Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
There may not have been any "sinister plot to systematically remove the trinity doctrine", as Westcott and Hort were trinitarians, but there was a plot to eradicate the Protestant Bible. Watch the videos and learn.
Sorry but the videos are based on falsehoods that are not proven...only alleged. many have come along with supposed new light to disprove the KJV but. I have yet to see anything credible. BTW, what videos are you talking about? I dont see them posted in this topic.
OK; that would be my mistake then. You do sound like you are criticising Adventist use of The KJV and when you earlier referred usto 'the videos;' I thought you were referring to something else that I saw on another thread here. At any rate, you could have made life way easier for us by stating specifically which videos and providing us the link so that there ais no mistaking of which material you are referring to.First, Vieth supports all his presentations with documented and historical evidence. He even uses the letters and books of those involved.
Second, these videos are not a refutiation of the KJV bible but an afforemation of its authintication in relation to the original texts from which it was translated... the received text.
These videos can be found @ AmazingDiscoveries.org, go to the video section and then to the "Total Onslaught" series go through the pages, there are 36 videos in this series, until you find "Battle of the Bibles"
What is the context & intent of your comments for this topic regarding use of KJV by the Adventist Church? Are you saying you don't agree, or are you saying something else?
I'm saying that we need to be very careful as to what we use for God's word. We must understand that as Adventists we oppose much of what the RCC and the apostate protestant churches teach. The newer version were created to support their teachings rather than to accept what scripture teaches. By using their versions we are in danger of corrupting our beliefs and opening ourselves up to an ecumenical mindset of which we are warned against both in scripture and by EGW. We are safer to hold to what was originally used by the founders of the SDA movement then to use those corruptions that were introduced after its formation.
While I agree that KJV is one of the best to use in terms of accuracy; I also think that many other of the versions do have great value in today's culture. In many of our churches, I do see other versions - and I myself, when I first started to study the Bible with others, as a literature evangelist, used mostly the NIV.
I dont think there was any sinister plot to systematically remove the trinity doctrine; for it is all there, just couched in different words. Although some words or phrases in most Bible versions do have flavorings from the various doctrinal bents of individuals doing the translating; I would still need to see better evidence for secret, sinister plots to systematically change the truths therein.
A couple of exceptions, of course, would be the NWT, and The Book of Mormon, which I do not consider Bibles at all.
But the other versions can be good for initial study with people who are more "modern" than us, and would be turned of by the archaic language of the KJV. I know that when I gave several family members a KJV Bible; it sat on the shelf collecting dust, because they had so much trouble understanding it, yet when given an NIV, they began to read regularly.
We must understand that as Adventists we oppose much of what the RCC and the apostate protestant churches teach. The newer version were created to support their teachings rather than to accept what scripture teaches. By using their versions we are in danger of corrupting our beliefs and opening ourselves up to an ecumenical mindset of which we are warned against both in scripture and by EGW. We are safer to hold to what was originally used by the founders of the SDA movement then to use those corruptions that were introduced after its formation.
The comment that newer versions were created with intent to support particular teachings of any group is a false statement. Newer versions were translated as an update to assist in understanding the closest to the original texts as are available. With the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient copies of Scriptural texts, we have been given opportunity to gain more insight from Scripture in its more recent translation. Also, since they are translated in contemporary language it does make it easier to read and understand what the text says, rather than reading into the text based on our "outsider" understanding of old English. The only exceptions to this are bible paraphrases authored by only one individual. The Clear Word is one such example, which is an Adventist paraphrase with Adventist interpretations including Ellen White's insights from an Adventist author - and such paraphrases are not written for doctrinal direction, teaching, or academic study but are intended to be useful as devotional material.
I'm not meaning to say that the KJV isn't useful - is it, and it has been for a very long time. To discredit it would be to discredit the faith of English speaking believers since the medieval times. That would be wrong. But it is equally wrong to discredit modern versions for the same reason that to do so is to discredit the faith of many many believers who find them useful.
Differences in biblical translations have less to do with accuracy as with the dynamic nature of human language. Language changes depending on culture, on regional dialects, on tradition, etc. and the same words can have completely different meanings depending on context and different words can mean the same thing.
In regards to sticking with what the founders of the Advent Movement used as a safe-guard against ecumenism, here's a question submitted for your consideration... Are you concerned with following Jesus Christ or are you more concerned with being particular and different than everybody else? Because the message of salvation through Jesus Christ is transcendent of all the failings of human language. So if that's the concern than why is there a problem?
Maybe you haven't studied this out but I would ask you if it is wrong for the NKJV to use an occultic symbol on the cover of it's translation? Or is it wrong to completely omit verses that speak of the diety of Christ, which the NIV and NKJV among others do?... what are we told about adding to or subtracting from the words contained in the scriptures?
I don't think anyone would argue that the KJV doesn't have it's shortcomings but the newer versions are not an improvement to God Word to it but rather an excuse to further adulterate it.
Any that take out whole verses or delete parts are corruptions and are just to confuse the 'modern' readers to say the leastWhile I agree that KJV is one of the best to use in terms of accuracy; I also think that many other of the versions do have great value in today's culture. In many of our churches, I do see other versions - and I myself, when I first started to study the Bible with others, as a literature evangelist, used mostly the NIV.
I dont think there was any sinister plot to systematically remove the trinity doctrine; for it is all there, just couched in different words. Although some words or phrases in most Bible versions do have flavorings from the various doctrinal bents of individuals doing the translating; I would still need to see better evidence for secret, sinister plots to systematically change the truths therein.
A couple of exceptions, of course, would be the NWT, and The Book of Mormon, which I do not consider Bibles at all.
But the other versions can be good for initial study with people who are more "modern" than us, and would be turned of by the archaic language of the KJV. I know that when I gave several family members a KJV Bible; it sat on the shelf collecting dust, because they had so much trouble understanding it, yet when given an NIV, they began to read regularly.
Sad but true.... that was one of the catalysts for us leaving the conference church and studying on our own with like minded brethren. The verse in question was in the Sabbath quarterly and it was about adultery. The NIV version that was quoted said that you 'shouldn't' commit adultery, not an emphatic, 'do not'. Making it a suggestion rather than a Command was a big problem for me and when we approached our pastor at the time about it, he laughed and said we were being to picky...Actually Adventists don't use KJV. Most of them use NKJV which destroys our sanctuary message and the children's reading materials printed out by the church officially are exclusively in NIV.
Or. Is it because the underlying Greek leaves out those verses in the best and oldest manuscripts?Any that take out whole verses or delete parts are corruptions and are just to confuse the 'modern' readers to say the least
That just so happen to eliminate references to the divinity of Christ? Seems convenient, donchathink?Or. Is it because the underlying Greek leaves out those verses in the best and oldest manuscripts?
Perhaps. But I can equally see some ancient scribe reading the text and inserting something to refer to HIS divinity when that was not stated (but implicitly understood) in the original.That just so happen to eliminate references to the divinity of Christ? Seems convenient, donchathink?
The King James Version has been a tried and true text that shows the truths of Adventism and if you go into a Adventist church, on the whole you will find this is the Bible of preference as most other versions have issues. Take a look at this comparison of a few verses on key doctrines in the King James Version versus the RSV and NIV....
Or. Is it because the underlying Greek leaves out those verses in the best and oldest manuscripts?
Who exactly deemed it "unworthy?"Rather the fact that it is older AND was deemed unworthy to be used - is a big hit against it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?