I fully agree that the NIV is a modern translation, that is undeniably true. Also undeniably true is that those who translated the KJV ADMITTED that their goal was to produce a pleasant-sounding translation as opposed to one that offered the most accurate possible (at the time) translation.
Apologetics: witnessing to atheists
- Thread starter GWH
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I fully agree that the NIV is a modern translation, that is undeniably true. Also undeniably true is that those who translated the KJV ADMITTED that their goal was to produce a pleasant-sounding translation as opposed to one that offered the most accurate possible (at the time) translation.
Perhaps we should consider Galatians as providing context for Titus 3:10, especially Gal. 1:6-9.
Hebrews can also be viewed as referring to heresy in the form of apostasy, especially Heb. 6:4-6 & 10:26-39.
Avoiding/eliminating heresy is a reason I try to encourage folks to agree regarding the Gospel kerygma/creed.
Assuming my search result was correct, Paul used the word once. If you'd like to take his context which I suggested and attach it Scripturally, then whatever it actually attaches to is worthy of consideration. Until then it's just random.
I will start the process and say that Titus3:9 begins with "foolish/stupid (moros (look familiar if somewhat transliterated?)) debates" so it seems most of these posts are heretical-divisive. Probably why God made sure religious hierarchy was taken down before the digital age - not enough stakes.
Scripture does not teach that God condemns God's willingness to do something.
Sometimes God may not answer because it is not in line with His will.
For example, while Jesus did help Gentiles when asked, He did not go out to the way of the Gentiles to heal them.
Jesus specifically told His disciples not to go into the area of the Gentiles to heal, etc.
Praying “If Thou Wilt” Is an Expression of Faith, Not Doubt
Scripture repeatedly presents conditioning one’s request on God’s will as the proper posture of faith, not as uncertainty about God’s power or goodness.
1. The New Testament explicitly defines confident prayer this way
1 John 5:14 (KJV) states:
“And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us.”
Here, confidence in prayer is not framed as demanding outcomes or presuming God’s intentions, but as submitting requests to His will. The verse assumes that not everything a believer desires necessarily aligns with God’s purposes, and that recognizing this is spiritually healthy.If phrasing a request with reference to God’s will were an expression of doubt, then this verse would paradoxically redefine doubt as confidence. That is impossible.
2. The Lord’s Prayer centers piety on submission to God’s will
Jesus Himself teaches believers to pray:
“Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.”
This is not a concession to uncertainty. It is the model prayer given by Christ. Submission to God’s will is presented as the heart of godly prayer, not as a failure of faith.Therefore, the concept that “if Thou wilt” language implies unbelief is directly contradicted by Christ’s own instruction.
Old Testament Saints Freely Use “If Thou Wilt” Language Without Rebuke
The Old Testament reinforces the same pattern. Faithful servants of God repeatedly speak in conditional terms that acknowledge God’s sovereign will, and Scripture never treats this as sinful doubt.
3. Gideon’s conditional request receives divine accommodation, not rebuke
Gideon says:
“If thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as thou hast said…” (Judges 6)
He then asks for signs, which God grants. Gideon even pleads, “Let not thine anger be hot against me,” yet no rebuke is recorded for acknowledging the contingency of God’s will.Importantly, the narrative distinguishes between Gideon’s fear and God’s patience, not between faith and unbelief. The conditional language itself is never condemned.
4. Moses places the outcome entirely in God’s hands without censure
Moses intercedes for Israel, saying:
“Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin… and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.”
This is one of the most profound acts of intercession in Scripture. Moses conditions the request entirely on God’s will, yet Scripture presents this moment as sacrificial, faithful, and righteous.If conditional language implied doubt, Moses would stand condemned here. Instead, he stands as a model intercessor.
5. Christ Himself modeled submission to the Father’s will
If questioning willingness were sinful, then Jesus’ own prayers would become impossible to explain.
Luke 22:42 (KJV)
“Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.”
This is the clearest possible proof that acknowledging God’s will is not condemned.
It is perfect obedience, not doubt.
Application to Mark 1:40–41
When the leper says:
“If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean,”
he is speaking within a well established biblical framework of faithful prayer.Now, the ball is back in your court. If you cannot establish clearly from Scripture elsewhere that God gets angry when somebody provides a conditional "If thou will" clause or something similar when they talk with God or Christ then you are merely imposing something into the Bible that is not there by an odd-ball textual blunder in history (i.e., Codex D (Codex Bezae) and a few Latin manuscripts) which does not agree with the majority of manuscripts. Double check the internet or Ai's like Perplexity.ai, or ChatGPT.com to see if there is any verse that supports you here. I have searched and I have not found one. Until you do, you are saying that only in this instance God was upset for something that others have done countless times before in the Bible. So until you prove otherwise, you are holding to a reading that makes it appear like Jesus sinned, but you simply do not want to see it because you have been conditioned to accept the idea of a shape-shifter text is normal when even that idea is not in Scripture, either.
.....
James's clearly establishes if it is God's will to live and do certain things in this life.
James 4:15 (KJV)
“For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.”
This plays into the importance of the leper's request. He is asking if it is his will, he knows he can be healed.Sometimes God is not willing to heal everyone because it is not in his greater plan for good. Yes, there are times God does miracles and He does heal people. I believe that. Those requests are in his will and it is never wrong for a person to think if it is God's will or if He is willing to do it or not. Scripture never teaches that God or Christ condemns a person if they say "If thou wilt." Until you can demonstrate that fact clearly from Scripture elsewhere you have no leg to stand on. You would be ignoring other places in Scripture where this happens and making this some kind of oddball unexplained unique one of a time occurrence when the most logical explanation is that this was simply a corruption that has found its way in the Western witnesses. This means that the NIV 2011 translators are incompetent when it comes to knowing the basics of the Bible. So, unless your response is a robust defense by adding Scriptural support for your position, then your opinion stating that Jesus got angry because of the leper asking if it was will is not legitimate here. You are simply saying, that is what it means without any real proof. If you even ask Ai, it will not defend you with the English grammar or the Greek grammar. So you are lone wolf and singing to the beat of your own drum here (Well, along with the NIV 2011 translators of course).
.....
You would be one of the few who does not accept the reality that the NIV, ESV, CSB, GNT, and NET are all Modern Versions. Most do not have a problem accepting this term in this kind of discussion. You would have to offer counter-evidence to prove otherwise.
Also, the position of having a "Shape-Shifter Text," or a “Pick And Choose My Own Reading To Create A Unique Bible That Exists In My Mind” view, is not one found in Scripture. Meaning, your Bible that exists in your mind will differ from another person’s Bible who thinks they can pick and choose which readings they see as legitimate or not legitimate. As a result, nobody has a real standard.
This is not what the Bible even remotely teaches. Nobody had this kind of mindset when quoting Scripture. You would simply be caught up in a new movement that has become popular. You have no biblical grounds to hold this kind of false mindset or approach to the Bible. Revelation warns not to add or take away from the prophecy of this book. That only works if there is a settled standard.
....
.....
As usual, both-and logic needs to be applied. I am happy for you to lead the discussion about the immediate context,
and I have started discussing the wider context for Tit. 3:10 by citing what Paul said regarding heretical gospels in Gal. 1:6-9 and
regarding heretical apostasy in Heb. 6:4-6 & 10:26-39. Also, understanding and agreeing regarding the true Gospel kerygma/creed
is part of the even wider context.
You tend to agree with me that the KJV readings are better. But you are missing the bigger picture. What I am showing you is a pattern of evidence against the NIV and modern Bibles, in that they make it appear as though Jesus sinned. You may dismiss all of this and say, “This is all a fluke or random chance” that can be explained. But you offer no real explanation, and the sheer number of other verses, along with other kinds of false doctrines, eliminates your type of thinking. This is what you are not getting. You are not looking at the broader pattern of evidence here, nor are you looking at the consistent theme. You are not connecting the dots, but instead you are trying to dismiss or downplay these points as if they are not a problem, when they are.
This is why continuing this conversation is not going to help you, because it will be more of the same. I show you more examples, and you will just reply as you did here. You offered no substantial rebuttal against the points I made here. You continue to double down on having a “Shape Shifter Text” mentality or a “Build-A-Bible-In-My-Mind” type belief, which will differ from the text or Bible that exists in the mind of another believer who thinks the same way you do. There is no standard. You have only a phantom Bible that exists solely in your own mind with this kind of approach. So it is not really the NIV you hold to. How can you, when they keep shape shifting the NIV and Nestle and Aland every decade or so?
Jesus said:
“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass,
one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law,
till all be fulfilled.” (Matthew 5:18, KJV)
This means that the Hebrew would have to at least exist today in a state where it has not been corrupted. Following this line of thinking, and the other verses on the purity and preservation of God’s word, means that we could have the “book of the LORD” today, as mentioned in Isaiah 34:16. How so? This book of the LORD in Isaiah 34:16 lines up with verses in Revelation. So it is a book that will exist in the end times. Therefore, logic dictates we would also have this book today. We do not have to endlessly reconstruct the text to get closer to lost originals. We have the words of God for today.
The Modern Bibles only offer confusion, with ever changing original language texts and ever changing translations. None of them even agree with each other. Pick a little and pick a little here. People become multi versionists or hold to a shape shifter Greek text that will never end. It is insane. It is madness. Nowhere does the Bible support this kind of belief. Nowhere. It is all the traditions of men from modern scholarship.
Genesis 3 warns of the serpent's tactic in questioning God's word. This confirms that the attack by the devil against God's word still is happening on a massive scale. This is yet another link in the chain of evidences that the atheist should see as a part of gathering evidence in coming to the faith. See, when you don't know what the text says, the serpent is hissing in the background, "Yea, hath God said...?" See Genesis 3 in the KJV and pray about it.
G....
....
You will find that in any situation where one is trying to use a large number of slight evidences to argue against an established position that it is exceedingly difficult. People tend to want to see one bog piece of evidence in order to change their minds, not a hundred or more small pieces, even if the cumulative total implies a vastly different picture. Rather they see one small item, find a means to reject it and then proceed to the next small item, never seeing the big picture.
Well, frankly, it seems nuts/illogical/divisive for you to condemn me for "missing the bigger picture" immediately following my saying that I agree with you regarding the KJV being the better translation so far. Then you went completely random by accusing me of dismissing "all of this", saying “This is all a fluke or random chance”, and offering "no real explanation"! And your emotional rant continued by accusing me of "not connecting the dots, but instead you are trying to dismiss or downplay these points" and for offering "no substantial rebuttal against the points", saying that I "continue to double down on having a “Shape Shifter Text” mentality or a “Build-A-Bible-In-My-Mind” type belief". What the...?!
I can only assume you are having another bad hair day as preparing for the debate makes you too busy to discuss calmly,
because I know I did not say anything to warrant such animosity. I wonder if you are so accustomed to debating people who want to score points and defeat you that you are unfamiliar with truthseekers whose desire is to learn.
May I suggest that you reply again after you have had time to relax and then share some more couplets,
because I have never encountered a KJVist before and am having fun learning how it compares with my 1984 NIV.
The KJV Translators on the KJV:
The preface to the King James Bible was written by a single translator, Miles Smith. At the Hampton Court Conference, when the KJV was first proposed, the expectations and desires for a new English translation were clearly stated. In response, Richard Bancroft remarked that “if every man’s humor was to be followed there would be no end of translating.” Bancroft has been described as “the supervisor and overseer of the KJB translation project and its chief director.” While we are thankful that his objection was not followed, his statement reveals that he did not hold a theological position that anticipated the Bible would need to be continually retranslated to suit individual preferences.
Roman Catholics had long criticized Protestants for producing ever changing English translations. This criticism appears in the 1609 preface to the Latin Vulgate Old Testament printed at Douay, which reproached the Anglican Church for lacking a single, authoritative standard text. In a section with the marginal note titled, “None yet in England allowed fot [sic] sufficient,” the preface states: “What then do our countriemen, that refuse this Latin, but deprive themselves of the best, and yet all this while, have set forth none, that is allowed by all Protestants, for good or sufficient” (The Holie Bible, 1609).
Miles Smith directly answered this charge in the KJV preface when he wrote, “but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against.” In other words, Rome accused the Anglicans of lacking a standard Bible, and the Anglicans replied by producing one.
This original intention also appears to have endured among the KJV translators themselves. Daniel Featly repeatedly expressed this conviction in the 1640s, stating his desire that the Book of Common Prayer be “correctly Printed, with all the Psalmes, Chapters, and allegations out of the old and new Testament, according to the last translation,” and elsewhere writing, “for my owne part, I wish (as I have elsewhere expressed my self) that all the Psalmes, Lessons, Chapters, Verses, and allegations of the Scripture in the book of Common-Prayer should in the next edition be printed agreeable to the last and best Translation.
Note: The following section is a reworded presentation of material originally written by Christopher Yetzer. The original write-up can be found in the thread discussion of this Facebook post here at the following source.
King James on the KJV:
,,,,
You’ve misunderstood or are purposely misrepresenting my point. I’m not remotely advocating some absurd "shape-shifter text" - whatever that is - or any such nonsense you manufacture. I simply noted that you treated an exceptional NIV reading as representative of all so-called “modern versions,” even where others reject it and agree with the KJV. That’s a category and logic issue, not a challenge to biblical authority.
Aren't you one of those who think the KJV is inspired?
Can you point me to any Bible in English that is the perfect words of God between two covers?
Can you point me to any Greek text or Hebrew text that is perfect?
Also, if you feel you offered a sufficient rebuttal to my points in showing problems in the NIV, then please re-quote why you think they are not a problem?
Also, did you address the point about Jesus appearing to sin in the NIV and other Modern Bibles in the several verses I shown you?
So far, I have not seen a sufficient rebuttal to this but only an expression of opinion.
There are no verifiable sources backing you up here involving the English and Greek.
You said:
I am “Core KJV"
(Anchored in the Hebrew and Greek Behind It).
I believe the Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE), circa 1900, represents the final settled form of the King James Bible. I also hold that the Hebrew and Greek printed texts were already in existence during the period of the early KJV editions, allowing careful comparison before later printing errors were corrected and before spelling and grammatical conventions were fully standardized. This process reflects refinement in transmission and presentation, not an absence of an authoritative text.
I am not KJV-only. KJV-only believers will say never to even use a Modern Bible even if that may help you to understand the uncommon or archaic wording in the King James Bible. While I see Modern Bibles as horribly corrupt on a doctrinal level, I also see they can be a help sometimes, but I also preach how we should not 100% trust them because they have many problems. KJV-only believers tend to downplay the archaic words in the KJV, and they do not heavily promote the original languages that underly the KJV. Some outright condemn the idea that we should look to them, which I strongly disagree with.
I have a settled English text, and I do not believe there are any errors in the KJV.
I believe that the Hebrew and the Greek can convey a deeper meaning sometimes that the English of the KJV does not convey.
This does not mean the KJV is inferior but it merely means that formal or word for word translations cannot always full express what the receptor language says unless one starts to paraphrase (which is thought-for-thought expression and not idioms).
As for your stand on the NIV 1984:
Why do you choose the 1984 NIV and yet try to defend the 2011 NIV?
The NIV has 24 out of the 25 Catholic ideas inserted in Modern Bibles.
It has the highest count number of the Catholic agenda being subtly pushed.
You can simply check out my PDF writeup to learn more in my 77 Changed Doctrines PDF on this.
Again, try not to think in terms of handling only one verse here or there, but try to identify a pattern.
Do you also know about the gender inclusive language agenda in Modern Bibles?
The NIV 2011 is one translation that has drawn a lot of criticism for this (even by Modern Bible adherents).
Check out Nick Sayers lengthy video here:
....
Your emotional statements about me aside, you do appear to have a multi-versionist type of belief, which is common in the Modern Bible Movement that is popular today. You were saying you were agreeing with the KJV in certain readings I shown you, but you are for the NIV. You seem to criticize me for being a KJV-ist. You appear to want to defend the NIV 2011, but then you are now mentioning that you own a 1984 NIV. So which NIV edition is God's word? They both cannot be God's Word because they each say contradictory things. In my PDF, I mention a lot of horrible changes that the NIV makes in its newest edition (NIV 2011). Check out the PDF. Do a word find search with "NIV" in my PDF. I am not going to post them here because your defense of the indignant reading in Mark 1:41 (NIV 2011) is not rooted in any rational English or Greek grammar defense or any context to the rest of the Bible. You are just offering opinion, and no real proof that you are right.
....
Again, ask any Ai, or do a Google search and it will confirm this basic fact for you.
Your arguing something so basic is just silly.
You said:
I hold to two possible views of inspiration.
#1. I believe God had inspired the originals once and that God carries that inspiration through preservation like a horse carries a carriage. So in this view it is not a re-inspiration or double inspiration.
#2. I believe that when the book of Job may be a possible definition on inspiration. Meaning, inspiration is merely illumination of what God wants to communicate to man whereby he would write down those words. Thus the words are inspired because God has given man the understanding or revelation on what to say in order to write them.
“But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.”
(Job 32:8, KJV)
What does this mean involving the KJV translators?
Well, I don't believe the KJV or the KJV translators were inspired in the same way as the originals or as the apostles were because the originals was written down once and were perfect. The KJV translators went through a multi-revision process in several groups or companies.
However, I do believe that the hand of God was upon the KJV translators.
Meaning, in the multi-revision process of translating the KJV and by their looking at the Hebrew, Greek, foreign language Bibles, etc.
(a) God was giving many of the KJV translators the correct understanding (without their knowledge that this was happening).
(b) God was ultimately guiding the KJV translators to put the correct words in the translation in its final step through their multi-revision process (without their knowledge).
How do I know this is what happened?
Look at the fruit.
The KJV became the standard for hundreds of years and led to the three great revivals in history.
Where are the great revivals with the modern Bibles?
The KJV became a part of our language in English with hundreds of idioms.
So even unbelievers will speak God's word without them even realizing (Because they are like sheep, i.e., not in the biblical sense).
.....