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?" 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.

Food for thought…

John Gill - “and thy desire shall be to thy husband, this is to be understood of her being solely at the will and pleasure of her husband; that whatever she desired should be referred to him, whether she should have her desire or not, or the thing she desired; it should be liable to be controlled by his will, which must determine it, and to which she must be subject, as follows: and he shall rule over thee.”

John Calvin on Genesis 3:16 - “Thy desire shall be unto thy husband," is of the same force as if he had said that she should not be free and at her own command, but subject to the authority of her husband and dependent upon his will; or as if he had said, 'Thou shalt desire nothing but what thy husband wishes.' … Thus the woman, who had perversely exceeded her proper bounds, is forced back to her own position.”

Jamieson, Faussett and Brown - “her condition would henceforth be that of humble subjection."

Adam Clarke commentary - “Thy desire shall be to thy husband - for thy desire, thy appetite, shall be to thy husband; and he shall rule over thee, though at their creation both were formed with equal rights, and the woman had probably as much right to rule as the man; but subjection to the will of her husband is one part of her curse.”

Matthew Henry - "She is here put into a state of subjection. The whole sex, which by creation was equal with man, is, for sin, made inferior, and forbidden to usurp authority, 1 Tim. 2:11, 12. The wife particularly is hereby put under the dominion of her husband, of which see an instance in that law, Num. 30:6-8, where the husband is empowered, if he please, to disannul the vows made by the wife. This sentence amounts only to that command, Wives, be in subjection to your own husbands”

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.

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.

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

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.

"incomprehensible"

Hardly.

Thee, thou, thine, thy... so challenging!

Anyone who has studied Shakespeare in high school can understand the KJV.

That's because their KJV Bible is their Idol.

The Word(s) in the pages are definitely Inspired by God.

They truly love God.

But there idealism behind KJV Only is straight up reducing Who God is.

Right now, God is talking to younger generations through the updated versions.

KJV Only can't understand and accept that. Like IT'S not about the Same God.

I've never experienced anything like I read in Book of Genesis. And they wouldn't have a clue to our way of life, let alone how we mass gather in Amplified Stadiums and call it a Church Service to Worship God.

Most understand that the use of thee and thou, you and ye makes the sentence structure more precise. Thee and thou are singular. You and ye are plural. These were fading out by 1611 but the translators want precise English.

And we see the Laodicean attitude of this new generation. They are more seekers of emotions than truth. They’d rather sing Hillsong than study the word.

These are words from someone who has not done his homework.

Have you actually and painstakingly gone through the differences between the King James Bible and say the NIV? Line by line, and word by word, comparing each line to the Greek Received Text? If you have not done so you owe it to yourself and to others to see some of the DRASTIC changes made in the NIV (which is so popular).

And then you would have to sit down with the first NIV and work through all the "revisions" to the "revisions" of the NIV to see what kind of shenanigans have been perpetrated on a gullible Christian public. This is all assuming that you are solidly grounded in Gospel Truth and Bible Truth already and can discern doctrinal corruption..

[Note: since I have personally done what I am asking you to do, I know exactly what I am talking about]

And we see the Laodicean attitude of this new generation. They are more seekers of emotions than truth. They’d rather sing Hillsong than study the word.

Most understand that the use of thee and thou, you and ye makes the sentence structure more precise. Thee and thou are singular. You and ye are plural. These were fading out by 1611 but the translators want precise English.

How many times a year do yall have to rehash this subject?

Approximately the same number of times Calvinism vs free will, pre-trib vs post-trib vs a-mill, and tongues vs cessationism are rehashed.

And never a resolution. Just argument over and over.

"incomprehensible"

Hardly.

Thee, thou, thine, thy... so challenging!

Anyone who has studied Shakespeare in high school can understand the KJV.

Have you actually and painstakingly gone through the differences between the King James Bible and say the NIV? Line by line, and word by word, comparing each line to the Greek Received Text?

can't prove anything beyond the existence of differences.

the NIV is not a good translation.