Steven Anderson is wrong - Sodomites can still be saved.

This "I get no credit" thing, is an attempt by Calvinism to gain the higher moral ground.

The fact of the matter is, that He gives the power to become the sons of God to those who receive Him, even to them who believe on His name.

Consider Luke 9:55-56 in the NIV vs. the kjv.

This is only one example.

Another example is Romans 13:9 in both of these versions.

There are many more.

Some versions entirely remove the first half of John 8 and the last half of Mark 16.

You're making the error most KJV-only advocates do: you're assuming, without any other evidence, that the KJV is correct. Until you demonstrate that it is correct, you have no argument.

John 7:57 - 8:11 and the longer ending of Mark are well-known questionable passages. Neither carries any major doctrine that can't be found elsewhere. The other two verses are in a single translation, and neither has any bearing on one's salvation.

Methinks you're merely parroting someone else's lame argument and have not given the matter any serious consideration yourself.

It should be evident that the kjv was not added to; for if it was, then the results would be visible: the translators of the kjv would have had the plagues of the book of Revelation added to them. (This obviously did not happen, so I conclude that the translators did not add to the kjv but that rather modern translators took away from the word).

But if modern translations subtract from the word of the Lord, the results would be invisible: the translators of the modern translations will simply have their names taken out of the book of life.

You should consider this as a warning that if you also adhere to modern translations and the decision of the translators to omit certain words, verses, paragraphs, and passages, that your name will also be taken out of the book of life because you will in effect have taken away from the word of the Lord.

See Revelation 22:18-19.

John 7:57 - 8:11 and the longer ending of Mark are well-known questionable passages. Neither carries any major doctrine that can't be found elsewhere. The other two verses are in a single translation, and neither has any bearing on one's salvation.

Frankly, that's a flawed argument, and it doesn't adequately account for historical reality. It's flawed because "translations" don't add or subtract anything; people do. As for history, the problem is that the KJV translators accepted the additions of the scribes, the errors of other translators, and the limitations of the source materials available to them, as well as making some errors themselves.

Frankly, that's a flawed argument, and it doesn't adequately account for historical reality. The problem is that the KJV translators accepted the additions of the scribes, the errors of other translators, and the limitations of the source materials available to them, as well as making some errors themselves. They also directly added words and phrases that were not in the original languages, in order to make the text reasonably understandable to a contemporary reader of English.

Now Romans 8:1 does in fact have an omission in it in certain versions that will affect the salvation of those who adhere to such translations.

"who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit" is omitted.

Please note here that if the kjv is correct in this instance, then there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus; who are defined as those who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit.

When the latter part is taken out, someone is given room to believe that they are in Christ Jesus even if they consistently walk according to the flesh.

But if the kjv is correct, then there is condemnation for those who walk after the flesh. Thus the modern translations might give the reader an impression that will give him a false hope; and trusting in that hope he will not come into a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. For in reading the modern translation, they may believe that they are in Christ Jesus when in all reality they are not.

Thus, in some tranlsations, Romans 8:1 does not stand on its own as a bastion of biblical truth.

While it can be determined, from looking at Romans 8:12-14, that the kjv's rendering is in fact correct; whatever translation you are looking at.

For it is written in those verses that if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but that if you put to death the deeds of the body by the power of the Holy Spirit, you will live.

I for one do not want to take any chances on some teaching that this is not talking about spiritualt and eternal death.

For someone might indeed interpret it as saying that if we walk according to the flesh we will die physically.

However, that would indicate that we will not die physically if we put to death the deeds of the body in the power of the Spirit.

Therefore I conclude that Romans 8:12-14 is talking about spiritual and eternal life and death.

And therefore, Romans 8:1, in the kjv, is the accurate rendering; where the latter end of the verse is not removed.

The fact that people add or subtract things from the translations only substantiates my argument.

For if the people who translated the kjv added to the word of the Lord, then the plagues of the Book of Revelation would have been added to them.

This obviously did not happen.

Therefore, the translators of the kjv have not added to the word; but the translators of modern translations have subtracted from it.

The translators of the kjv were very careful to place anything that might have been a true addition to what was written in the originals, in italics.

Again, you're making the mistake of drawing a doctrine from a single verse. No sound interpreter does that.

It's a flawed strategy. There is no major doctrine of Scripture that cannot be substantiated from non-disputed passages. Nobody's salvation is in danger.

If you continue to present flawed arguments, I'll happily continue to shoot them down. I enjoy the target practice.

Only, they don't, and you have no argument.

Already refuted.

"Might have been a true addition"? I'll just let you continue tying yourself in knots.

Again, you're making the mistake of drawing a doctrine from a single verse. No sound interpreter does that.

What I am saying is that if someone is partaking of modern translations, a certain spiritual anemia will develop in them. Because they are not getting the full nutrition that is in every verse in the kjv...in modern translations you have to go to another verse in order to get the understanding that you can get from the verse in question, in the kjv.

And if you have anemia, how are you going to be able to fight the good fight? You will be badly at a disadvantage.

So, you say that what is missing in some verses in modern translations is found elsewhere.

But what if that doctrine is found in only one other verse.

To those who require more than one verse to substantiate a doctrine, you are rendering the person who abides by a modern translation lame when it comes to certain doctrines that are indeed taught by two verses in the Bible. The reader of the modern translation will only have one verse to substantiate his point of view. Whereas, if he would have been abiding in the kjv, he might have had two or more verses to substantiate his position.

Thus he is found fighting with a sword that has a -1 on its to-hit and damage (I used to play the game of AD&D before coming to Christ).

@Dino246,

You certainly have a prerogative to reject what I am saying if you so desire.

I am not sating that I have absolute proof for anything that I am saying; unless you take my word for it that it is my prayer that every word that comes off of my keyboard might be from the Holy Ghost.

I would just encourage you to heed Hebrews 3:7-8, 3:15, and 4:7.

Frankly, you’re being a self-righteous jackdonkey.

I love you, too.

May the Lord abundantly bless you and receive you as a son.