This Book of Acts translation was brought to the public eye by John MacArthur back in the 80s.
Since He has amended his teaching.
The issiue I personally have with the Critical text is the many deletions from the Schripture.
I suppose being a translation the translator can leave out what he deems unnecessary.
The divine nature of Christ is changed in many translations.
I am not debating nor condemning people but I will provide one example out of many:
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
This is from the N.I.V ,as well others say the same thing.
They use the term God comanded.
Here is the King James:
Hebrews: 11. 3. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
Now both versions state the same thing in John 1
KJV
John: 1. 1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2. The same was in the beginning with God. 3. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
NIV
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
The continuity of the NIV is compromised by the self contradiction in agreement in John and
Out of sorts in Hebrews.
There exist 200 deletions from the King James in the NIV.
But I stopped by for fellowship, and the cult comment seemed a bit troubling.
God Bless
Here again, you missed the point.
KJVOnlyist insist that the KJV is
the "
preserved word of God".
Explain to me, how is it the KJV is the "preserved word of God"? Did God's word not exist in say the "Geneva Bible"? Did it not exist in the "Bishops Bible"? Did God not preserve His word in any bible prior to the AKJV?
I have even been in arguments here on the forums with KJVO people who use:
"But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
" -1 Cor. 13:10 KJV
To say the KJV is not only the "preserved word of God", but also that is the "perfect word of God".
Let me say this, concerning historical Christian dogmas, none hinge, none stand or fall on any of the disputed texts.
Is the KJV "perfect"? NO!
I'll admit that it's probably at worst 97.9% and 99.5% correct. If it is not 100%, it is not perfect.
The Jack Daniels company sells its liquor at 90 proof. That means it contains 45% alcohol. It would be against the law for them to advertise and sell their liquor 200 proof. That would mean it was 100% alcohol.
Same principle applies to the scripture. If it is not 100%, it is not perfect! The only "perfect" I know of was the Lord Jesus Christ.
The reason why I brought up the Codex Bezae issue was because of not only was it used for the KJV, but because in one verse in chapter 2, will forever separate Catholics and Baptists.
Catholicism says you are baptized to have your sins washed away.
Baptists say you are baptized because your sins have been washed away.
Even your "NIV" and the KJV, as rendered, agrees with Catholicism.
"Repent and be baptized,every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." -Acts 2:38 (NIV)
"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins," -Acts 2:38 (AKJV)
Where the real issue come into play is in the Greek word rendered "for" in this verse. As the King James translators rendered it, Acts 2:38 says: Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for (eis-in order to) the remission of sins.
"Πέτρος δὲ πρὸς αὐτούς, Μετανοήσατε, [φησίν,] καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν, καὶ λήμψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος: " -Acts 2:38 (GNT)
However, eis is one of those words that has several different meanings. In Matthew we see:
"The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented
at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas
is here." -Matt. 12:41 (AKJV)
"ἄνδρες Νινευῖται ἀναστήσονται ἐν τῇ κρίσει μετὰ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης καὶ κατακρινοῦσιν αὐτήν: ὅτι μετενόησαν
εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα Ἰωνᾶ, καὶ ἰδοὺ πλεῖον Ἰωνᾶ ὧδε. " -Mt. 12:41 (GNT)
The same Greek word is used here (eis) except the King James translators rendered it "at". A better rendering would have been "because of". B. H. Carroll points this out extremely well. (The Theory of Baptismal Regeneration, B.H. Carroll)
Nineveh did not repent (eis)
for/
in order to have Jonah preach, they repented (eis)
because of the preaching of Jonah.
This is one instance where the KJV is wrong, least wise from a rendering point.
And Paul agrees in his picture what baptism really symbolizes:
"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:" -Rom. 6:3-5 (KJV)
Baptism is symbolic of us dying with Him, being buried with Him, and being raised with Him. Jesus was
never baptized "for" (eis) any remission of sin.
Here is where I say Fundamentalists got it right:
"The verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures in the original manuscripts." 1878 Niagara Creed, Point 1.
KJVOnlyists even argue the "verbal, plenary inspiration" applies to the King James translators. And when you get to this point, you definitely have elevated the KJV to a place it should not be.
Is the KJV perfect? No, the original preface to the AKJV admits this.
Is the KJV the "preserved word of God"? No.
Oh well, I guess we'll not see eye-to-eye.
God Bless
Till all are one.
