KJV Alone?

Status
Not open for further replies.

mikenold

Newbie
Jan 10, 2005
48
36
65
✟7,868.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Here is what you said:


I think we all agree the KJV came through England. The MANUSCRIPTS are the majority text, and we find examples of that not only in Antioch but in Egypt as well. So if you are not referring to the manuscripts, in what way did the KJV come through Antioch?

And then you say the modern Bible came through Alexandria USING THE MINORITY TEXTS.

Minority texts of what? The minority of MANUSCRIPTS of the Greek NT. The manuscripts are what the majority and minority texts refer to.The Majority text is the text that the majority of extant Greek texts agree with.

And how did the modern versions originate in Egypt in any way other than the manuscripts? I did not twist your words at all. Or perhaps you simply didn't know what minority and majority text refers to.

I have studied the texts and where they came from:

A manuscript is a hand-copied document. This was the method used for writing and duplicating existing literature prior to the invention of printing. There are over 5,300 (5,309 to be exact) existing manuscripts of the Scriptures. Some of these manuscripts contain a large portion of scripture, while others are fragments.

Let us first consider certain Greek texts from which all New Testament translations are derived:

  1. the Majority Texts (95%) (Textus Receptus), and
  2. the Minority Texts (5%) (primarily the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, based primarily on the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus).
For obvious reasons, the Textus Receptus is also referred to as the "Majority Text" since the majority (95% or more) of existing manuscripts support this reading. These extant manuscripts were brought together by various editors such as Lucian (AD 250-312), Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevir brothers. The most notable editor of all was Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) one of the greatest scholars the world has ever known. When the early Protestant Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries decided to translate the scriptures directly from Greek into the languages of Europe, they selected Textus Receptus as their foundation Greek document.


The NASB, the NIV, the Jehovah's Witness bible ("New World Translation"), and most modern translations and paraphrases use the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, which is supported by only a small portion (5% or less) of existing manuscripts, including Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Alexandrian Codex, Parisian Codex, and Codex Bezae.

For obvious reasons, this text is referred to as the "Minority Texts." Westcott and Hort relied heavily on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus for their Greek Text, which is particularly odd, considering the fact that these two codices contradict each other over 3,000 times in the gospels alone.

As stated above, there are more than 5,300 manuscripts in existence. These manuscripts are divided into several different formats:

1. Papyrus fragments -- papyrus was relatively inexpensive compared to vellum (animal skins), and therefore was widely used. However, it was not very durable and copies would wear out rather rapidly through usage. The size of these papyrus fragments range from a few verses to large portions of an entire book.

2. Unical -- these are copies that were written in capital letters.

3. Cursive -- those written in small hand.

It would be extremely beneficial at this point if we could simply produce the original autographs for examination. This would greatly simplify the operation of establishing correctly the New Testament text. But this simply cannot happen. It has long been acknowledged by scholars that we no longer have the "originals." They have long since passed from the scene. This is due to the fact that scribes were known to have destroyed worn out MSS after they had copied them. Apparently the early church valued the words of the original more than the original itself. Therefore, the readings of the originals must be preserved with us somewhere, or else God's words have "passed away" which we surely know, from the Scriptural record, cannot happen. (Psalms 12:6, 7 and Matthew 24:35).

The Universal Text is that which travels north from Jerusalem to Antioch, the "gateway to Europe," heading for England. Upon arrival in England it would be ready for translation into the language through which God has chosen to spread His Gospel - English.


The Minority Text is also known as the Egyptian Text, the Hesychian Text, and the Alexandrian Text, which was the basis for the critical Greek Text of Brooke Foss Wescott and Fenton John Anthony Hort. The Wescott and Hort Text of 1881 was collated with Weymouth's third edition and Tischendorf's eighth edition by Eberhard Nestle in 1898 to become what is known as the Nestle's Greek New Testament. This is the text used in all "modern" translations.

There is even more but I have only tried to use this portion of what I have found to answer your question directly. I hope this helps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SaintJoeNow
Upvote 0

John Robie

Just checking in.
Site Supporter
May 28, 2015
699
110
65
✟32,545.00
Faith
Christian
I am saying that there is an agenda to take away the diety of Jesus Christ, to take away God from Jesus Christ and portray him as just another man. The NIV and the NKJV have the same agenda and leave out and change the very same verses to do so.
I keep hearing this claim. I would have no problem demonstrating Christ's deity from the NIV.
 
Upvote 0

mikenold

Newbie
Jan 10, 2005
48
36
65
✟7,868.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Please post the verses so I can examine the claim. Which verses do you refer to?
I will give you one for now:

(KJV) "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device."

(NKJV) "Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising."

(Young) "Being, therefore, offspring of God, we ought not to think the Godhead to be like to gold, or silver, or stone, graving of art and device of man"

(NIV) "Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone--an image made by man's design and skill."

The NASB [New American Standard Bible] supports Divine Nature. No other translation does. Godhead is the most correct. It makes no sense to use the word "Nature." How can God’s nature be copied in gold, silver or stone?

This change by both the NIV and the NKJV clearly shows the same agenda.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SaintJoeNow
Upvote 0

mikenold

Newbie
Jan 10, 2005
48
36
65
✟7,868.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I keep hearing this claim. I would have no problem demonstrating Christ's deity from the NIV.

It really is an agenda from the Father of all Lies:


The NIV perverts the deity of Jesus Christ!

I TIMOTHY 3:16: The clearest verse in the Bible proclaiming that Jesus Christ was God. The King James Bible (KJB) reads, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH. . ." The King James says, plainly, "GOD was manifest in the flesh". The NIV reads, "HE appeared in a body". The NIV "twists" "GOD" to "HE". "HE appeared in a body"? So What? Everyone has "appeared in a body"! "He" is a pronoun that refers to a noun or antecedent. There is no antecedent in the context! The statement does NOT make sense! The NIV subtilty (see Genesis 3:1) perverts I Timothy 3:16 into utter nonsense!

PHILIPPIANS 2:6: The KJB again, clearly declares the deity of Jesus Christ: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD" The NIV reads, "Who, being in very nature God, DID NOT CONSIDER EQUALITY WITH GOD something to be grasped,". The NIV again subtitly perverts the deity of Jesus Christ!

The NIV perverts the virgin birth!

LUKE 2:33: The King James Bible reads, "And JOSEPH and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." The NIV reads, "The CHILD'S FATHER and mother marveled at what was said about him." The "CHILD'S FATHER"? Was Joseph Jesus's father? Not if you believe the virgin birth! Not if you believe John 3:16, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God! A subtil, "perversion" of the virgin birth. See also Luke 2:43.

The NIV removes the blood of Jesus Christ!

COLOSSIANS 1:14: The KJB reads, "In whom we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD, even the forgiveness of sins:" The NIV reads, "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." The NIV rips out the precious words "THROUGH HIS BLOOD"! Friend, redemption is ONLY "THROUGH HIS BLOOD".Hebrews 9:22, reads, ". . . without shedding of BLOOD is no remission." That old song says, "What can wash away my sins, NOTHING BUT THE BLOOD OF JESUS!"

The NIV perverts John 3:16 into a LIE!

JOHN 3:16: The NIV reads, "For God so loved the world that he gave his ONE AND ONLY SON, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" Jesus was NOT "the one and only son" - Adam is called the "son of God" in Luke 3:38, there are "sons of God" in Job 1:6 and Christians are called "sons of God" in Phil 2:15, I John 3:2- but Jesus was the "ONLY BEGOTTEN SON"! By removing the critical word "BEGOTTEN" - The NIV perverts John 3:16 into a LIE! The NIV does the same in John 1:14, 1:18, and 3:18.

The NIV perverts TRUTH into LIES!

The NIV perverts Mark 1:2,3 into a LIE! The NIV reads "It is written in Isaiah the prophet: I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way-a voice of one calling in the desert, Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him." It is NOT written in Isaiah! "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way" - is found in Malachi 3:1! The King James correctly reads: "As it is written in the PROPHETS, . . ." A better translation! Easier to read - BY A LIE!

Psalms 119:160 says, "Thy word is TRUE. . ." John 17:17 says, ". . . thy word is TRUTH." Titus 1:2 clearly says, ". . . God that CANNOT LIE" How could the God of Titus 1:2 be the God of Mark 1:2,3 in the NIV!? IT IS IMPOSSIBLE! For Hebrews 6:18 clearly declares, ". . . it was IMPOSSIBLE for God to LIE" It is impossible for the LIES in the NIV to be the words of GOD! Whose words are they? I'll give you a hint - Jesus Christ calls him "A LIAR, and the father of it" in John 8:44!

The NIV again openly LIES in 2 Samuel 21:19, ". . . Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod." What 8-year-old doesn't know that David killed Goliath?

Romans 1:18-32 describes the "path to perversion" and verse 25, describes their decline, "Who changed the TRUTH of God into a LIE. . ."! Not surprisingly, The NIV perverts Romans 1:25 from "CHANGED the truth of God INTO a lie" to "EXCHANGED the truth of God FOR a lie"!

The NIV and sexual perversion!

Romans 1:26-32 also shows the "fruits" of "sowing" ". . . the TRUTH of God into a LIE. . ." Verses 26-27 says "FOR THIS CAUSE(vs 25 for "changing the TRUTH of God into a LIE") God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, . . ."

The last few years homosexuality and sexual perversion have "exploded" into the mainstream. Legislation is now pending making same-sex marriages legal. Books such as Heather Has Two Mommies and Daddy's Roommate, promoting homosexuality, are in our schools. According to The Washington Post, bisexuality and homosexuality, are the "in thing" in our public schools. And even churches are now welcoming homosexuals and are even ordaining them in the ministry!

A literary critic on the NIV translation was homosexual author Dr. Virginia Mollenkott. In Episcopal, Witness (June 1991, pp. 20-23), she admits, "My lesbianism has ALWAYS been a part of me. . ." To no surprise, "sodomite" is completely removed from the NIV. (Deut. 23:17, I Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46, II Kings 23:7) And of course, I Cor. 6:9, ". . . effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. . ." is replaced with the non-offensive ". . . nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders. . ." Notice the NIV in I Cor. 6:9 does NOT condemn "homosexuals" or the "act of homosexuality" - but ONLY "homosexual OFFENDERS".

The Devil is subtil:

Ge:3:1: Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

He has fooled many that follow God and continues his assault this very day. He knows the word of God and continues to subtilly change it to cause confusion and doubt. God's words are pure words. What man can believe that they have a "better" word than God has said?

 
  • Like
Reactions: SaintJoeNow
Upvote 0

mikenold

Newbie
Jan 10, 2005
48
36
65
✟7,868.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Can you link me to what you read exactly? I would like to see what was indicated.

As I have said earlier, I have studied these things for over 20 years. It would take me days to post all that I have studied. This is why I have said that every person needs to study these things and not just simply accept someone's word, even my own. The truth is out there. One only needs to search it out. I must say that I have no doubt that God has preserved his word in the KJB after years of looking at what has been done regarding translations. God does not lie but there is another that is called "The Father of All Lies".

Joh:8:44: Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SaintJoeNow
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,352.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I have studied the texts and where they came from:

A manuscript is a hand-copied document. This was the method used for writing and duplicating existing literature prior to the invention of printing. There are over 5,300 (5,309 to be exact) existing manuscripts of the Scriptures. Some of these manuscripts contain a large portion of scripture, while others are fragments.

Let us first consider certain Greek texts from which all New Testament translations are derived:

  1. the Majority Texts (95%) (Textus Receptus), and
  2. the Minority Texts (5%) (primarily the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, based primarily on the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus).

For obvious reasons, the Textus Receptus is also referred to as the "Majority Text" since the majority (95% or more) of existing manuscripts support this reading.

These extant manuscripts were brought together by various editors such as Lucian (AD 250-312), Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevir brothers. The most notable editor of all was Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) one of the greatest scholars the world has ever known. When the early Protestant Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries decided to translate the scriptures directly from Greek into the languages of Europe, they selected Textus Receptus as their foundation Greek document.


The NASB, the NIV, the Jehovah's Witness bible ("New World Translation"), and most modern translations and paraphrases use the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, which is supported by only a small portion (5% or less) of existing manuscripts, including Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Alexandrian Codex, Parisian Codex, and Codex Bezae.

For obvious reasons, this text is referred to as the "Minority Texts." Westcott and Hort relied heavily on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus for their Greek Text, which is particularly odd, considering the fact that these two codices contradict each other over 3,000 times in the gospels alone.

As stated above, there are more than 5,300 manuscripts in existence. These manuscripts are divided into several different formats:

1. Papyrus fragments -- papyrus was relatively inexpensive compared to vellum (animal skins), and therefore was widely used. However, it was not very durable and copies would wear out rather rapidly through usage. The size of these papyrus fragments range from a few verses to large portions of an entire book.

2. Unical -- these are copies that were written in capital letters.

3. Cursive -- those written in small hand.

It would be extremely beneficial at this point if we could simply produce the original autographs for examination. This would greatly simplify the operation of establishing correctly the New Testament text. But this simply cannot happen. It has long been acknowledged by scholars that we no longer have the "originals." They have long since passed from the scene. This is due to the fact that scribes were known to have destroyed worn out MSS after they had copied them. Apparently the early church valued the words of the original more than the original itself. Therefore, the readings of the originals must be preserved with us somewhere, or else God's words have "passed away" which we surely know, from the Scriptural record, cannot happen. (Psalms 12:6, 7 and Matthew 24:35).

The Universal Text is that which travels north from Jerusalem to Antioch, the "gateway to Europe," heading for England. Upon arrival in England it would be ready for translation into the language through which God has chosen to spread His Gospel - English.


The Minority Text is also known as the Egyptian Text, the Hesychian Text, and the Alexandrian Text, which was the basis for the critical Greek Text of Brooke Foss Wescott and Fenton John Anthony Hort. The Wescott and Hort Text of 1881 was collated with Weymouth's third edition and Tischendorf's eighth edition by Eberhard Nestle in 1898 to become what is known as the Nestle's Greek New Testament. This is the text used in all "modern" translations.

There is even more but I have only tried to use this portion of what I have found to answer your question directly. I hope this helps.

The problem is it does not answer the question in light of our conversation. I referenced that Egypt is not the problem because we find both majority and minority text manuscripts there, and sometimes readings from both types in the same manuscript, from there.

And while some may call the minority type Alexandrian, or Egyptian etc. that does not mean that they all think it started in Egypt. Most who favor the critical text (I do not) think that it was the original form of the Scriptures and the other developed from it.

Now you seem to think the text type started there, which you are entitled to believe if you want, but we still find both types in Egypt. So Egypt in itself is not the problem, and you certainly can't apply everything God said about Egypt in the Bible to various NT manuscripts, because God was not speaking about the manuscripts, but about Egypt at the various points in the history of the Bible.

Now, beyond that, the LXX was supposed to have been translated in Egypt, and the apostles used an LXX type text for a large percentage of their NT quotes, so no, we cannot say that all things from Egypt are bad.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,352.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Mike, please look back at the conversation before replaying, because you seem to change your claims mid-stream.


You stated:

The fact remains that the KJB came through Antioch using the majority text and all the rest of the modern bibles came through Alexandria using the minority texts.

You were speaking about which underlying text was being used. You said all modern Bibles use the minority texts. To which I responded:

That is not a fact. The NKJV and the MEV both largely use the TR in the NT just as the KJV did.

To which you replied:

Sorry, but the NKJV has the same changes as the NIV, same verses missing etc. What I said is still fact.

So you challenge the notion that the NKJV is still based largely on the TR. And you bolster this by saying it has the same MISSING VERSES.

To which I responded:

That is demonstrably not true. Rather than me pick one of the many listings of differences between the KJV and the NIV, why don't you find the one that you feel is most complete listing you can find and we will go through the NKJV to see how it compares. I think you will find that it retains most of the verses in the KJV, because it is based largely on the same underlying manuscripts.

I noted that it should have most of the verses of the KJV because of the same underlying text.

So then you respond by saying:

I will give you one for now:

(KJV) "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device."

(NKJV) "Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising."

(Young) "Being, therefore, offspring of God, we ought not to think the Godhead to be like to gold, or silver, or stone, graving of art and device of man"

(NIV) "Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone--an image made by man's design and skill."

The NASB [New American Standard Bible] supports Divine Nature. No other translation does. Godhead is the most correct. It makes no sense to use the word "Nature." How can God’s nature be copied in gold, silver or stone?

This change by both the NIV and the NKJV clearly shows the same agenda.

This is not leaving out verses. This is not an issue of the underlying manuscript. This is a dispute over how to best translate a single word, which both are translating, not one leaving out.

You moved the goalposts. How does this demonstrate that the NKJV does not generally use the same underlying text?

You changed your complaint from one of which text is used to a conspiracy to remove the deity of Christ.
 
Upvote 0

mikenold

Newbie
Jan 10, 2005
48
36
65
✟7,868.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The problem is it does not answer the question in light of our conversation. I referenced that Egypt is not the problem because we find both majority and minority text manuscripts there, and sometimes readings from both types in the same manuscript, from there.

And while some may call the minority type Alexandrian, or Egyptian etc. that does not mean that they all think it started in Egypt. Most who favor the critical text (I do not) think that it was the original form of the Scriptures and the other developed from it.

Now you seem to think the text type started there, which you are entitled to believe if you want, but we still find both types in Egypt. So Egypt in itself is not the problem, and you certainly can't apply everything God said about Egypt in the Bible to various NT manuscripts, because God was not speaking about the manuscripts, but about Egypt at the various points in the history of the Bible.

Now, beyond that, the LXX was supposed to have been translated in Egypt, and the apostles used an LXX type text for a large percentage of their NT quotes, so no, we cannot say that all things from Egypt are bad.

Maybe you did not read post #301. Do you know the difference between a text and Papyrus fragments, Unical and/or Cursive manuscripts? The Textus Receptus, the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus? I think that if you read post 301 you can clearly see that these texts are made up of Papyrus fragments, Unical and/or Cursive manuscripts. I do not know the origins of all the Papyrus fragments, Unical and/or Cursive manuscripts. The Texts, however, have a definite origin and primary path. Also, please don't come bach with the weak argument that all the texts were in both locations. Just because you stand inside a garage doesn't make you a car. Textus Receptus came through Antioch (KJB) and the others came through Alexandria (almost every single modern bible but the KJB). Honestly, go and read post 301.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SaintJoeNow
Upvote 0

John Robie

Just checking in.
Site Supporter
May 28, 2015
699
110
65
✟32,545.00
Faith
Christian
It really is an agenda from the Father of all Lies:


The NIV perverts the deity of Jesus Christ!

I TIMOTHY 3:16: The clearest verse in the Bible proclaiming that Jesus Christ was God. The King James Bible (KJB) reads, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH. . ." The King James says, plainly, "GOD was manifest in the flesh". The NIV reads, "HE appeared in a body". The NIV "twists" "GOD" to "HE". "HE appeared in a body"? So What? Everyone has "appeared in a body"! "He" is a pronoun that refers to a noun or antecedent. There is no antecedent in the context! The statement does NOT make sense! The NIV subtilty (see Genesis 3:1) perverts I Timothy 3:16 into utter nonsense!

PHILIPPIANS 2:6: The KJB again, clearly declares the deity of Jesus Christ: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD" The NIV reads, "Who, being in very nature God, DID NOT CONSIDER EQUALITY WITH GOD something to be grasped,". The NIV again subtitly perverts the deity of Jesus Christ!

The NIV perverts the virgin birth!

LUKE 2:33: The King James Bible reads, "And JOSEPH and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." The NIV reads, "The CHILD'S FATHER and mother marveled at what was said about him." The "CHILD'S FATHER"? Was Joseph Jesus's father? Not if you believe the virgin birth! Not if you believe John 3:16, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God! A subtil, "perversion" of the virgin birth. See also Luke 2:43.

The NIV removes the blood of Jesus Christ!

COLOSSIANS 1:14: The KJB reads, "In whom we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD, even the forgiveness of sins:" The NIV reads, "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." The NIV rips out the precious words "THROUGH HIS BLOOD"! Friend, redemption is ONLY "THROUGH HIS BLOOD".Hebrews 9:22, reads, ". . . without shedding of BLOOD is no remission." That old song says, "What can wash away my sins, NOTHING BUT THE BLOOD OF JESUS!"

The NIV perverts John 3:16 into a LIE!

JOHN 3:16: The NIV reads, "For God so loved the world that he gave his ONE AND ONLY SON, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" Jesus was NOT "the one and only son" - Adam is called the "son of God" in Luke 3:38, there are "sons of God" in Job 1:6 and Christians are called "sons of God" in Phil 2:15, I John 3:2- but Jesus was the "ONLY BEGOTTEN SON"! By removing the critical word "BEGOTTEN" - The NIV perverts John 3:16 into a LIE! The NIV does the same in John 1:14, 1:18, and 3:18.

The NIV perverts TRUTH into LIES!

The NIV perverts Mark 1:2,3 into a LIE! The NIV reads "It is written in Isaiah the prophet: I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way-a voice of one calling in the desert, Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him." It is NOT written in Isaiah! "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way" - is found in Malachi 3:1! The King James correctly reads: "As it is written in the PROPHETS, . . ." A better translation! Easier to read - BY A LIE!

Psalms 119:160 says, "Thy word is TRUE. . ." John 17:17 says, ". . . thy word is TRUTH." Titus 1:2 clearly says, ". . . God that CANNOT LIE" How could the God of Titus 1:2 be the God of Mark 1:2,3 in the NIV!? IT IS IMPOSSIBLE! For Hebrews 6:18 clearly declares, ". . . it was IMPOSSIBLE for God to LIE" It is impossible for the LIES in the NIV to be the words of GOD! Whose words are they? I'll give you a hint - Jesus Christ calls him "A LIAR, and the father of it" in John 8:44!

The NIV again openly LIES in 2 Samuel 21:19, ". . . Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod." What 8-year-old doesn't know that David killed Goliath?

Romans 1:18-32 describes the "path to perversion" and verse 25, describes their decline, "Who changed the TRUTH of God into a LIE. . ."! Not surprisingly, The NIV perverts Romans 1:25 from "CHANGED the truth of God INTO a lie" to "EXCHANGED the truth of God FOR a lie"!

The NIV and sexual perversion!

Romans 1:26-32 also shows the "fruits" of "sowing" ". . . the TRUTH of God into a LIE. . ." Verses 26-27 says "FOR THIS CAUSE(vs 25 for "changing the TRUTH of God into a LIE") God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, . . ."

The last few years homosexuality and sexual perversion have "exploded" into the mainstream. Legislation is now pending making same-sex marriages legal. Books such as Heather Has Two Mommies and Daddy's Roommate, promoting homosexuality, are in our schools. According to The Washington Post, bisexuality and homosexuality, are the "in thing" in our public schools. And even churches are now welcoming homosexuals and are even ordaining them in the ministry!

A literary critic on the NIV translation was homosexual author Dr. Virginia Mollenkott. In Episcopal, Witness (June 1991, pp. 20-23), she admits, "My lesbianism has ALWAYS been a part of me. . ." To no surprise, "sodomite" is completely removed from the NIV. (Deut. 23:17, I Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46, II Kings 23:7) And of course, I Cor. 6:9, ". . . effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. . ." is replaced with the non-offensive ". . . nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders. . ." Notice the NIV in I Cor. 6:9 does NOT condemn "homosexuals" or the "act of homosexuality" - but ONLY "homosexual OFFENDERS".

The Devil is subtil:

Ge:3:1: Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

He has fooled many that follow God and continues his assault this very day. He knows the word of God and continues to subtilly change it to cause confusion and doubt. God's words are pure words. What man can believe that they have a "better" word than God has said?
Listing differences in translations is not the same thing as noting doctrinal differences. There are no doctrines in the KJV that cannot be supported on the modern translations.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,352.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The NASB [New American Standard Bible] supports Divine Nature. No other translation does. Godhead is the most correct. It makes no sense to use the word "Nature." How can God’s nature be copied in gold, silver or stone?

This change by both the NIV and the NKJV clearly shows the same agenda.

First explain what you think Godhead means, and why you think it is best, then I will explain why I think they may have translated it as Divine nature.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,352.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You appear to have known more than the one example you gave before in the NIV.


It really is an agenda from the Father of all Lies:


The NIV perverts the deity of Jesus Christ!

I TIMOTHY 3:16: The clearest verse in the Bible proclaiming that Jesus Christ was God. The King James Bible (KJB) reads, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH. . ." The King James says, plainly, "GOD was manifest in the flesh". The NIV reads, "HE appeared in a body". The NIV "twists" "GOD" to "HE". "HE appeared in a body"? So What? Everyone has "appeared in a body"! "He" is a pronoun that refers to a noun or antecedent. There is no antecedent in the context! The statement does NOT make sense! The NIV subtilty (see Genesis 3:1) perverts I Timothy 3:16 into utter nonsense!

Now you said the NKJV follows all the changes of the NIV. This text shows that is not true. And the reason it is not true is precisely because of the underlying text. The NKJV follows the KJV, and retains the word God because both are using the TR:

NKJV
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit,Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.

KJV
1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,352.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

I not only read it I responded to it. Yes, I am well aware of the various types of manuscripts. And no it is not a weak argument, it is a true argument. I cited a specific Uncial text that was

a. from Egypt
b. had a MIXED text, with both minority and majority portions.

And it is still true that the LXX came from Egypt and was used by the apostles. Even if you proved the minority text readings originally occurred in Egypt (which is definitely not agreed on by scholars), then that would not make everything that comes out of Egypt questionable. So the whole notion of seeing what God says about Egypt is a ridiculous argument.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,352.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
PHILIPPIANS 2:6: The KJB again, clearly declares the deity of Jesus Christ: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD" The NIV reads, "Who, being in very nature God, DID NOT CONSIDER EQUALITY WITH GOD something to be grasped,". The NIV again subtitly perverts the deity of Jesus Christ!

Again your claim that the NKJV makes all the same changes as the NIV is incorrect. In this case it is a translation issue, not a textual issue, but they retained the same sense as the KJV.

NKJV
6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,

KJV
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,352.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The NIV perverts the virgin birth!

LUKE 2:33: The King James Bible reads, "And JOSEPH and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." The NIV reads, "The CHILD'S FATHER and mother marveled at what was said about him." The "CHILD'S FATHER"? Was Joseph Jesus's father? Not if you believe the virgin birth! Not if you believe John 3:16, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God! A subtil, "perversion" of the virgin birth. See also Luke 2:43.

Once again the KJV and the NKJV agree, because once again it is a difference between the underlying texts. The TR reads Joseph, and the critical text reads father.

NKJV
33 And Joseph and His mother marveled at those things which were spoken of Him.

KJV
33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.


In fact, the NKJV strengthened the notion of the divinity of Christ by capitalizing "him" whereas the KJV did not.

Is it a KJV conspiracy? Of course not.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mikenold

Newbie
Jan 10, 2005
48
36
65
✟7,868.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Mike, please look back at the conversation before replaying, because you seem to change your claims mid-stream.

You were speaking about which underlying text was being used. You said all modern Bibles use the minority texts. To which I responded:

So you challenge the notion that the NKJV is still based largely on the TR. And you bolster this by saying it has the same MISSING VERSES.

To which I responded:

I noted that it should have most of the verses of the KJV because of the same underlying text.

So then you respond by saying:

This is not leaving out verses. This is not an issue of the underlying manuscript. This is a dispute over how to best translate a single word, which both are translating, not one leaving out.

You moved the goalposts. How does this demonstrate that the NKJV does not generally use the same underlying text?

You changed your complaint from one of which text is used to a conspiracy to remove the deity of Christ.

I have been consistent in what I have said here. Almost all of what I have said was in answer to a question posted. I have not moved any goalpost. I have given you a lot of information about many aspects of why I choose the KJB. I have not changed any complaint and in fact have not complained about anything, I have posted truth about the origins of the KJB and the other bibles. My overall point is that any bible that uses any of the other texts mentioned here that do not agree with the TR have been polluted and should not be used. I am done debating this here with you as it seems that you prefer to attack every post I make. Please take the information that I have provided here and study for yourself.

Ok, I have to ask you a serious question:

Did you come to this thread to help out the OP or debate the KJB?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SaintJoeNow
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,352.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
COLOSSIANS 1:14: The KJB reads, "In whom we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD, even the forgiveness of sins:" The NIV reads, "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." The NIV rips out the precious words "THROUGH HIS BLOOD"! Friend, redemption is ONLY "THROUGH HIS BLOOD".Hebrews 9:22, reads, ". . . without shedding of BLOOD is no remission." That old song says, "What can wash away my sins, NOTHING BUT THE BLOOD OF JESUS!"

Yes, once again the NKJV and the KJV agree, because once again it is a difference in the underlying manuscripts. And once again the NKJV capitalizes "His"!

NKJV
14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.

KJV
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
 
Upvote 0

mikenold

Newbie
Jan 10, 2005
48
36
65
✟7,868.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
You appear to have known more than the one example you gave before in the NIV.




Now you said the NKJV follows all the changes of the NIV. This text shows that is not true. And the reason it is not true is precisely because of the underlying text. The NKJV follows the KJV, and retains the word God because both are using the TR:

NKJV
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit,Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.

KJV
1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Please stick to the words actually posted. I did not say that the NKJV follows all the changes of the NIV. I did say that they follow the same agenda. there is a difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SaintJoeNow
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,352.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I have been consistent in what I have said here. Almost all of what I have said was in answer to a question posted. I have not moved any goalpost. I have given you a lot of information about many aspects of why I choose the KJB. I have not changed any complaint and in fact have not complained about anything, I have posted truth about the origins of the KJB and the other bibles. My overall point is that any bible that uses any of the other texts mentioned here that do not agree with the TR have been polluted and should not be used. I am done debating this here with you as it seems that you prefer to attack every post I make. Please take the information that I have provided here and study for yourself.

Ok, I have to ask you a serious question:

Did you come to this thread to help out the OP or debate the KJB?

I came here to help out the OP, and his question involved whether there was any legitimacy to the notion that the KJV is the only good translation. So the two are related.

And I am currently going through the examples you posted for the NIV to show that the NKJV does NOT use the same NIV text, and does not make the same changes as the NIV.

I am not attacking your posts by disagreeing with you. And yes, you did move the goal posts when you talk about underlying texts and then the one example you give for the NKJV is not about underlying texts at all, but how to translate a word.

And since I am currently posting very clear examples that show you were wrong about the NIV and NKJV making the same changes, you want to quit?

Ok, but I did not treat you unfairly. I am responding to your points, which is the purpose of a discussion forum.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,352.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Please stick to the words actually posted. I did not say that the NKJV follows all the changes of the NIV. I did say that they follow the same agenda. there is a difference.


Here are the actual words you posted:

Sorry, but the NKJV has the same changes as the NIV, same verses missing etc. What I said is still fact.

You did say the NKJV has the same changes as the NIV, same verses missing.

Now that I am going through point by point to show that is not true you want to change it?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.