Search results

We disagree. I have shown you in the past how your position is untenable, but you refuse to see.

Baseless fearmongering. The two versions say the same thing, and it's not what you think they say.

A "huge doctrinal divide"? No, a very minor difference in wording that is completely inconsequential in reality.

Perhaps, but in no case have you actually demonstrated that a particular doctrine cannot be constructed from a given translation. Until you do that, you're only bleating. Really? And exactly how many scholars have you polled on the subject? You're talking out the bottom end of your digestive...

Which Bible version was used by the people who started the Jehovah's Witnesses? The Mormons? The Seventh-Day Adventists? The Christian Scientists? The Christadelphians? How about the Unitarian Universalist 'Church'? Suddenly the way you're applying that verse doesn't make sense. You can name...

Don't be ridiculous. Your statement displays an underlying false dichotomy. A word is not simply either "a true word of God" or "a counterfeit imitation"; especially when it comes to translations rather than original languages. Hmm... circular reasoning perhaps? I am doing neither. I squarely...

There are two fatal problems with your list: You are attempting to make sweeping, general statements about doctrines (plural) in modern translations (plural) and thereby implying therefore that (all) modern translations teach aberrant doctrines. You've bitten off far more than you can chew. No...

I think you meant, "known". "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." (att. Mark Twain) I said this recently, though perhaps not to you; there are good reasons why the relative proportions of text types are what they are, and good reasons why those proportions are essentially irrelevant.

Perhaps you missed my point: The JW's started with a KJV! So did many other pseudo-Christian cults. Simply put, using the KJV is no guarantee of doctrinal correctness. The confusion does concern me, but I attribute the cause differently than you. Any current confusion in basic Bible doctrine...

One can hope. :)

Since the OP did not cite any alleged evidence for the corruption of modern translations, the burden of proof is on him.

You have rather thorough misunderstanding of the motive and purpose of textual criticism. Firstly, no matter how much you want to deny it, Erasmus asked exactly the same question: "Did God really say...?" What you don't seem to grasp is the vast difference in motivation behind the question...

Honest curiosity: why does “KJB” bother you when “KJV” doesn’t?

I've said it to many others, I might as well say it to you: If all you do is compare the KJV to the NIV (or to any other translation), all you can demonstrate is that there are differences. You can't prove that either is correct, you can't prove that either is corrupted, you can't prove...

STOP making uninformed accusations. I'm not "failing" anything. When was the NIV published, and when was the NA27 published?

This thread was never about "attacking" the KJV. It was about addressing the error of KJV-onlyism. Your misrepresentation is noted, and your motivation for it is called into question.

At best this is reason not to use recent editions of the NIV. It is not justification for KJV-onlyism.

I'll address this one: Yawn.

And? 1 John 5:7 was superfluous.

If you simply point your audience back to Exodus 3, that should be sufficient. Either that, or make crystal-clear that you are adding terms for their understanding.