77 Changed Doctrines in Modern Bibles

[Inquisitor]

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I understand that you disagree with my conclusions, but I do believe that some doctrines are indeed formed from a single verse. When a verse contains a truth that is not stated anywhere else in Scripture, its wording becomes vitally important. For example, 1 John 5:7 is the only verse that explicitly teaches the Trinity in one complete statement. No other passage presents it as directly; the others teach the doctrine indirectly through implication. When such a verse is altered or removed, the explicit biblical declaration of that truth is lost. What I demonstrate in my work is that when key words and phrases are repeatedly changed or omitted, they collectively reshape doctrine. Each example highlights how the doctrinal meaning shifts compared to the King James Bible. This is not emotional manipulation but a theological observation supported by textual evidence.

Regarding Philippians 2:7 and the rendering “He emptied Himself,” when the Congregational churches and later denominations adopted this wording, it began to influence the modern kenosis view that Christ relinquished or limited His divine attributes. The KJV’s phrase “made Himself of no reputation” harmonizes with Scripture that affirms Christ’s full divinity and authority during His earthly ministry (John 5:21, 18:20). Words do matter because they shape theology, and modern translations have played a role in this shift. I have personally encountered several Christians who hold to this kenosis interpretation, claiming that Jesus laid aside His divine power while on earth. In each case, they were quoting from a modern Bible that renders Philippians 2:7 as “He emptied Himself.” This shows how translation choices can directly influence belief. The wording “made Himself of no reputation” in the King James Bible preserves the truth that Christ humbled Himself in position, not in essence. He did not cease to be God or lose any divine attribute; rather, He willingly took upon Himself the form of a servant while remaining fully divine.



....

Whenever an eternal God takes on a human form you would expect that many attributes are discarded.

For one Jesus gave up His eternal state and could really die.

Two, Jesus is no longer omnipotent, Jesus relies on the power of Holy Spirit.

Three, Jesus not longer knows all things.

Four, Jesus is no longer omnipresent.

Five, Jesus has to sleep, eat, walk, and tolerate that no one knows whom He is, the creator.

Six, Jesus has only one future and that is a horrible crucifixion.

Seven, Jesus has to tolerate rejection, insults, etc.

Eight, Jesus had to completely rely on His Father from birth to death.

Jesus gave up His Lordship of everything and was merely a servant in so many ways.

 

[DeanM]

The person being described doesn't pay any attention to anything called "god" so I don't see the issue. The Hebrew word is elohim, the semantic range of which includes both the singular "god/God" and plural "gods". In other words, both are legitimate translations.

Like the timing of the rapture, there is a lot of discussion going on about the antichrist. Many say he will be moslem, Jew, some gentile, some a mixture. So God vs gods in Daniel would be a help in indentification. The tribe of Dan comes up a lot in discussion. So, if he denies "God" of his fathers, that could be an indicator he is of jewish decent. If he denies "gods" of his fathers he could be gentile of any nation.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Whenever an eternal God takes on a human form you would expect that many attributes are discarded.

For one Jesus gave up His eternal state and could really die.

Two, Jesus is no longer omnipotent, Jesus relies on the power of Holy Spirit.

Three, Jesus not longer knows all things.

Four, Jesus is no longer omnipresent.

Five, Jesus has to sleep, eat, walk, and tolerate that no one knows whom He is, the creator.

Six, Jesus has only one future and that is a horrible crucifixion.

Seven, Jesus has to tolerate rejection, insults, etc.

Eight, Jesus had to completely rely on His Father from birth to death.

Jesus gave up His Lordship of everything and was merely a servant in so many ways.

Nowhere did I claim that Jesus did not have real human flesh through which He experienced physical needs such as hunger, weariness, and fatigue. Nor did I ever claim that His omniscience was unaffected.

I believe that Jesus truly took on human flesh, being born into the genealogical line of Adam through Mary by way of the virgin birth.
I also believe that during His earthly ministry, Jesus suppressed His omniscience. He did not lose it but chose not to exercise it. Scripture alludes to this truth in several passages.

If you visit my website (www.affectionsabove.com) and open my PDF, you will find this subject in the Table of Contents on page 8, listed as number 14, "Jesus' Nature and Names." That section (page 104) explains from Scripture how Christ voluntarily suppressed His omniscience while still demonstrating His divine power as the unique second Person of the Trinity throughout His ministry. I have a list of verses showing that Jesus used His own power at times. This does not mean that Jesus did not also rely upon the power of the Father or the Holy Spirit in other times.


....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Like the timing of the rapture, there is a lot of discussion going on about the antichrist. Many say he will be moslem, Jew, some gentile, some a mixture. So God vs gods in Daniel would be a help in indentification. The tribe of Dan comes up a lot in discussion. So, if he denies "God" of his fathers, that could be an indicator he is of jewish decent. If he denies "gods" of his fathers he could be gentile of any nation.

Yes, I would agree with you. It's something that is a consideration of inclusion in my PDF write-up, but in this case, there are other factors of identifying THE antichrist that will be destroyed by our Lord Jesus Christ. But yes, that is a good one. Thank you for sharing it. If I find more alterations on identifying the antichrist in Modern Bibles, I would have to make it 78 Changed Doctrines for my PDF.

May God bless you for loving every word of God.


....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Like the timing of the rapture, there is a lot of discussion going on about the antichrist. Many say he will be moslem, Jew, some gentile, some a mixture. So God vs gods in Daniel would be a help in indentification. The tribe of Dan comes up a lot in discussion. So, if he denies "God" of his fathers, that could be an indicator he is of jewish decent. If he denies "gods" of his fathers he could be gentile of any nation.

I found two other significant verses describing the Antichrist that have been changed in Modern Bibles, so that makes three total, including the one you found. It looks like I’ll be updating my PDF. I’m also thinking of combining the point about the missing words of Jesus with the one about how certain words or verses are placed in footnotes or omitted altogether. That way, the total number of changed doctrines will still remain at 77.

So again, thank you.
May the Lord Jesus bless you greatly.


...

 

[Dino246]

Rebuttal Part 2...

To Point 5: While the words "without a cause" provide a reasonable qualification and likely Jesus' original intent, there is good reason to believe they aren't original to the text (credit to the NET Bible).

In Titus 3:10, airetikos is legitimately translated as either "heretick" (KJV) or "divisive" (NIV). That it allegedly gives reason to conclude that Jesus was wrong in bringing division is due to the reader's carelessness, not the text itself.

Several verses state clearly that Jesus was sinless, so it is flawed to conclude from any passage (or several together) that Jesus sinned in any way.


To Point 6: Re Hebrews 1:3. This appears to be an anomaly of the text. Blue Letter Bible shows the words translated "by himself" while other Greek sources don't. I would have to do more digging to see why.

No doctrine is not established by a single verse. This is not a "doctrine"; it's a verse, and I am not aware of anyone who thinks that Jesus had help in this accomplishment of purging sin, so it seems you're tilting at windmills here.


To Point 7: "The deity of Christ is watered down". The link does not work from the PDF so I can't read your rationale on this. I suspect though that you have echoed the thoroughly debunked claims that I've read elsewhere.


To Point 8: Rev 11:17 and Rev 16:5 "attacks" (sic) the triadic declaration.... No, they don't "attack" anything. That's emotional language rather than academic language, and is both inappropriate and inaccurate. You attribute motive with no evidence.

As for the texts, both echo Beza's "conjectural emendation" meaning that while they are not theologically incorrect, they don't have any basis in manuscript evidence.


To Point 9: There is no "doctrine" at issue here; you are seeing a problem where no problem exists.


To Point 10: The eternality of Jesus' body. Firstly, you have conflated two distinct issues in this point.

Secondly, given that the Church is a spiritual entity primarily and a physical entity secondarily, the reference to "flesh and bones" looks out of place. There is evidence that its inclusion here is a scribal clarification (addition).

Thirdly, Jesus was indeed made lower than the angels temporarily. That says nothing of His eternality nor of His physical body.

 

[Dino246]

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I understand that you disagree with my conclusions, but I do believe that some doctrines are indeed formed from a single verse. When a verse contains a truth that is not stated anywhere else in Scripture, its wording becomes vitally important. For example, 1 John 5:7 is the only verse that explicitly teaches the Trinity in one complete statement.

The doctrine of the trinity is NOT formed from a single verse! Not even remotely! There is nothing requiring the explicit assertion of a truth for it to be the truth.

What I demonstrate in my work is that when key words and phrases are repeatedly changed or omitted, they collectively reshape doctrine. Each example highlights how the doctrinal meaning shifts compared to the King James Bible.

So you assume that the KJV is the standard... which I categorically reject. While you can cite examples of difference, you can't demonstrate that a given doctrine (not a one-verse idea) is absent from any modern translation. Case in point: I came to the understanding of the Trinity by using the NIV, disproving your assertion regarding 1 John 5:7.

This is not emotional manipulation but a theological observation supported by textual evidence.

The problem is your choice of commentary, which often employs emotional manipulation. You echo old arguments without editing out the garbage.

Regarding Philippians 2:7 and the rendering “He emptied Himself,” when the Congregational churches and later denominations adopted this wording, it began to influence the modern kenosis view that Christ relinquished or limited His divine attributes. The KJV’s phrase “made Himself of no reputation” harmonizes with Scripture that affirms Christ’s full divinity and authority during His earthly ministry (John 5:21, 18:20). Words do matter because they shape theology, and modern translations have played a role in this shift. I have personally encountered several Christians who hold to this kenosis interpretation, claiming that Jesus laid aside His divine power while on earth. In each case, they were quoting from a modern Bible that renders Philippians 2:7 as “He emptied Himself.” This shows how translation choices can directly influence belief. The wording “made Himself of no reputation” in the King James Bible preserves the truth that Christ humbled Himself in position, not in essence. He did not cease to be God or lose any divine attribute; rather, He willingly took upon Himself the form of a servant while remaining fully divine.

Jesus did limit His divine attributes, as Inquisitor has shown. You have no argument.

 

[Dino246]

You have misunderstood my point.

Not even a little.

The issue goes beyond the wording “faith of Jesus Christ” in the KJV and begins with how Modern Bibles subtly reshape related verses about faith, especially in Hebrews 12:2. Many Modern Versions call Jesus the “pioneer” of faith. The word “pioneer” describes someone who explores or discovers new territory, as though Jesus entered faith as something unknown or previously uncharted. That is not true. Jesus did not need to pioneer faith; He is the author of it. The KJV wording “the author and finisher of our faith” shows that faith originates with Him and is completed in Him. He makes faith possible because He is both its source and its object, the One in whom all saving faith rests.

I agree that "pioneer" doesn't convey the same idea that "author" does, but again, I simply ask which is the better translation of the Greek? The Greek is the standard, and the English that best translates it is the better version, regardless of where the chips fall. You can't take a doctrine based on the KJV and project it back to force a particular translation. Again, there is good evidence that "pioneer" (as in one who takes the lead, not one who explores) is a valid translation.

With that in mind, the phrase “faith of Jesus Christ” in Romans 3:22 and Galatians 3:22 is talking about having faith in Jesus, not about Jesus Himself having faith in God as some have mistakenly claimed.

I'm well aware of that; I'm simply using your preferred translation to undermine your point. One of the other KJV-only proponents on this forum has argued repeatedly for it meaning "faith that Jesus exercises".

FYI I'm not going to respond to all of your comments. It's not that I agree, or disagree, but that I won't have time to address all 77 points when each could become its own thread.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Dear Dino:

There are two problems here. First, you seem unaware of the manuscript evidence that supports the inclusion of the words “without a cause.” Second, you are missing the larger issue. Modern Bibles repeatedly produce readings that make Jesus appear to sin. That kind of pattern fits exactly what we would expect to find in texts that have been corrupted by the enemy.

Whether you personally believe the phrase is original or not, the pattern remains. The Modern Bible readings portray a Jesus who sins, which makes them doctrinally inferior. I once had a Christian tell me that Jesus sinned, and they pointed to one of these verses in a Modern Bible to prove it. That alone shows the real-world danger of these changes. Modern Bibles do teach false doctrine, and they lead people to believe what is false.

You can check out the following links for a deeper look into this:
https://brandplucked.com/matthew522withoutcause.htm
http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/Matthew_5:22

The first link provides an excellent article from BrandPlucked analyzing why “without a cause” belongs in Matthew 5:22. The second link from the Textus Receptus site offers the manuscript and textual evidence that supports the traditional reading.

The Textus-Receptus website is run by Nick Sayers, who also hosts the video channel where I have appeared. He studies the Greek manuscripts closely and examines the claims made by Critical Text advocates.

If the site is slow to load, you may see a message that says it is not secure. You can safely bypass that. Sometimes it also says “Resource Limit Reached.” In that case, just refresh the page, try a different browser, or use the Wayback Machine. The site contains about ten thousand pages cataloguing Greek manuscripts in the Byzantine tradition, listed by the Gregory and Aland numbering system.

In Titus 3:10, airetikos is legitimately translated as either "heretick" (KJV) or "divisive" (NIV). That it allegedly gives reason to conclude that Jesus was wrong in bringing division is due to the reader's carelessness, not the text itself.

Several verses state clearly that Jesus was sinless, so it is flawed to conclude from any passage (or several together) that Jesus sinned in any way.

Saying that hairetikos can be translated either way misses the heart of the matter. A Greek word may allow for more than one possible meaning, but that does not mean every option is theologically sound. The translator’s task is not only to choose a possible word but to select the one that fits the larger message of Scripture and preserves sound doctrine.

The King James translators rightly chose heretick, referring to someone who spreads false teaching. That choice fits perfectly with the many biblical warnings against false doctrine, such as 2 Peter 2:1 and Galatians 1:8–9. Modern Bibles, on the other hand, replace that word with divisive person, which changes the focus from heresy to division. That shift creates a major doctrinal problem.

Jesus said, “I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34), and again, “Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division” (Luke 12:51). If Titus 3:10 condemns someone for being divisive, then that reading makes Jesus appear guilty of the very thing He said He came to do. That would make Him a sinner and directly contradict Hebrews 4:15, which teaches that He was without sin.

The King James Bible preserves the correct meaning. It identifies the issue as rejecting those who promote heresy, not those who cause division for the sake of truth. So even if both renderings are linguistically possible, only the KJV maintains doctrinal consistency and protects the sinless nature of Christ.

For more information, see:
https://brandplucked.com/hereticordivisive.htm

But again, you are missing the overall pattern I pointed out earlier. This is not an isolated case, nor is it a small translation difference. There are many other verses throughout Modern Bibles that follow this same pattern, repeatedly changing or omitting words in ways that are for the worse and never for the better. These changes consistently weaken doctrine, distort the nature of Christ, or alter key truths of Scripture.

This ongoing pattern cannot be ignored. It shows a consistent direction away from sound doctrine and toward error. When translation after translation continues to lower Christ, question His sinlessness, or obscure vital truths, it is not coincidence. It is clear evidence that corruption has crept into the text.

It is like a detective at a crime scene who sees the blood, the fingerprints, and the motive, yet still insists nothing happened. You have not presented any meaningful counter-evidence, only denial. Either you have not recognized the pattern or you are deliberately ignoring it.

Good discernment cannot be taught; it has to be learned. Sadly, many today, whether in politics or theology, fail to recognize patterns of deception. I have seen this personally within my own family, where someone I care about has fallen for the lies of Left Media because they never learned how to analyze evidence.

The same principle applies to the Modern Bible movement. Its history and fruit show repeated deception and distortion. Having studied their words and actions carefully, I am convinced these modern translations undermine the purity and authority of God’s Word.



....

 

[Dino246]

Dear Dino:

There are two problems here. First, you seem unaware of the manuscript evidence that supports the inclusion of the words “without a cause.” Second, you are missing the larger issue. Modern Bibles repeatedly produce readings that make Jesus appear to sin. That kind of pattern fits exactly what we would expect to find in texts that have been corrupted by the enemy.

There you go with the presumptions and emotional manipulation again. You dabble in rational arguments but default to cheap rhetoric, which is not going to convince me of anything... other than that you have potential as a low-grade politician.

In order for you to use such phrases as "texts that have been corrupted" legitimately, you MUST demonstrate FIRST that they have been corrupted. You have not done so. Instead you compare modern translations to the KJV which CANNOT prove corruption.

So, tone the rhetoric down. WAY down. It's never going to convince any thoughtful, rational person with a decent understanding of Bible history. If, however, your intent is to convince thoughtless and ignorant people, go right ahead, but I'll save my time for something more worthwhile.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

To Point 6: Re Hebrews 1:3. This appears to be an anomaly of the text. Blue Letter Bible shows the words translated "by himself" while other Greek sources don't. I would have to do more digging to see why.

No doctrine is not established by a single verse. This is not a "doctrine"; it's a verse, and I am not aware of anyone who thinks that Jesus had help in this accomplishment of purging sin, so it seems you're tilting at windmills here.

Dear Dino:

Regarding Hebrews 1:3, this is not a small or isolated matter. The words “by Himself” are important because they affirm the exclusivity and completeness of Christ’s redemptive work. When the King James Bible says that Jesus “by Himself purged our sins,” it is declaring that He alone accomplished the work of atonement. He needed no one’s help, no intercessor, no co-savior.

This wording highlights His unique role as both High Priest and Sacrifice, which is the very foundation of the message of Hebrews (see Hebrews 9:12, 9:14, and 10:12). When Modern Bibles remove the phrase “by Himself,” they weaken the clarity of this truth.

You mentioned that no one claims Jesus had help, but that is not entirely true. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Mary plays a role as Co-Redemptrix, a supposed partner with Christ in the work of redemption. While that teaching is unscriptural, it finds less resistance in Modern Bibles that omit phrases like “by Himself.”

The King James reading leaves no room for such error. It makes it absolutely clear that Jesus alone purged our sins, without assistance, without partnership, and without mediation.

You also said that “no doctrine is established by a single verse.” That claim does not hold here. A doctrine can be directly and clearly stated in one verse and supported by others that agree with it. Hebrews 1:3 is the only verse in the entire Bible that directly says that Jesus “by Himself purged our sins.”

I double-checked this carefully. There is no other verse anywhere in Scripture that states this truth in the same way or with the same words. Other passages, such as 1 Peter 2:24, describe how Jesus bore our sins, but that is not the same as purging them. Bearing refers to carrying sin to the cross, while purging speaks of the cleansing and complete removal of sin after the atonement is accomplished.

So Hebrews 1:3 stands entirely on its own as the one verse that explicitly declares that Jesus by Himself purged our sins. That is a unique statement of His finished, solitary, and perfect work of redemption.

This verse harmonizes beautifully with others that support the same doctrine, even though they do not use the same exact wording:

• 1 Peter 2:24 — “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree.”
• Hebrews 10:12 — “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God.”
• Revelation 1:5 — “Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood.”

These verses complement the message of Hebrews 1:3, but none of them directly say that He “by Himself purged our sins.” Only Hebrews 1:3 does.

Until you can point to another verse that expresses this truth as clearly and directly as Hebrews 1:3, the fact remains that this is the only place in Scripture where it is explicitly stated that Jesus, without any aid or mediator, purged our sins by Himself.


....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

There you go with the presumptions and emotional manipulation again. You dabble in rational arguments but default to cheap rhetoric, which is not going to convince me of anything... other than that you have potential as a low-grade politician.

In order for you to use such phrases as "texts that have been corrupted" legitimately, you MUST demonstrate FIRST that they have been corrupted. You have not done so. Instead you compare modern translations to the KJV which CANNOT prove corruption.

So, tone the rhetoric down. WAY down. It's never going to convince any thoughtful, rational person with a decent understanding of Bible history. If, however, your intent is to convince thoughtless and ignorant people, go right ahead, but I'll save my time for something more worthwhile.

Your rhetoric is no different. You speak the way you do because you think you are right, and I speak the way I do because I think I am right. I speak honestly from the heart on this matter. There are things I believe you are not dealing with here. This is my opinion even if you do not see it that way.

Nevertheless, I do present points that do demolish your arguments.
You need to truly deal with them.
So far, I do not consider any of your rebuttals as moving anything that I said so far.
Patterns of evidence exist in Modern Bibles showcasing changes for the worse.
That is what my PDF partly does. It's the demonstration of facts.
You are simply trying to ignore these patterns as if that somehow works.
At least, that is how I see it from my perspective.

If I were to get a lawyer, my case would actually win.
Why? Because there are clear changes in doctrine between the KJV and Modern Bibles.
If you are biased against a perfect Bible and you love having an eclectic mindset, you are never going to see it.
It's simply a fact you have to deal with.

Even if I was wrong that the KJV was not perfect (which I do not believe to be the case), the fact still stands that the KJV is different in its doctrine compared to Modern Bibles.


....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Dear Dino:

KJV has: "when he had by himself purged our sins,"
The Modern Bibles remove this because it is not in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

Both δι’ ἑαυτοῦ (“by Himself”) and ἡμῶν (“our”) are missing from Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (ℵ), and therefore also absent from the Nestle–Aland Critical Text editions (NA27, NA28, NA29, and UBS5).

So this is a textual difference and not just a translation difference.
This textual difference is a change in doctrine.



....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Dear Dino:

The complaint of a scribe, written in the margin of Codex Vaticanus at Hebrews 1:3 says:
αμαθεστατε και κακε, αφες τον παλαιον, μη μεταποιει (Fool and knave, can't you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!)


Note next to Hebrews 1:3 in Codex Vaticanus

Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are said to be the best manuscripts.
Things like this do not build my confidence in them.




Source:
http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/Hebrews_1:3

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Dear Dino:

As for my long list of verses showing how Modern Bibles water down the deity of Christ, note that the preview version of my PDF on Dropbox may take a few seconds before it jumps to the page when you click on an internal link. In fact, it may even seem at first as though you can’t click on anything—but you just need to be patient with the preview version. Keep clicking until the click action goes through, and it will eventually respond after a few seconds. If you don’t want to go through this headache, simply download the PDF to your computer, where the internal links open instantly. There are 21 verses I highlight that show that the deity of Jesus Christ are watered-down in Modern Bibles.




....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I agree that "pioneer" doesn't convey the same idea that "author" does, but again, I simply ask which is the better translation of the Greek? The Greek is the standard, and the English that best translates it is the better version, regardless of where the chips fall. You can't take a doctrine based on the KJV and project it back to force a particular translation. Again, there is good evidence that "pioneer" (as in one who takes the lead, not one who explores) is a valid translation.

I'm well aware of that; I'm simply using your preferred translation to undermine your point. One of the other KJV-only proponents on this forum has argued repeatedly for it meaning "faith that Jesus exercises".

FYI I'm not going to respond to all of your comments. It's not that I agree, or disagree, but that I won't have time to address all 77 points when each could become its own thread.

You say there is good evidence that “pioneer” is a valid translation of archēgos, but that simply does not hold up when you consider both the linguistic history of the word and its doctrinal implications. Let us start with the meaning of pioneer. In every stage of English usage, a pioneer has never meant simply a “leader.” The word has always implied entering or exploring new territory. The Collins Dictionary, for example, defines a pioneer as “one of the first people to be involved in and develop” a particular area of activity. That is the problem right there. It describes a participant, not merely an originator. A pioneer joins in and takes part in whatever he leads.

So when you say Jesus is the “pioneer of faith,” you are implying that He participated in faith, that He was involved in faith as one of the first to experience or practice it. But that is a completely different theology from what Hebrews 12:2 teaches. Faith, by definition (Hebrews 11:1), is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. But Jesus does not believe in something unseen. He is one with the Father (John 10:30). He does not exercise faith in God as fallen man does. Rather, He is the object of our faith. He authors it; He does not join in it.

That is why the KJV’s “author and finisher of our faith” is not only theologically correct but contextually perfect. Archēgos can indeed mean “leader,” but its primary force is “originator” or “source.” The KJV’s use of “author” captures that sense exactly. It also perfectly complements “finisher” (teleiōtēs), showing that Jesus begins and completes faith. He is the divine origin and the consummation of it. But the modern rendering pioneer not only weakens that truth; it distorts it. “Leading the way in faith” can only mean that He walked that way Himself, that He exercised faith. That places Him within the same category as believers, not above it. It makes Him the first believer, not the source of belief.

And the fact is, pioneer has never meant merely a “leader” without also meaning one who explores or enters new territory, whether in land discovery, science, or any other field. The very essence of the word implies venturing into something new or unknown. But Jesus, being the eternal, omniscient Son of God, did not discover or enter faith. He authored it. So while the Greek archēgos could be translated “pioneer” in a general sense, contextually it does not fit. The verse is not describing Jesus entering faith, but rather originating it. Pioneer introduces ideas of exploration, discovery, and participation, none of which apply to Him.

Therefore, while “pioneer” may sound appealing to modern ears, it introduces a serious doctrinal flaw. It implies that Christ was blazing a trail of faith He Himself walked, rather than originating faith itself as its divine Author. The KJV’s rendering not only avoids that pitfall but upholds the correct theology, Jesus as the source, not the participant, of faith.

Yes, I agree that “faith of Jesus Christ” means faith in Jesus Christ. The KJV is not wrong; it is simply written in older English. Some misunderstand the phrase because they read it with modern eyes, but in 1611 the wording faith of Christ naturally meant faith directed toward Him, not faith that He exercised. The problem is not with the translation but with how people today interpret older English forms. There are also many archaic words that KJV believers must learn, such as conversation or let, which carry different meanings than our modern counterparts. But the KJV having a few old words does not make it inferior by any means just because some may misunderstand it. In fact, we do not desire to modernize or change Shakespeare simply because it uses older forms of English, and the same respect should be shown toward the KJV. Its language is deliberate, reverent, and precise, and believers should approach it with prayer and discernment.



....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

The doctrine of the trinity is NOT formed from a single verse! Not even remotely! There is nothing requiring the explicit assertion of a truth for it to be the truth.

Whether you agree with the legitimacy of the Comma or not, no other verse gives us a direct reference to the Trinity besides 1 John 5:7 in the KJV. No other verse says it like that directly. All other verses are just indirect references to the Trinity and not direct ones. This is just a fact. I have a superior Bible because I can defend the Trinity with a direct verse. All you have is indirect references or inferences. Unitarians love to bring up how the Comma is not legit to defend their false Unitarianism. I actually have good evidences for believing in the Comma. Just read the PDF and watch the videos.

The problem is your choice of commentary, which often employs emotional manipulation. You echo old arguments without editing out the garbage.

Westcott and Hort actually deceived people about the removal of the Comma by moving the last sentence in verse 6 to verse 7 without telling their readers about it. This deception continued with later translators by their rewording the beginning of verse 8 and moving it to verse 7 to fill in the missing Comma.

Consider this: When people are deceived, does it illicit an emotional response from them?

Jesus did limit His divine attributes, as Inquisitor has shown. You have no argument.

Uh yeah, thats not really any kind of rebuttal with substance. You have go through my list of Bible verses on page 104 of my PDF and explain how the plain words in Scripture does not mean what they say. I provided verses showing how Jesus suppressed His Omniscience. I also provided a good list of verses showing how Jesus had used His own power as the second person of the Trinity during His earthly ministry, as well. Just go to page 8 in table of contents and click on page 104 next to the title called, "Jesus' Nature and Names" Note: Again, I would recommend downloading the PDF for the internal links to work faster.


....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Whenever an eternal God takes on a human form you would expect that many attributes are discarded.

Modern Bibles like the NLT teach that He gave up His divine privileges in Philippians 2:7 or that He emptied himself according to other Modern Bibles. However, this translation was more of a modern development. The Kenosis Theology is a modern development.

For one Jesus gave up His eternal state and could really die.

When the Word was made flesh, the Word or the Son of God did not lose His eternal deity or nature as God.
What died was His physical human body that He was given. However, the spirit portion of Jesus who is the second person of the Trinity can never die because the triune God is eternal.

Jesus relies on the power of Holy Spirit.

Yes, He did, and He also operated miracles by God the Father, too.
But Jesus also actively used His own power as the Son of God during His earthly ministry, as well.

1. Jesus said He has power to raise the dead to life just as the Father had power to
raise the dead (John 5:21). Please take note that this was said in context after Jesus
healed the man at the pool of Bethesda. Jesus was also saying this when the
Pharisees were upset that he did this healing on the Sabbath. So when Jesus says He
can raise the dead, like the Father can, He is laying claim to ownership to this
miracle He just did. Yes, Jesus did not bring this man at the pool back from the dead.
But he did make his legs that were dead to come back alive and He also no doubt had
led this man to trust in Him (Which is spiritual life). So this is an example of Jesus
acting on behalf of his own power. Jesus does nothing of Himself alone without the
Father. Yet, Jesus said that what He sees the Father do (like healing miracles), He
also can do likewise (See: John 5:19).

2. Jesus had the power to forgive sins and give eternal life (Mark 2:7) (Luke 7:44-50)
(John 14:6). This is clearly an act of God here. Only God can truly absolve sin in
regard to our salvation and give us eternal life. No man could ever do this. So clearly
Jesus is exercising His divine power as God on Earth. There are several examples in
Scripture of Jesus forgiving others their sins (Which is clearly a divine act or power
of God alone). Jesus also extended eternal life to others by pointing to Himself. Only
God can truly have this power.

3. Jesus had power to take on our sins & Jesus had power to take away the sins of the
entire world (John 1:29). .Jesus took away the sins of the world by His death. Only God
could do this. Jesus took on our sins in the Garden of Gethsemane in His body. He
sweat great drops of blood in this process. No human could do this. Only God could.
God is our Savior and not some mere man. Yes, Jesus had a flesh and blood body. No
doubt about it. But no mere man has any power for such a task. Only God could truly
have the power and strength to carry and take away our sin. In other words, man
cannot resist all of his own sin of his own power, and yet for a man to take on the
whole sins of the world? Not possible by the strength or power of some mere man
alone. Truly the divine power of the eternal Word was at work here.

4. Jesus Christ said wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there I am
among them (Matthew 18:20). This was said to the people he was around and not to
just us today. Meaning, Jesus can be in His spirit among other believers who went
away to some other location. Remember, God is Omnipresent. Jesus can be
anywhere in His spirit as He desires because He is God. No man has such a power
or ability. Only God has this ability.

5. Jesus can make His home or abode inside of us if we keep His commandments
(John 14:15). This is a part of His divine power and or abilities as God. Humans
born to two parents cannot make their homes inside other people. Jesus did not
say he would only do this after His resurrection, either. He said it to those around
Him and therefore Jesus would have exercised this power because some follower of
His would have strived to keep His commands.

6 “This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth
his glory; and his disciples believed on him.” (John 2:11). This was a direct
statement. Meaning, Christ’s miracle at the wedding of Cana manifested His
glory. This was his first miracle done by Jesus, and it was a part of His showing
forth His deity as God. The apostle John did not say that the Lord Jesus manifested
the Holy Spirit’s glory, but His own glory. So when Jesus turned water into wine
(unfermented wine), it was an act that manifested His own power as the Son of
God.

7. ”And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be
glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.” (John 14:13-
14). This was said by Jesus before the cross, and answering prayers is definitely a
divine act of God. Please pay close attention to what Jesus said. He said, “I will do
it“ in reference to answering prayer. So if a person prays for a healing in His
name, he will do it. He will be the One who will heal them and do it.

8. Hebrews 1:3 talks about how Christ held all things together by the word of His
power when He purged us of our sins.

9. Jesus said, He would raise up this Temple (His body) three days later (John 2:19).
This aligns with the words of Jesus elsewhere when He said, "Therefore doth my
Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man
taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I
have power to take it again.” (John 10:17-18). This commandment have I received of
my Father." These statements by our Lord highlights His divine authority over His
own life and death.

Two, Jesus is no longer omnipotent,

Nope. That's not true. Again, Hebrews 1:3 talks about how Christ held all things together by the word of His
power when He purged us of our sins.

Three, Jesus not longer knows all things.

I believe Jesus suppressed His Omniscience.
Its not that He lost it or it was taken away.
Think of it like a person who can see, but they put on a blind fold.
They still have eyes that are healthy and can be used, but they are merely restricted, and not gone.
I say this because God's natural ability is to know all things.
Otherwise He would not be God.

Four, Jesus is no longer omnipresent.

Nope. That's not true. John 3:13 says, "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." The part that says, "which is in heaven." is removed in modern Bibles. Meaning, Jesus is one with the Father, and the Father was in Heaven. So this is how Jesus can be in Heaven while also talking with Nicodemus.
Jesus Christ said wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there I am
among them (Matthew 18:20). This means, Jesus was among believers in the time of His ministry in His spirit when two or three gathered in His name.

Five, Jesus has to sleep, eat, walk, and tolerate that no one knows whom He is, the creator.

Yes, there is no argument here. I agree that Jesus took on human flesh by a miracle through the virgin Mary.
This naturally means He got hungry, tired, and had to walk at times with His human body.

Six, Jesus has only one future and that is a horrible crucifixion.
Seven, Jesus has to tolerate rejection, insults, etc.

Yes, no argument here. Jesus is the Savior. He is the Messiah. He has fulfilled tons of Messianic prophecies to suffer and die in our place, and raise from the dead three days later.

Eight, Jesus had to completely rely on His Father from birth to death.

"For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will." (John 5:21).

Jesus gave up His Lordship of everything and was merely a servant in so many ways.

Jesus did become a servant and become obedient unto death for our salvation. But Jesus was also worshiped and called Lord and Jesus also commanded His disciples to do certain things. Yes, Jesus spoke and said everything the Father told Jesus to do, but Jesus was playing the role as Lord in many ways during His earthly ministry, even though He was also humble and obedient, too.


....

 

[Inquisitor]

Modern Bibles like the NLT teach that He gave up His divine privileges in Philippians 2:7 or that He emptied himself according to other Modern Bibles. However, this translation was more of a modern development. The Kenosis Theology is a modern development.

Jesus was fully human.

The Word was omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal.

Your saying that Jesus was omnipotent but not omniscient nor omnipresent, and immortal.

Seems like a hit and miss affair.

 

[Dino246]

Dear Dino:

As for my long list of verses showing how Modern Bibles water down the deity of Christ, note that the preview version of my PDF on Dropbox may take a few seconds before it jumps to the page when you click on an internal link. In fact, it may even seem at first as though you can’t click on anything—but you just need to be patient with the preview version. Keep clicking until the click action goes through, and it will eventually respond after a few seconds. If you don’t want to go through this headache, simply download the PDF to your computer

No. I will not download anything and open the door to viruses or spyware. Fix your document so the links work properly.