Subtraction of some verses from the Bible, why and who is to be blamed

[saved34]

As I stated earlier, I didn't start out KJV only, so I am on the opposite side of those who were once KJV only and no longer are.  I was not KJV only, but now I am.  There are several reasons why I am KJV only, but it started over verses left out of the new translations.

 

That's great brother, but you are making an argument that I am not. I'm not against the KJV, neither do I call it a perversion. 

 

 

The reason I reject that argument is because the others were in use in the church, and as a result of the natural aging process, they had to be copied over and over.  I have absolutely no reason to believe the text of the Alexandrian manuscripts are older,

 

Again, another argument that I am not making. I realize the reality of the "differences" in manuscripts, I could careless which is older. The totality of truth is the same in your preferred version and mine. Age is never a barometer for truth. Before the Apostles had even died off, we had wolves coming in and trying to corrupt the word. This predates any "versions" or translations we have today.

 

 

I hear people defend the corrupt new translations, because so many people are being deceived as a result of them.

 

Ok, prove it. What do you know concerning God's truth that we don't. How are we being decieved? What Orthodox truth of our faith are we denying because we read different versions? That is a pretty hamfisted thing to say without any facts whatsoever. I'll patiently wait though.

 

 

1.  When verses are left out, or put in question as to whether or not they belong, it brings into question the reliability of the entire Bible.

 

Only if you set up, and argue from a false pretense to begin with. I believe the Bible 100% and like I posted above, I have staked my very life on it. You are arguing from a position that is not mine. I was saved through believing the message of this book, and believe in the Messiah, whom I have never seen, but love, because he got his message to me through this book and the power of the Holy Spirit. Another completely false argument. At least as it pertains to me.

 

What happens if there are more discoveries in the future, and older parchments are found with portions of scripture on them that leaves out more of the text?

 

This will not happen, we have had many pop up with new text, and "books" that people think should be added to the cannon of scripture, but none of them match up doctrinally. The Holy Spirit, through the Church has and will guard the truth. There is nothing missing by these so called "missing" verses, doctrinally the NIV, NASB, and KJV are all on one accord. The Trinity, the Blood atonement, Salvation by faith through grace, The Virgin Birth, etc, etc, nothing is missing.

 

2.  This opens up a can of worms over whether or not our Bibles can be trusted when it comes to being reliable.  If you have a controversy, a person can claim it was a mistranslation, and write something off.

 

Only when arguing from a false stand point, will this ever become a problem. No one can ever write off True Bible doctrine and be accepted in Orthodox Christianity. Ask the Jehovah Witnesses, or Catholics, or Mormons, etc. 

 

I will address the rest of your post in another post so I can keep the posts from becoming to gaudy and long. Part 2 coming shortly

[saved34]

I have seen preachers do sermons where they use half a dozen translations to create their doctrinal position.  If they used a single translation, the entire sermon would be obviously false, but by translation shopping, you can make the Bible say anything you want.

 

That's not a translation problem, that's a false preacher problem. The translations teach the exact same Bible truths. I mean, there are many false cults who preach out of the KJV, and find ways to change the message. In fact many cults prefer it. Let's not go down that slippery slope my friend. 

 

If you listen to the Catholic mass, which I have from time to time on satellite radio, you hear them read from their new Bible translation, and you can hear obvious bias everywhere.

 

Not for nothing, but the KJV was translated by a Catholic. He even transliterated scriptures straight from Latin instead of the Greek original. The 1611 even had the Apocrypha in it. That is a poor argument against translations

 

Do people that use new translation lack anything KJV only believers don't lack?  Yes.  First of all, we fully trust our Bible, to the point we don't question it.

 

This doesn't even make sense. I didn't fully trust my Bible, I would not be a Christian. You are confusing textual criticism with lack of trust. The KJV translators practiced textual criticism as they felt the need to bring a more up to date and true to the original translation to the people. I has nothing to do with whether I fully trust the Bible. The Bible is truth, and I believe the truths found in it.  Your position makes you have to argue from this flawed logic, where myself and many others are not constrained by such false boundaries. 

 

We don't feel the need to learn Greek and Hebrew to believe what we have.  We don't feel the need to have a stack of translations on our desk just to try to figure something out.

 

So now, studying is equated to "trying to figure SOMETHING out"? You're arguing from a purely personal stand point now. Many KJV scholars would disagree with this wild statement. For the record, no, you don't have to study Greek or Hebrew. I'm nowhere near a Greek scholar, but considering it is the original language we got our translations from, you might want to check it out now and then. lol

 

We just believe what we read is God's Word and follow it as written.

 

Here we have the most problematic part of KJV Onlyism. I can't even really respond to a statement like this without it coming off as an attack. Not just aimed at you Butero, because KJV onlyism did not start with you, but pure sectarianism at it's finest. For no Biblical reason at all. Forgive me, but it has to be said.

 

Those who use new translations will admit they believe all translations have mistakes in them.  I don't look at my Bible as having mistakes in it.

 

​"Mistakes, or mistranslated, or better use of the language? You believe the KJV  translators should call the Holy Spirit "it"? Is that a perfect translation for The Third member of the Trinity? No, it should be "He". It taints nothing in the entirety of truth, and it brings out the text for better understanding to the reader. Just an example. We have a plethora of good English translations, and God is preserving his word mightliy through them. 

 

 

I just trust it and follow it.  Simple.  Of course, those who are KJV only are going to be in a better place if they encounter a demon possessed person with a devil that doesn't want to leave.  We know that sometimes, you must give time to prayer and fasting, not just prayer.

 

So, not only do the New version readers not trust their Bibles and follow it's teachings, they now have an inferiority to KJV onlyist when it comes to casting out demons as well? All based off the text in Matthews which says Prayer and fasting in the KJV? Faith, is the actual theme our Lord was teaching in those passages, not fasting. You want to create a new doctrine out of this one verse? Ok, let's rightly divide the word of God, give me the full Doctrine from any Epistle, or Gospel that supports fasting to "cast out demons". Fasting may come into play, but it is Faith and Prayer which is the theme as our Lord scolded them for having little faith.

 

Everyone is free to use any translation they want, but I am solidly KJV only, plan to stay KJV only, and plan to continue to openly come against the new translations, in spite of the fact it breaks some people's hearts.  I believe my exposing them breaks the devil's heart.

 

You see, that is not a real argument at all though. No one has told you that the KJV is corrupt, or not to read it. It's not a matter of whether you stop attacking the new versions, we are all pretty much set in our ways, so thinking you will change because of a forum post is crazy. It's more so about putting truth out there for others. Truth against perceived truth. You have not presented one verse of scripture, one jot where God has made the KJV the defacto Bible for the English Speaking people. It is all your personal feelings on the matter. I personally love the KJV so I'm not at the same crossroads you are. 

 

I was told there are no Biblical reasons to be KJV only.  You can't say that anymore.  I just gave you some.

 

I'm sorry, but I must have missed your facts from the word of God on why you want to make the KJV the only Bible that God wants us to use. Can you please give me the scriptures you are using for making your statements as Biblical facts? If it's not of Faith it is a sin, and faith comes from the Word. I'll be waiting, unless you admit it's just your personal feelings and opinions. 

 

I was told those who are KJV only have a bias because they were raised KJV only.  I wasn't raised KJV only.

 

Honestly, I don't think that matters in this discussion. Those are your personal opinions, and not Biblical facts. You(not just you) have pretty much created a new doctrine and dogma without any solid Biblical backing. God never once mentioned one English version, and never once said he would preserve his word through King James. 

 

I am KJV only because I have seen how the new translations have perverted God's Word, and left things out.  I have seen how the new translations have brought Biblical truth into question.

 

Again I challenge you, what truth is left out? The Bible is about Christ and his redemption of mankind. What is left out, how are the good modern versions changing the truth of Orthodox Christianity?  

[another_poster]

 

I was told there are no Biblical reasons to be KJV only.  You can't say that anymore.  I just gave you some.  You can disagree with my reasons, but I do have reasons.  I was told those who are KJV only have a bias because they were raised KJV only.  I wasn't raised KJV only.  I didn't used to be KJV only.  I used to use a Parallel Bible with the KJV on one side and the NIV on the other.  You can't make that claim anymore, because in my case, it isn't true.  I am KJV only because I have seen how the new translations have perverted God's Word, and left things out.  I have seen how the new translations have brought Biblical truth into question. 

No you did not give a single biblical reason. You gave reasons why you believe the KJV is a more accurate translation but that is not a biblical reason.

 

Also bringing in a translation made by a group acknowledged as a cult and not a christian group as an argument is pretty poor form. 

 

I understand you have your reasons and if that is what you choose then go for it. I have no issue. My only issue is when you make statements that sound arrogant and belittling to others by suggesting we are corrupted and uneducated.

 

In regards to original language argument you made the issue I have with your approach is that there are seven different words in the original languages that are translated as 'love'. Unless one looks at what the original one used then you don't get what it means. Of course if you had explained why my example of problems with word for word translations was not valid then that would strengthen your argument and make me think. However you never addressed it.

[amor]

Of course if you view these as omissions then you would see the NIV as being at fault, if you see them rather as the removal of very early additions then you would see the KJV as being in error.

Dealing with variations in ancient texts is difficult.

[another_poster]

 Again, I want a valid explanation as to why those verses should have been left out, and why those two early manuscripts are the most reliable?  I have never heard a valid answer to that question from any new translation defender. 

 

I have never heard a valid answer as to why the KJV is more reliable.

 

 

 

How do I know the new translations are corrupt, and people are being deceived by them?  That is actually rather easy.  They don't agree with each other in their entirety.   

and the KJV doesn't agree in entirety with manuscripts that came before it so according to your logic the KJV is not a valid translation. No having it both way thankyou. I will not accept an argument that relies on double standards.

 

 

 It isn't in Revelation, so I guess I have nothing to fear, hugh? 

only in your opinion. Oh and I find churches are very much in favour of preaching the great commission and encouraging people to follow it. So personally I don't know where you get that from. I am not talking about one individual church but many different churches over many different denominations.

 

 

 

Where is the deception?  How are people being deceived by the new translations?  They are being deceived into believing the new translations are being translated from more reliable manuscripts, when there isn't one shred of evidence to prove that is the case.  It is a baseless claim made by the translators.  They are being deceived into thinking that portions of the text they believed were the Word of God really didn't belong, based on this false claim.  You may say, I cannot prove that those manuscripts are less reliable than the others, but here is the point.  These people make a baseless claim, they place it in their translations, and people believe it.  Are you prepared to explain why the Alexandrian and Egyptian text is more reliable than the others?  You admit age isn't a good way to determine anything, so how do you defend this comment throughout the new translations?  

However unlike you I don't take a position on this. You also are making a baseless claim and are therefore just as guilty as the people you criticise.

 

 

 

As for Greek and Hebrew, if I fully trust my English translation is correct, I don't need to know Greek and Hebrew.  I don't have a Bible in Greek and Hebrew.  I don't question if my Bible is mistranslated, because it is perfect.  As such, I can fully rely on what it says in English.  The only thing I use Greek and Hebrew for is a Dictionary.  I don't need it to read the text in Greek and Hebrew. anslated to English.  I do that myself.  So long as the best corresponding English word was used when translating from Greek or Hebrew to English, I am satisfied I have the truth. 

If thats the way you want to go then thats fine. However it does absoutely nothing to address my concerns.

 

[another_poster]

If God didn't preserve his Word through the KJV Bible, then it wasn't preserved.  You may say, that is a bold statement?  I can say that based on the fact that the various translations are not identical.  If they are not identical, and even call into question part of the text, the Bible has not been preserved.  Part of the Bible was preserved, but not all of it, or if it has, which one?  When I have one Bible saying prayer and fasting, and another saying prayer, they can't both be the preserved Word of God.  One can be, but not both.  When I have Mark 16:1-20 in one Bible, but only Mark 16:1-8 in another, they cannot both be right.  I would say my KJV Bible has the preserved Word of God.  It preserved the Bible in it's entirety, where the new translations left things out.  It doesn't have to mention the KJV Bible by name for me to see it is the preserved Word of God.  

So your argument is that God couldn't care less about preserving his word and then suddenly decided Hey I should preserve my word and create the KJV! How can you justify such a belief? Please don't be insulting by denying it because that is the only position you can hold with the views you have expressed unless you are happy to contradict yourself.

 

 

 

There are ways to pervert the gospel easier when you have multiple translations than when you must stick with one.  You can reach from a host of translations and paraphrases and twist the Bible into knots.  It goes like this.  You start with one text, and then you move on and say the NIV says this best, and the RSV, says this best.  The Living Bible makes this plain, and The Book really brings out this point.  It is much harder when you have to stick with a single, reliable translation. 

 

This is a strawman argument from you. I have been to churches where they have a policy of using the one translation in all services. So it is not an issue. It also is not an issue if you accept that people are not perfect. I was taught to always check what people preach to see if it lines up with the bible and I have questioned a number of people on their teaching.

 

 

Again, I have shown you things left out.  I am not satisfied with this junk about major doctrines being left in tact.  I don't find leaving any of the text out acceptable.  I don't find it acceptable leaving out the great commission and the signs that follow those who believe.  I don't find it acceptable leaving the word fasting out of the text.  

Yet the claim made is that it removes doctrines so if you accept the argument or not is meaningless as argument being made that that statement is a RESPONSE to is that it changes doctrine. The claim is false. Since it is an answer to a claim it does not have to fit your additional view.

 

 

I will briefly address the issues of translation problems when you have multiple words in Greek that must be translated to one word in English.  I understand that is the case, like in the example of words translated to love.  I have no problem with using a Greek Dictionary to see which Greek word was translated to English.  I do that myself.  So long as the best corresponding English word was used when translating from Greek or Hebrew to English, I am satisfied I have the truth. 

How do you know the best word has been chosen? Once again I have shown why word for word translations like the KJV can cause problems in understanding and you have never answered that. 

[Guest shiloh357]

Another Poster makes a good point.  Why didn't God preserve his word prior to the KJV??  Why is the KJV (a revision of  six earlier English translations) the only preserved set of Scriptures  in English and why wouldn't God have preserved His word in English prior to 1611?

[OneLight]

There is not one version of scripture that is 100% complete, or accurate.  They are all translations.  People spend far too much time trying to prove one over another, time wasted, in my view.  The Holy Spirit will witness with the readers spirit when the reader studies scripture.  He has the only truth.  All we have is our simple minds.  Without Him, we all would remain ignorant and lost.

[Alex Summers]

Or, why couldnt the first 1611 KJV bible be mistake free?

[OneLight]

Or, why couldnt the first 1611 KJV bible be mistake free?

 

Try reading the thread ...