vs. "inasmuch as"

Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: (KJV PCE)

Heb 9:27 And inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this [cometh] judgment; (ERV)

I didn't mean the whole KJV onlyism movement to be eisogesis. What I meant, was that KJV1611 was taking specific verses out of their context (Deuteronomy 32:31-33), and seemed to be reading a meaning into the text, and then interpreting those verses based on the meaning that he/she brought to the text.

Thanks for providing some history behind the KJV only movement, though

 

[Arwen4CJ]

While there are places in the modern translations where the Deity of Jesus Christ can be seen, there also places in the modern translations where the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ is attacked and diminished.

I could turn that argument around and say that the KJV "attacks" the deity of Jesus Christ by how it translates Titus 2:11-14 and 2 Peter 1:1, in comparison to the modern translations, or because it doesn't capitalize all the pronouns when it is referring to Jesus, like the NASB does.

People can read into any Bible translation, including the KJV, and draw the false conclusion that Jesus isn't God in the flesh. At the same time, most people reading any Bible translation will draw the conclusion that Jesus is God in the flesh. The passages that you claim that supposedly diminish or attack Jesus' deity do not. Since we should never base any doctrine on one or two verses, there is plenty of evidence in all Bible translations for Jesus' deity.

This debate over KJV vs. other translations is blinding us Christians to real, serious issues, such as gnosticism/occultism sneaking into the church. Or to people who are truly denying Jesus' deity, and still claiming to be Christian.

In the King James Bible, which is God's true word, the Deity of Jesus Christ is honoured and exalted.

Jesus' deity is honored and exalted in all translations. It's not a matter of only a few verses in these translations declaring Jesus' deity. Multiple passages declare it. That is why the argument that Jesus' deity is not being honored and exalted is ridiculous to me. Do you know how many verses proclaim Jesus' deity? Many, many, many. The evidence is insurmountable.

If it really were an issue in modern translations, then you would expect the majority of people who read these translations to be confused about Jesus' deity. You would expect people to overwhelmingly deny Jesus' deity. Yet, this does not happen. So, in my opinion, it's a non-issue.

Now in regard to your comment regarding the NASB, the NASB says that God was deceived in psalm 78:36. Did you know that? Look it up.

I responded to that remark already in this thread. I'm not going to repeat myself.

And here is a great video where one of the Co-founders of the NASB, Frank Logsdon openly renounced all attachment to the NASB and the other modern translations and from that point on in his life, he stood strongly for the King James Holy Bible. Check it out, it is a great video:

Frank Logsdon From the NASV to KJV

[video=youtube;wZBeIr1wKGY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZBeIr1wKGY[/video]

S. Franklin Logsdon (1907-1987) was a respected evangelical pastor and popular Bible conference speaker. He pastored Moody Memorial Church in Chicago (from 1950 to 1952). Prior to that he pastored Central Baptist Church in London, Ontario (from 1942-50). He also pastored churches in Holland, Michigan (Immanuel Baptist from 1952-57), and Eerie, Pennsylvania. He taught at London Bible Institute in Ontario, Canada. He preached at Bible conferences (such as Moody Founder's Week) with well-known evangelists and pastors such as Billy Graham and Paul Smith of People's Church in Toronto.

In the 1950s Logsdon was invited by his businessman friend Franklin Dewey Lockman to prepare a feasibility study which led to the production of the New American Standard Version (NASV). He also helped interview some of the men who served as translators for this version. He wrote the Foreword which appears in the NASV.

As we see in the following testimony, in the later years of his life Logsdon publicly renounced his association with the modern versions and stood unhesitatingly for the King James Bible. In a letter dated June 9, 1977, Logsdon wrote to Cecil Carter of Prince George, British Columbia, "When questions began to reach me [pertaining to the NASV], at first I was quite offended. However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right about the NASV. Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV. ... I can aver that the project was produced by thoroughly sincere men who had the best of intentions. The product, however, is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times."

Logsdon moved to Largo, Florida, in his senior years and died there August 13, 1987.
From the NASV to the KJV by Frank Logsdon

From the description here, I have to question the legitimacy of this source. Why? Because it uses the abbreviation NASV for the NASB. As far as I know, it only goes by NASB.

 

[Arwen4CJ]

Honeslty, KJV onlyism comes from the complete trust in every word of the bible. When we read verses like the one below, we believe it. We believe that it is not possible for God's word to corrupt.

1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

On the other side of the table we have the group that does believe the word of God has corrupted.
They believe that God either wasn't powerful enough, or didn't feel it was necessary for us to have his inerrant word today.

They believe the word of God is spread out over all the different translations, and they have to go out to all the different translations and piece God's inerrant uncorruptible word back together.

What they don't realize is that this is the religion of Freemasons... Freemasons are trying to find the missing pieces of Osiris so they can put him back together again. They also don't realize that the doctrine of corruption of the bible doesn't come from the bible, it comes from Freemasons.

I don't believe that one translation is superior to any other. God never said one translation would be better than others.

His truth doesn't change. His gospel doesn't change. His truth and His gospel are in all translations of the Bible. All of them preserve His words.

God has preserved the Bible in that its truth is unchanged from when it was written. It isn't that one translation has been preserved! Jesus didn't speak in KJV English, so it is ridiculous for anyone to claim that the KJV is the only true Bible.

If we want to read a completely biased free Bible, we would need to learn biblical Greek and biblical Hebrew, and then read these. But since many of us do not know these languages, then we must rely on a translation in our language. It is a good idea to read a passage in several different translations for the full meaning. If we are only reading it in one translation, then we might miss something.

If we only read a passage in the KJV, then we would need to make sure that all the words in that passage meant the same in 1611 as they mean today. Some words have changed meaning, so it would be a good idea to check other translations to see how other translations translated it.

I don't think anyone here is saying that the KJV is not a good translation, or that it is full of errors, or anything like that.

Not all of us believe that the Bible is "corrupted," as you suggest. I just don't believe that the KJV is perfect, or that all other translations are from Satan.

 

[Arwen4CJ]

Arwen, I also strongly disagree with you here. I want to share with you another good article written by a brother in the Lord who has studied this issue for quite a while now. And in this article he shows the fickle nature of the modern versions and the so called "science of textual criticism." These so called "scholars" and translators that are behind these modern translations such as the NASB, NIV, ESV, NLT, etc. are very dishonest and deceptive. How can you tell? Simple, you can tell by the deceiving, dishonest, misleading, and inaccurate footnotes that they put down and place at the bottom in these modern versions (NASB, NIV, ESV, NLT, NEB, etc.).


Now here is the link to the article that brother Will Kinney wrote exposing the NASB and the other modern versions as well as the dishonest "$cholar$hip" behind them.



Luke 24 and the "science" of textual criticism in action


Luke 24 "science" textcr - Another King James Bible Believer

If there were a real doctrine that was actually at issue with modern translations, I would agree with you. But there isn't. There is no doctrine in the modern translation that differs from the KJV. You could list multiple Bible verses that support all Christian beliefs in all Bible translations, KJV or not.

 

[KJV1611]

I didn't mean the whole KJV onlyism movement to be eisogesis. What I meant, was that KJV1611 was taking specific verses out of their context (Deuteronomy 32:31-33), and seemed to be reading a meaning into the text, and then interpreting those verses based on the meaning that he/she brought to the text.

Thanks for providing some history behind the KJV only movement, though

Ok, Arwen let's see if I was taking the verses out of context. Who is the Rock in verse 31?

Deu 32:31 For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges.
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:
Deu 32:33 Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

I could turn that argument around and say that the KJV "attacks" the deity of Jesus Christ by how it translates Titus 2:11-14 and 2 Peter 1:1, in comparison to the modern translations, or because it doesn't capitalize all the pronouns when it is referring to Jesus, like the NASB does.

The deity of Jesus Christ is only attacked in the modern versions.

In the King James Bible, the deity of Jesus Christ is magnified and honoured.

People can read into any Bible translation, including the KJV, and draw the false conclusion that Jesus isn't God in the flesh. At the same time, most people reading any Bible translation will draw the conclusion that Jesus is God in the flesh. The passages that you claim that supposedly diminish or attack Jesus' deity do not.

Those passages I showed you from the modern versions do attack and diminish the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. You just refuse to accept that truth.

Since we should never base any doctrine on one or two verses, there is plenty of evidence in all Bible translations for Jesus' deity.

And there is evidence that has already been given on this thread showing that the modern versions attack Jesus' deity in many places.

This debate over KJV vs. other translations is blinding us Christians to real, serious issues, such as gnosticism/occultism sneaking into the church. Or to people who are truly denying Jesus' deity, and still claiming to be Christian.

The Bible Version Issue is a real, serious issue. It is one of the most important issues facing the Church today.

Satan operates by attacking the word of God and by placing doubt upon what God said (See Genesis 3).

Jesus' deity is honored and exalted in all translations. It's not a matter of only a few verses in these translations declaring Jesus' deity. Multiple passages declare it. That is why the argument that Jesus' deity is not being honored and exalted is ridiculous to me. Do you know how many verses proclaim Jesus' deity? Many, many, many. The evidence is insurmountable.

The deity of Jesus Christ is not exalted or honored in the Modern Vatican versions. It is constantly attacked. And there are plenty of places in the modern Vatican versions where this could be pointed out.

If it really were an issue in modern translations, then you would expect the majority of people who read these translations to be confused about Jesus' deity. You would expect people to overwhelmingly deny Jesus' deity. Yet, this does not happen. So, in my opinion, it's a non-issue.

Well you are wrong Arwen. The Bible Version Issue is a real issue. And by the way; many people ARE confused about Jesus's deity.

And not only that, Biblical illiteracy is at an all time high. And want to know why? Because of the 220+ modern, conflicting translations on the market today. These modern versions have sowed confusion into the Body of Christ in these last days.

From the description here, I have to question the legitimacy of this source. Why? Because it uses the abbreviation NASV for the NASB. As far as I know, it only goes by NASB.

If you did not take the time to watch the video, then you would not know whether it is legitimate or not to begin with.

Let me assure you though, it is legitimate. Take some time to watch the whole video. At least be "open minded" enough to do that.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

If there were a real doctrine that was actually at issue with modern translations, I would agree with you. But there isn't. There is no doctrine in the modern translation that differs from the KJV. You could list multiple Bible verses that support all Christian beliefs in all Bible translations, KJV or not.

Wow, you sure lack discernment. Did you take the time to read that article? If you haven't, then go and read that article and see if your statement below is true or not and whether it actually holds any weight:

There is no doctrine in the modern translation that differs from the KJV

 

[Praus]

Luke 24 "science" textcr - Another King James Bible Believer

Wow, you sure lack discernment. Did you take the time to read that article? If you haven't, then go and read that article and see if your statement below is true or not and whether it actually holds any weight:

The author of that article has a history of making "jokes" about God that are blasphemous and heretical and satanic.

Does God have Alzheimer's disease and really doesn't know and can't remember what He might have said or what He meant when He said it?

 

[ChosenbyHim]

The author of that article has a history of making "jokes" about God that are blasphemous and heretical and satanic.

Praus, the author of that article does not have a history of making "jokes" about God.

What the author of that article was doing was asking a question, now was it sarcastic? Yes it was. And I just think when he asked that particular question with the sarcasm, he most likely just got heated from having to deal with people who are Bible agnostics, and who refuse to accept the truth concerning the Bible Version Issue.

 

[Arwen4CJ]

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".

I'm saying that I do not believe that the KJV is the only valid translation of the Bible. I believe that God's word is bigger than the KJV. It is preserved in all legitimate translations of the Bible. In other words, I'm not saying the KJV is invalid. I'm arguing against the position that other translations are invalid.

I'm not questioning the legitimacy of the KJV being Scripture. What I am saying, though, is that all Bible translations are Scripture. Why? Because they were translated from the original languages, and they contain the same truth as the original manuscripts.

 

[Arwen4CJ]

MAY I ?

Colossians 1:16-19 (HCSB)
[SUP]16 [/SUP] For everything was created by Him, in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities— all things have been created through Him and for Him.
[SUP]17 [/SUP] He is before all things, and by Him all things hold together.
[SUP]18 [/SUP] He is also the head of the body, the church; He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He might come to have first place in everything.
[SUP]19 [/SUP] For God was pleased ⌊to have⌋ all His fullness dwell in Him,

Genesis 1:1 (HCSB)
[SUP]1 [/SUP] In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

CONCLUSION: The Spirit part of JESUS, really is part of GOD HIMSELF.

I was asking specific questions to another poster here so that I could see what perspective he/she was coming from. I wanted him/her to answer in his/her own words.

But, since you have answered this question, I have to say that I do not quite agree with your wording.

I believe that all three persons of the one triune God participated in the act of creation. So, yes, Jesus created. And yes, the Holy Spirit created. But so did the Father.

I don't really care for the wording of, "the Spirit part of Jesus, really is God Himself." Why? Because that makes it sound like Jesus is made of two persons -- the human Jesus and the Divine Jesus. It's like saying only part of Jesus is God.

 

[Arwen4CJ]

Ok, Arwen let's see if I was taking the verses out of context. Who is the Rock in verse 31?

Deu 32:31 For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges.
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:
Deu 32:33 Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.

The Rock is God, via verses 3, 4, 15, 18, etc.

 

[KJV1611]

The Rock is God, via verses 3, 4, 15, 18, etc.

No, the Rock was not God the Father, it was Jesus.
Do you agree with this?

 

[Arwen4CJ]

The deity of Jesus Christ is only attacked in the modern versions.

In the King James Bible, the deity of Jesus Christ is magnified and honoured.

Titus 2:11-14 KJV:
[SUP]11 [/SUP]For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
[SUP]12 [/SUP]Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
[SUP]13 [/SUP]Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

[SUP]14 [/SUP]Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

Titus 2:11-14 NASB (and almost identical in all other modern translations):

[SUP]11 [/SUP]For the grace of God has appeared, [SUP][a][/SUP]bringing salvation to all men, [SUP]12 [/SUP][SUP][b][/SUP]instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, [SUP]13 [/SUP]looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of [SUP][c][/SUP]our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, [SUP]14 [/SUP]who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.

Question: In which translation is Jesus' deity clearer?

2 Peter 1:1 KJV:


1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

2 Peter 1:1 NASB (and similar wording in all modern translations):
1 [SUP][a][/SUP]Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who have received a faith of the same [SUP][b][/SUP]kind as ours, [SUP][c][/SUP]by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:


Again, which in translation is Jesus' deity clearer?

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.

Those passages I showed you from the modern versions do attack and diminish the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. You just refuse to accept that truth.

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

And there is evidence that has already been given on this thread showing that the modern versions attack Jesus' deity in many places.

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.

The Bible Version Issue is a real, serious issue. It is one of the most important issues facing the Church today.

Satan operates by attacking the word of God and by placing doubt upon what God said (See Genesis 3).

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).

The deity of Jesus Christ is not exalted or honored in the Modern Vatican versions. It is constantly attacked. And there are plenty of places in the modern Vatican versions where this could be pointed out.

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."

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

Well you are wrong Arwen. The Bible Version Issue is a real issue. And by the way; many people ARE confused about Jesus's deity.

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.

And not only that, Biblical illiteracy is at an all time high. And want to know why? Because of the 220+ modern, conflicting translations on the market today. These modern versions have sowed confusion into the Body of Christ in these last days.

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. It's caused because people are not reading the Bible -- any translation of the Bible.

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.

If you did not take the time to watch the video, then you would not know whether it is legitimate or not to begin with. Let me assure you though, it is legitimate. Take some time to watch the whole video. At least be "open minded" enough to do that.

I will watch the video.