No major doctrines changed?

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?"

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.

Go with the Vulgate.

Why use a modern translation like the KJV?

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

Why use a modern translation like the KJV?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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?

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?