77 Changed Doctrines in Modern Bibles

[Dino246]

Rebuttal #1 of many. I'm going to address several of your 77 points in each of my posts. I will post as I have time to address the arguments you make. Given that you make so many fallacious statements, this will take time.

As I have already stated, no doctrine is formed from a single verse, so your charge that any of these differences "changes a doctrine" is inherently baseless. Nevertheless, I take pleasure in shredding dumb arguments, so I will take pleasure in shredding yours.


To Point 1: "The power of Jesus denied": no, nothing in the cited verses "denies" the power of Jesus. That's a mischaracterization on your part. Overstating your point is equivalent to presenting a falsehood as the truth. Get some integrity and state things exactly as they are, without your underhanded attempts at emotional manipulation of your audience.

Jesus was not and could not be omnipresent while He was in the flesh... period. His omnipresence is by His Spirit after His ascension, and this implication is clear in His statement, which was made near the end of His earthly ministry.

Overall, this point is badly titled and poorly supported.


To Point 2: "The false demi-god Jesus view" is blatant misrepresentation. No genuine Christian believes that Jesus is a demi-god. You put the clarification in brackets: "Jesus did not exist eternally in the past" but that is definitely not the same meaning.

You further misrepresent the truth by stating this difference is an "attack" upon the eternal nature of ... Jesus Christ. No, it isn't. It's a serious attempt to represent the original-language text in English. You attribute motive where you have no evidence. Again, no doctrine in changed.

The Greek behind "only-begotten" does not mean "born"; it means "unique".


To Point 3: "Modern Bibles falsely teach that Jesus had faith...".

The KJV of Romans 3:22 and Galatians 3:22 say, "faith of Jesus Christ". Galatians 2:16 says it twice. Your point is moot. You have no moral ground for making a criticism of another translation when your own says exactly what you decry.


To Point 4: "Certain words of Jesus are missing or footnoted... or doubted with a footnote." You do know that the original 1611 KJV had sidenotes, don't you? Here's an example from John 3 showing that your vaunted KJV does EXACTLY THE SAME THING. again, your point is moot. Do your homework!

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

WHICH versions contain the "changed" wording in each case? Without specifics, your arguments are empty wind. I've told you this repeatedly and you keep posting information without citation, which amounts to exactly nothing.

I know we live in a spoon-fed age where groceries and goods arrive at our door, and AIs can write and draw for us, but surely we haven’t reached the point where we can’t take a moment to look something up ourselves. All you have to do is visit BibleHub or BibleGateway to confirm what I said. It’s like Rick telling Bob to use Continental tires because they’re better than other brands, and Bob getting upset because Rick didn’t provide “citations.” Honestly, it only takes a few seconds, maybe a minute or two, to check it out and see for yourself.

Further, merely assuming the KJV is the best rendition of the original-language text in every case is fundamentally flawed; you must demonstrate with external evidence that the KJV is best. All you are bringing to light is difference which proves nothing at all.

I am not asking anyone to assume anything. My case is cumulative and draws from Scripture, history, transmission, translation method, and real-world doctrinal outcomes. Changed doctrine is only one strand of a larger argument. I am developing that broader case in my “177 Reasons for the KJB” work so that readers can evaluate the evidence category by category, not by assertion.

Why is it that you think you have a valid and sound argument when you keep overlooking these basic concepts of logical argumentation?

Sound argumentation requires clarity, verifiability, and scope.
• Clarity: I state the claim, then the verse, then the comparison.
• Verifiability: I point to public sources where anyone can check the wording in seconds.
• Scope: I do not rest the case on a single verse or a single category. I present a cumulative case so that one disputed example does not carry the whole weight.

In the same way, my goal is not just to present information but to help others discover it for themselves. If I can teach you to fish, to look into these differences personally, you will find the process far more enlightening than anything simply handed to you. When you take the time to compare Scripture firsthand, those discoveries become your own, guided by God’s Spirit, and they remain with you far longer than something merely told to you.


....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

That's a very nice website

Thank you. I wanted something super fast, and Canva fit the bill. The proper way is to do a blog and implement proper SEO methods along with YouTube videos and other social media platforms for Google and AIs to recognize it. My goal is to break the false narrative or provide an alternative position to the popular Modern Scholarship narrative when people want to study this topic. Currently, Google AI is stating that 77 changed doctrines is not true (which is false). I want to change that so the next time somebody searches for the differences between the KJV and Modern Bibles, they will see that there are significant doctrinal changes. The false narrative of Modern Scholarship cannot hold up forever in light of the truth. Anyway, thank you for your kind words, my brother.

I hope things are going well for you in the Lord.


Side Note:

Canva is good to your idea out there fast, but it is not SEO friendly for Google to crawl for AI’s to recognize it.


....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

He knows that.

Uh, no.. I do not agree with him in any way. You both do not realize that all your Modern Critical Text Bibles teach false doctrines. This is just a proven fact that my writeup illustrates. All you have to do is read it and look at the verses for yourself to confirm.


....

 

[Dino246]

You both do not realize that all your Modern Critical Text Bibles teach false doctrines.

I'm not sure I have stated this clearly, but I will do so now so that you are without excuse:

Bibles don't "teach" anything; people do! People have used the KJV to teach false doctrines, and people have used other translations to teach true doctrines.

People may come to incorrect conclusions about the text (and do, resulting in them teaching false doctrines), which is why we need the help of the Holy Spirit to guide us in our interpretation.

The Holy Spirit can use any translation, because He is not limited by our human language. It's only when you hold to the unbiblical presumption that only the KJV is the word of God that you assume every other translation is flawed. Since that is the basis of your argument, the rest is mere fluff intended to preserve your presumption.

 

[Solitude]

I'm not sure I have stated this clearly, but I will do so now so that you are without excuse:

Bibles don't "teach" anything; people do! People have used the KJV to teach false doctrines, and people have used other translations to teach true doctrines.

People may come to incorrect conclusions about the text (and do, resulting in them teaching false doctrines), which is why we need the help of the Holy Spirit to guide us in our interpretation.

The Holy Spirit can use any translation, because He is not limited by our human language. It's only when you hold to the unbiblical presumption that only the KJV is the word of God that you assume every other translation is flawed. Since that is the basis of your argument, the rest is mere fluff intended to preserve your presumption.

I ADAMENTLY DISAGREE WITH YOU!

The Holy Spirit can use any translation

 

[Dino246]

I ADAMENTLY DISAGREE WITH YOU!

smh...

LaVey's novel is not the Bible, and the word is "adamantly".

 

[Cameron143]

Adam Ant Li is a strong willed Chinese man.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I'm not sure I have stated this clearly, but I will do so now so that you are without excuse:

Bibles don't "teach" anything; people do! People have used the KJV to teach false doctrines, and people have used other translations to teach true doctrines.

People may come to incorrect conclusions about the text (and do, resulting in them teaching false doctrines), which is why we need the help of the Holy Spirit to guide us in our interpretation.

The Holy Spirit can use any translation, because He is not limited by our human language. It's only when you hold to the unbiblical presumption that only the KJV is the word of God that you assume every other translation is flawed. Since that is the basis of your argument, the rest is mere fluff intended to preserve your presumption.

I understand what you are saying, but I would respectfully disagree on a few key points. While it’s true that people teach and interpret, the Bible itself still communicates doctrine. Paul wrote that “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine” (2 Timothy 3:16). That means the words themselves carry doctrinal weight. If those words are altered, softened, or omitted, the doctrine being conveyed changes, regardless of who is teaching it.


Yes, people can misuse even the KJV to teach falsehoods, but that does not mean all Bibles are equally reliable vessels of truth. A pure source and a polluted one both contain water, but one refreshes while the other poisons.


As for the Holy Spirit, I fully agree that He guides believers into truth (John 16:13), but the Spirit never contradicts Himself. He inspired specific words for a reason. If certain translations remove or change those words, the Spirit will not endorse those distortions.


My position is not based on mere presumption but on evidence from Scripture, history, and the nature of God’s preservation. The same God who inspired His Word also promised to preserve it. If we believe that promise, we must seek to identify where those preserved words are found. I believe the King James Bible represents that line of preservation faithfully based on systematic evidence.



...

 

[Dino246]

If those words are altered, softened, or omitted, the doctrine being conveyed changes, regardless of who is teaching it.

Not necessarily. You assume a doctrine is changed because some words are different, but that is your conclusion rooted in your presumption, not an unbiased examination of all the evidence... including the evidence of large numbers of people actually claiming the "false doctrines" which you say result from the different modern renderings.

Or, to put it another way, one or two examples are insufficient to prove your point. The vast majority of Christians who use modern translations do not believe false doctrines as a result.

Yes, people can misuse even the KJV to teach falsehoods, but that does not mean all Bibles are equally reliable vessels of truth. A pure source and a polluted one both contain water, but one refreshes while the other poisons.

This is an old trope based on misinformation and intended to appeal to the emotions rather than to reason.

As for the Holy Spirit, I fully agree that He guides believers into truth (John 16:13), but the Spirit never contradicts Himself. He inspired specific words for a reason.

Specific words inspired in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, not English. Don't waste my time with the "reinspiration" hogwash.

If certain translations remove or change those words, the Spirit will not endorse those distortions.

Really? Where is that in Scripture?

Again, "remove" and "change" are fundamentally wrong concepts. They assume that the KJV is the standard (which it is not) and that any variation from KJV wording is an active attempt to undermine something, when in fact (and as I have already stated) it is a serious attempt to render the original-language texts in modern English. Even the KJV fails at that!

My position is not based on mere presumption but on evidence from Scripture, history, and the nature of God’s preservation. The same God who inspired His Word also promised to preserve it. If we believe that promise, we must seek to identify where those preserved words are found. I believe the King James Bible represents that line of preservation faithfully based on systematic evidence.

You are welcome to believe whatever you like, but much of your argumentation is based on your assumption that the KJV is the preserved word of God, and flows from that assumption rather than establishing it.

 

[DeanM]

"Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all." This is a KJV quote from Daniel decribing the antichrist. The NKJV uses "God" as well. Modern bibles use the plural "gods". That does change things. Is Daniel referring to the God of Abraham or pagan gods? Will he be a decendent of Jews or gentiles?

 

[Dino246]

"Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all." This is a KJV quote from Daniel decribing the antichrist. The NKJV uses "God" as well. Modern bibles use the plural "gods". That does change things. Is Daniel referring to the God of Abraham or pagan gods? Will he be a decendent of Jews or gentiles?

The person being described doesn't pay any attention to anything called "god" so I don't see the issue. The Hebrew word is elohim, the semantic range of which includes both the singular "god/God" and plural "gods". In other words, both are legitimate translations.

 

[Inquisitor]

So this is the scripture YOU QUOTE here -----IN CONTEXT _____

Here is the thing DavidLamb ------that you need to LEARN ------

IF YOU TAKE OUT THE WORD ___TEXT ___FROM CONTEXT _____YOUR LEFT WITH------- A ___CON ______

THIS is the CONTEXT of PHILIPPIANS 2 ------and nowhere does it say that Jesus gave up His DIVINE PRIVILEGES --------CAUSE it is not Taking about Jesus here ---

It is Talking about----------- US ----HUMANITY___IMITATING CHRIST'S HUMANITY ----

Here is the Scripture in CONTEXT ______NOt -------IN ---------CON

Imitating Christ’s Humility

2 Therefore if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion,

2 then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind.

3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves,

4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.

5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

7 rather, he made himself nothing


Get This ---this is talking -----OUR ---- Relationships -------this is your CONTEXT ---

You cannot separate Verses 5--6--7----if you do --your taking the TEXT ------out of CONTEXT and your left WITH A ___CON ____like you are believing -----

I say to you ---------So go back ---look every Scripture you have Quoted as being changed in the Modern Day Bibles and READ THE full CONTEXT -------STOP TAKING THE --------TEXT OF OF ______CONTEXT


ALERT !!!!!!!!!!!

YOUR THE ONE BEING -----CONNED ----by BELIEVING ------CONS who are trying to discredit GOD"S WORD

and that comes from GUESS WHO ------

View attachment 280679

Nearly all the groups that drive a wedge into the Christian community, will ignore the context.

That behavior all ways has the same characteristics.

Dividing the Christian world into factional groups is exactly what these organizations do.

Galatians 5:20-21
Idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying,
drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you,
that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

 

[Inquisitor]

I'm not sure I have stated this clearly, but I will do so now so that you are without excuse:

Bibles don't "teach" anything; people do! People have used the KJV to teach false doctrines, and people have used other translations to teach true doctrines.

People may come to incorrect conclusions about the text (and do, resulting in them teaching false doctrines), which is why we need the help of the Holy Spirit to guide us in our interpretation.

The Holy Spirit can use any translation, because He is not limited by our human language. It's only when you hold to the unbiblical presumption that only the KJV is the word of God that you assume every other translation is flawed. Since that is the basis of your argument, the rest is mere fluff intended to preserve your presumption.

A very good post that nails the true source of everything we know as the truth in Jesus Christ.

People may come to incorrect conclusions about the text (and do, resulting in them teaching false doctrines),
which is why we need the help of the Holy Spirit to guide us in our interpretation.

What Paul, John, and Peter wrote was dictated by the Holy Spirit.

To read what they wrote and understand what they wrote you need the Holy Spirit.

No version or translation of the Koine Greek is going to produce the fruit of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit leads us and supplies us with everything we need not a translation of a text.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Rebuttal #1 of many. I'm going to address several of your 77 points in each of my posts. I will post as I have time to address the arguments you make. Given that you make so many fallacious statements, this will take time.

As I have already stated, no doctrine is formed from a single verse, so your charge that any of these differences "changes a doctrine" is inherently baseless. Nevertheless, I take pleasure in shredding dumb arguments, so I will take pleasure in shredding yours.


To Point 1: "The power of Jesus denied": no, nothing in the cited verses "denies" the power of Jesus. That's a mischaracterization on your part. Overstating your point is equivalent to presenting a falsehood as the truth. Get some integrity and state things exactly as they are, without your underhanded attempts at emotional manipulation of your audience.

Jesus was not and could not be omnipresent while He was in the flesh... period. His omnipresence is by His Spirit after His ascension, and this implication is clear in His statement, which was made near the end of His earthly ministry.

Overall, this point is badly titled and poorly supported.

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I understand that you disagree with my conclusions, but I do believe that some doctrines are indeed formed from a single verse. When a verse contains a truth that is not stated anywhere else in Scripture, its wording becomes vitally important. For example, 1 John 5:7 is the only verse that explicitly teaches the Trinity in one complete statement. No other passage presents it as directly; the others teach the doctrine indirectly through implication. When such a verse is altered or removed, the explicit biblical declaration of that truth is lost. What I demonstrate in my work is that when key words and phrases are repeatedly changed or omitted, they collectively reshape doctrine. Each example highlights how the doctrinal meaning shifts compared to the King James Bible. This is not emotional manipulation but a theological observation supported by textual evidence.

Regarding Philippians 2:7 and the rendering “He emptied Himself,” when the Congregational churches and later denominations adopted this wording, it began to influence the modern kenosis view that Christ relinquished or limited His divine attributes. The KJV’s phrase “made Himself of no reputation” harmonizes with Scripture that affirms Christ’s full divinity and authority during His earthly ministry (John 5:21, 18:20). Words do matter because they shape theology, and modern translations have played a role in this shift. I have personally encountered several Christians who hold to this kenosis interpretation, claiming that Jesus laid aside His divine power while on earth. In each case, they were quoting from a modern Bible that renders Philippians 2:7 as “He emptied Himself.” This shows how translation choices can directly influence belief. The wording “made Himself of no reputation” in the King James Bible preserves the truth that Christ humbled Himself in position, not in essence. He did not cease to be God or lose any divine attribute; rather, He willingly took upon Himself the form of a servant while remaining fully divine.



....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

To Point 2: "The false demi-god Jesus view" is blatant misrepresentation. No genuine Christian believes that Jesus is a demi-god. You put the clarification in brackets: "Jesus did not exist eternally in the past" but that is definitely not the same meaning.

The Greek word monogenēs is sometimes claimed by modern translators to mean “unique” or “one of a kind,” but that is not how it is used in Scripture. In the Bible, monogenēs always appears in a parent and child relationship. It describes “the only son of his mother” (Luke 7:12), “his only daughter” (Luke 8:42), and Abraham’s “only begotten son” Isaac (Hebrews 11:17). Isaac was not Abraham’s only child, yet he was the only begotten son of the promise, born through divine intervention, just as Jesus was born of the virgin Mary. John 1:14 provides the context for understanding this: “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” The “begetting” refers to the incarnation, not to creation. The eternal Word took on flesh while remaining fully God.

Across classical Greek and the Septuagint, monogenēs carries a relational meaning, never an abstract one. In Judges 11:34, Jephthah’s daughter is called his monogenēs, his only child, and similar familial uses appear in Psalms 22:20 and 35:17. Greek writers such as Euripides, Herodotus, Philo, and Josephus use the same term in this sense: an only child, never merely “unique.” When applied to persons, monogenēs always refers to an only child or one specially begotten. Later, outside of Scripture, some writers applied the word to non-personal things to mean “unique,” but that sense was rare and never used of people in the Bible.

Although some modern linguists argue that genes derives from genos (“kind”) rather than gennaō (“to beget”), the overwhelming historical and lexical evidence confirms that monogenēs retained a familial and begotten sense when used of persons. The “unique” definition arose much later in Greek philosophical and post-biblical writings and was popularized in the twentieth century through modern lexicons like BDAG, which departed from earlier biblical and patristic understanding. Thus, monogenēs in John 1:18 rightly means “only begotten,” affirming Christ’s eternal Sonship as the Word made flesh.

This brings us to the two major errors introduced by Modern Bibles.
First, replacing “only begotten Son” with “one and only Son” distorts the biblical truth that believers are also called sons of God (Romans 8:14). Jesus is not the “one and only Son” but the only begotten Son, the eternal Son who became flesh through miraculous conception. The “one and only” translation denies the shared sonship of all believers by removing the relational distinction that Scripture carefully maintains. Second, renderings such as “the only begotten God” (found in the NASB and others) go even further, suggesting that God Himself was begotten, which contradicts the eternal nature of the Godhead. This wording blurs the line between the Father and the Son and gives ammunition to those who claim that Jesus had a beginning. Whether one agrees or not, the cold hard reality is that heretics will inevitably latch on to false readings like “begotten God,” using them to deny the eternal Sonship of Christ and to promote views that lower Him beneath the fullness of Deity.



....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

To Point 3: "Modern Bibles falsely teach that Jesus had faith...".

The KJV of Romans 3:22 and Galatians 3:22 say, "faith of Jesus Christ". Galatians 2:16 says it twice. Your point is moot. You have no moral ground for making a criticism of another translation when your own says exactly what you decry.

You have misunderstood my point. The issue goes beyond the wording “faith of Jesus Christ” in the KJV and begins with how Modern Bibles subtly reshape related verses about faith, especially in Hebrews 12:2. Many Modern Versions call Jesus the “pioneer” of faith. The word “pioneer” describes someone who explores or discovers new territory, as though Jesus entered faith as something unknown or previously uncharted. That is not true. Jesus did not need to pioneer faith; He is the author of it. The KJV wording “the author and finisher of our faith” shows that faith originates with Him and is completed in Him. He makes faith possible because He is both its source and its object, the One in whom all saving faith rests.

With that in mind, the phrase “faith of Jesus Christ” in Romans 3:22 and Galatians 3:22 is talking about having faith in Jesus, not about Jesus Himself having faith in God as some have mistakenly claimed.

Galatians 2:16, however, stands out because it teaches how one believes, that justification comes through believing in the person of Jesus Christ, the gospel He proclaimed, and the full body of teachings He delivered. It is not describing Jesus as having faith, but calling us to believe in Him and what He revealed. The focus is entirely on the faith that centers upon Christ, the divine truth that He established and delivered to mankind, not on Jesus Himself having faith in the Father.


...

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

To Point 4: "Certain words of Jesus are missing or footnoted... or doubted with a footnote." You do know that the original 1611 KJV had sidenotes, don't you? Here's an example from John 3 showing that your vaunted KJV does EXACTLY THE SAME THING. again, your point is moot. Do your homework!

View attachment 280719

First, the marginal notes in Modern Bibles serve a completely different purpose than those in the 1611 King James Bible. Modern Critical Text editions often question the authenticity of the text itself, frequently stating that “the earliest and best manuscripts do not contain these words,” or omitting entire sections such as the last twelve verses of Mark or the account of the woman taken in adultery in John 7:53–8:11. Some even place the words of Jesus in brackets or remove them altogether. None of this occurs in the Received Text tradition or in the King James Bible. The 1611 translators never doubted whether a passage belonged to Scripture. Their marginal notes simply clarified the sense of a Hebrew or Greek word or acknowledged an alternate shade of meaning within the same inspired text. They never questioned the text itself, nor did they cast uncertainty on the words of Christ.

Second, you are missing the real point here. When the very words of Jesus are treated as uncertain, that is no small matter. The King James translators never left readers wondering whether Christ’s sayings were authentic, but Modern Bibles often do. Jesus Himself said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matthew 24:35). How can that promise be trusted if one is not even sure which words are truly His? This is the core problem with Modern Bibles. They shift the foundation from faith in God’s preservation to doubt in what He has spoken, leaving readers with uncertainty where there should be confidence in every word.




....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Not necessarily. You assume a doctrine is changed because some words are different, but that is your conclusion rooted in your presumption, not an unbiased examination of all the evidence... including the evidence of large numbers of people actually claiming the "false doctrines" which you say result from the different modern renderings.

Or, to put it another way, one or two examples are insufficient to prove your point. The vast majority of Christians who use modern translations do not believe false doctrines as a result.

This is simply untrue. While I believe that there are many Christians who hold to Modern Bibles who may not hold to heretical doctrines as a result of the Modern Bibles they prefer, this does not mean that others have not believed the false corrupted words within them. As I said, I ran into those who believe in the Kenosis Theology promoted in Philippians 2:7.

Yes, people can misuse even the KJV to teach falsehoods, but that does not mean all Bibles are equally reliable vessels of truth. A pure source and a polluted one both contain water, but one refreshes while the other poisons.

This is an old trope based on misinformation and intended to appeal to the emotions rather than to reason.

It simply is the truth. I've seen Modern Bibles lead to believing false things before. So the analogy fits.

Specific words inspired in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, not English. Don't waste my time with the "reinspiration" hogwash.

In my videos on Nick Sayers channel I explain how I hold to two possible views of inspiration when it comes to Scripture.

Possibility #1. - The Job explanation which states that inspiration is simply God given man understanding. The book of Job says, “But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.” (Job 32:8). Meaning, inspiration is merely illumination or God imparting knowledge or understanding.
Possibility #2. - Inspiration happened only one time with the original Scriptures, and this inspiration is carried through the process of preservation, sort of like a horse carrying a cart.

If certain translations remove or change those words, the Spirit will not endorse those distortions.

Really? Where is that in Scripture?

Revelation warns against adding or taking away from God's words showing consequences to altering it.
So obviously the Holy Spirit will not endorse corruptions because God punishes those who do alter or corrupt His Word.

Again, "remove" and "change" are fundamentally wrong concepts. They assume that the KJV is the standard (which it is not) and that any variation from KJV wording is an active attempt to undermine something, when in fact (and as I have already stated) it is a serious attempt to render the original-language texts in modern English. Even the KJV fails at that!

Which original languages manuscripts? The Modern Bible Movement is based upon a never ending shape shifter text.

You are welcome to believe whatever you like, but much of your argumentation is based on your assumption that the KJV is the preserved word of God, and flows from that assumption rather than establishing it.

I only came to the KJV as the best candidate for being the perfect Word of God based on Scripture, history, logic, purity of doctrine, etcetera. But one has to ignore these things if you are tumbling down the horrifying dark well of Modern Textual Criticism. You cannot see the light of day in this kind of position on this topic. One must let go of the traditions of men (i.e., the scholars or scribes) and simply believe God's Word plainly like a child, instead. In short, faith will open your eyes. Meaning, you have to believe those verses in the Bible that talk about the promises of God in how His Word is perfect and it will be preserved forever.



....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I'm not sure I have stated this clearly, but I will do so now so that you are without excuse:

Bibles don't "teach" anything; people do! People have used the KJV to teach false doctrines, and people have used other translations to teach true doctrines.

*Sigh* Not this again. Its called metonymic or figurative usage and it is very common in our English language. For example: A person can say, the book teaches Evolution or the book teaches you to be happy, etc. Just Google it sometime.

People may come to incorrect conclusions about the text (and do, resulting in them teaching false doctrines), which is why we need the help of the Holy Spirit to guide us in our interpretation.

The problem is that you can have 10 people all claiming the Spirit is guiding them and they all have different conclusions on what Scripture says.




....