No major doctrines changed?

[John146]

There is an ongoing debate over the KJV only issue. One issue that always comes up is, "There are no major doctrinal changes from one version to the next, so what does it matter?" First of all, truth matters no matter how small of a truth you may think. Truth matters to God. He never wants his people to be persuaded out of the whole truth. See Adam and Eve. I'll post some passages found in the KJV and how those same passages differ in the new versions.

1. The doctrine of condemnation to those who walk after the flesh. There is condemnation to those believers who walk after the flesh and not after the Spirit. The bible speaks of temporal condemnation. Romans 8:1 says, "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Modern Translations leave out the part that says, "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." The KJV says, as a part of having no condemnation, two things are required: We have to be in Christ Jesus, and walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. The enemy wants Christians today to justify sin instead of battling against it. So the enemy will do everything he can to give a person a water down version on His holy Word to promote the idea that there is no condemnation for not following the word of God.

Here is an example of temporal condemnation from not walking after the Spirit. The one who is condemned in the following has sinned against God.

Romans 14
15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

 

[Nehemiah6]

There is an ongoing debate over the KJV only issue. One issue that always comes up is, "There are no major doctrinal changes from one version to the next, so what does it matter?"

That statement ion quotations is totally false. There are many SERIOUS changes to sound Bible doctrine in the modern versions. The problem is that you could show them to the fans of the modern versions and it would not bother them in the least. They would persist in hanging on to their corrupt bibles.

Something which has been ignored is the fact that (1) the majority of manuscripts support the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts and (2) not a SINGLE word of Scripture should be tampered with. That is God's command.

 

[Inquisitor]

There is an ongoing debate over the KJV only issue. One issue that always comes up is, "There are no major doctrinal changes from one version to the next, so what does it matter?" First of all, truth matters no matter how small of a truth you may think. Truth matters to God. He never wants his people to be persuaded out of the whole truth. See Adam and Eve. I'll post some passages found in the KJV and how those same passages differ in the new versions.

1. The doctrine of condemnation to those who walk after the flesh. There is condemnation to those believers who walk after the flesh and not after the Spirit. The bible speaks of temporal condemnation. Romans 8:1 says, "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Modern Translations leave out the part that says, "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." The KJV says, as a part of having no condemnation, two things are required: We have to be in Christ Jesus, and walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. The enemy wants Christians today to justify sin instead of battling against it. So the enemy will do everything he can to give a person a water down version on His holy Word to promote the idea that there is no condemnation for not following the word of God.

Here is an example of temporal condemnation from not walking after the Spirit. The one who is condemned in the following has sinned against God.

Romans 14
15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Why use a modern translation like the KJV?

Go with the Vulgate. The Vulgate was translated a thousand years before the KJV.

 

[GRACE_ambassador]

Go with the Vulgate.

Now you expect me to be a 'Latin' language expert?

 

[John146]

Why use a modern translation like the KJV?

Go with the Vulgate. The Vulgate was translated a thousand years before the KJV.

Sounds like a RCC argument. Keep it away from the common man so the elite can be the final authority of the scriptures.

 

[John146]

Another "small, insignificant" change...

Have you ever noticed Genesis 3:16? Take a look at the difference. The ESV states that Eve's desire will be contrary to her husband. What's funny is that footnotes say, "or towards". Which is it? Here it is as stated in the KJV.

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.


ESV
16 To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to[f] your husband, but he shall rule over you.”

 

[John146]

Another I posted in the omitted verses thread...

The Doctrine of fasting to cast out and remove unclean spirits.

Matthew 17:21 tells us that casting out strong and persistent devils is by prayer and fasting. Yet, the verse is totally removed in the new versions. One of the key doctrines of fasting that Jesus commands is gone. The enemy wins if a person goes by a modern version. I've never encountered this before in my life, but if I did, I would certainly pray and fast as the Lord commands.

 

[IsaiahA]

Why use a modern translation like the KJV?

Go with the Vulgate. The Vulgate was translated a thousand years before the KJV.

Funny! I like that.... On Revelation 22:19 -

"...the Textus Receptus (followed by the King James Version) reads ἀπὸ βίβλου, a reading that occurs in no Greek manuscript. The error arose when Erasmus, in order to provide copy for the last six verses of Revelation (which were lacking in the only Greek manuscript available to him), translated the verses from the Latin Vulgate into Greek". page 690
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd Ed, by Bruce M. Metzger

This caused the KJV and the Douay to read "the book of life" instead of "tree of life", which agreed with the later Greek manuscripts. The Douay was an English translation of the Vulgate so the KJV reads "book" from the Latin also.

I've often wondered why our KJV only brethren are so eager to embrace Erasmus, a Roman Catholic, which so many KJV only folks believe to be an apostate church and the Pope the antichrist. Erasmus is who Martin Luther was debating in his book "Bondage of the Will", where Erasmus took the free will position as a Catholic.

 

[Dino246]

Now you expect me to be a 'Latin' language expert?

The English of the late 1500's, in which the KJV was written, is different enough from modern English that it is, in places, incomprehensible. So you expect everyone else to be an expert in late-middle English?

Utter hypocrisy.

 

[Dino246]

There is an ongoing debate over the KJV only issue. One issue that always comes up is, "There are no major doctrinal changes from one version to the next, so what does it matter?" First of all, truth matters no matter how small of a truth you may think. Truth matters to God. He never wants his people to be persuaded out of the whole truth. See Adam and Eve. I'll post some passages found in the KJV and how those same passages differ in the new versions.

If this is all you were doing, it would be fine, and even helpful. But it isn't, as I will show....

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

The English of the late 1500's, in which the KJV was written, is different enough from modern English that it is, in places, incomprehensible. So you expect everyone else to be an expert in late-middle English?

Utter hypocrisy.

I had a NKJV Bible at home, but I didn't understand the Bible itself until I went to a Bible study where they gave me a free NIV.

Bible comprehension for me increased about 1,000% from that!!!

Over the course of time, I think Bible study in parallel format with several translations and the Holy Spirit is a pretty good method for me.

 

[John146]

Funny! I like that.... On Revelation 22:19 -

"...the Textus Receptus (followed by the King James Version) reads ἀπὸ βίβλου, a reading that occurs in no Greek manuscript. The error arose when Erasmus, in order to provide copy for the last six verses of Revelation (which were lacking in the only Greek manuscript available to him), translated the verses from the Latin Vulgate into Greek". page 690
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd Ed, by Bruce M. Metzger

This caused the KJV and the Douay to read "the book of life" instead of "tree of life", which agreed with the later Greek manuscripts. The Douay was an English translation of the Vulgate so the KJV reads "book" from the Latin also.

I've often wondered why our KJV only brethren are so eager to embrace Erasmus, a Roman Catholic, which so many KJV only folks believe to be an apostate church and the Pope the antichrist. Erasmus is who Martin Luther was debating in his book "Bondage of the Will", where Erasmus took the free will position as a Catholic.

Are you ignoring the fact that Erasmus never was a practicing Catholic priest? He often criticized many doctrines and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. He died in the presence of his Protestant friends. His books were eventually placed on the forbidden to read list by the RCC and most importantly -

No Catholic bible version ever used the Greek text of Erasmus to make up their translations, but all Reformation bibles did use Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza as their textual basis. The King James Bible translators did not even primarily use Erasmus but relied far more on the Greek texts of Stephanus and Beza.

I'm afraid you've been misinformed.

 

[John146]

Over the course of time, I think Bible study in parallel format with several translations and the Holy Spirit is a pretty good method for me.

So, when you come across the many, many differences between the translations, the Holy Spirit leads you to the right wording and truth of each verse?

 

[Dino246]

Another I posted in the omitted verses thread...

The Doctrine of fasting to cast out and remove unclean spirits.

Matthew 17:21 tells us that casting out strong and persistent devils is by prayer and fasting. Yet, the verse is totally removed in the new versions. One of the key doctrines of fasting that Jesus commands is gone. The enemy wins if a person goes by a modern version. I've never encountered this before in my life, but if I did, I would certainly pray and fast as the Lord commands.

Here is the problem: you are assuming that the KJV is correct. You aren't interested in an unbiased examination; you are only interested in "proving" the KJV to be the right translation, which you simply cannot do merely by showing differences.

 

[John146]

Here is the problem: you are assuming that the KJV is correct. You aren't interested in an unbiased examination; you are only interested in "proving" the KJV to be the right translation, which you simply cannot do merely by showing differences.

I am simply showing the changes. Yes, I believe the KJV is correct. I'm answering the thought that there are no doctrinal differences between the translations, thus, why does it matter?

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

So, when you come across the many, many differences between the translations, the Holy Spirit leads you to the right wording and truth of each verse?

Yes. We're meant to be in good fellowship with the Lord. Why do you think He spoke in parables? Why are some parts of the Bible difficult to understand?

So that we have an opportunity to come to the Lord and learn from Him just like the disciples when they didn't understand a parable or some teaching Jesus shared. It's an opportunity meant to deepen your walk with Him.

 

[Dino246]

Are you ignoring the fact that Erasmus never was a practicing Catholic priest?

He was trained as a Catholic priest. Whether he ever presided as a priest is completely irrelevant.

The King James Bible translators did not even primarily use Erasmus but relied far more on the Greek texts of Stephanus and Beza.

... which were based on Erasmus. You can't escape him.

 

[Dino246]

I am simply showing the changes. Yes, I believe the KJV is correct. I'm answering the thought that there are no doctrinal differences between the translations, thus, why does it matter?

Fine... then let's keep the commentary on differences, not right/wrong.

 

[John146]

Yes. We're meant to be in good fellowship with the Lord. Why do you think He spoke in parables? Why are some parts of the Bible difficult to understand?

Relying on the Holy Spirit to teach you the word of God is our goal, but we need the word of God in order to teach us the truth.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Whatever doctrinal differences there are have been indicated with notes. Yes, the wording isn't always the same, but no critical doctrines are missing. The whole "major doctrines are missing" argument is just a smokescreen; it's the wording differences that really stick in the craw of KJVO. To them the KJV is the ultimate truth, so any slight variation is an abomination.