King James Onlyism supported

[dhchristian]

Just now, DustyRoad said:

I never had an issue with grasping that Jesus Christ is God and seeing as how the NASB is the primary translation I use for study, I continue to experience no issues with that. Who spoke to Moses from the burning bush? Who gave the Law to him? Who did Jacob see (and the wrestle) at Peniel? It seems to me you're splitting hairs,

I Not saying that you won't find it therein, My Point is that despite the attacks The truth wins out.  As I said earlier any version can lead you to the gospel and to salvation, But once you are saved you will find that these "newer" versions are watered down of the Power they possess for dealing with things such as demons. 

For example, and this should hit close to home for you, There is a demon possessed boy in Matthew 17 who has seizures and runs into fires (Self harming/suicidal). The Disciples were powerless to cast this one out and the reason why is found in Matthew 17:21

Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. (KJV)

Now the NIV omits this verse altogether, There is no verse 21 there, while the NASB footnotes it, saying there is some question as to whether it should be there. Well if this Demon only goes away by only prayer and fasting should we not KNOW this? Is this not the whole point of how and why the disciple were powerless to cast this devil out? Was this just a mistake by the KJV translators that put this verse there? or was this a deliberate attempt to make Christians powerless against this demonic spirit?

By Placing the Article In front LORD in 1 Cor 12:3, this test of the Spirit has a power to weed out false Christians, I Know this because I have used this several times to expose Mormons and JW's amongst us primarily (Not here, But on other forums) They cannot and will not say that Jesus is THE Lord. This is no different than what the JW'S do with John 1:1 as outlined in the OP here. One little article changed makes a world of difference. So IS this me "splitting hairs" Or observing something that is deeply troubling? You decide. 

I Do Realize the Holy Ghost will protect His Word from corruption, and no matter what they do to conceal the deity of Christ Jesus, they will fail, But my main concern is that these things are used to justify unbelief, and false belief in a different Jesus and another Gospel giving a false Hope to many people who will then later complain "Lord, Lord, did we not..." 

[Jayne]

10 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

I Not saying that you won't find it therein, My Point is that despite the attacks The truth wins out.  As I said earlier any version can lead you to the gospel and to salvation, But once you are saved you will find that these "newer" versions are watered down of the Power they possess for dealing with things such as demons. 

For example, and this should hit close to home for you, There is a demon possessed boy in Matthew 17 who has seizures and runs into fires (Self harming/suicidal). The Disciples were powerless to cast this one out and the reason why is found in Matthew 17:21

Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. (KJV)

As I have said, I like the King James.  It is not my primary Bible however.  As I said to the OP a few pages back, for the NIV or any other modern version to have "left out" a verse that would mean that the King James and the NIV would have had to have been translated from the same document.  They were not, so how can the NIV "leave out" a verse?

Your verse in question is not in the oldest manuscripts available.  The very oldest manuscripts have been discovered after the King James was translated from much newer texts.

The only logical answer to this is that some scribes somewhere transferred Mark 9:29 over to Matthew 17:21 since it is the same story.

It's not a matter of leaving out, but of older manuscripts being closer to the originals and newer ones having marginal notes and additions.

Modern translations have not willfully removed anything from the King James as the King James is not the standard.  The originals and the earliest of manuscripts are the standard.

There are about 16 or so verses in the King James that are not in the oldest of manuscripts.  I have looked at the them all over the years.  These additions do not conflict with the meaning of  the oldest manuscripts and I have no problem reading the King James or the NIV or the ESV or the Geneva.

 

[dhchristian]

2 hours ago, walla299 said:

Before anyone freaks out: I'm not saying the KJV is bad. I'm saying modern folks (especially new believers!) usually need to get their feet on the ground first. The "best" Bible translation is one that someone can read and understand. The Lord will lead them from there.

Thankyou for stating it this way. The LORD led me away from the NIV, despite being under the tutelage of one of the translators of the NIV, a Christian and a very intelligent person. this is not about salvation, but a watered down bible in my opinion, and that is my opinion. If I find a verse hard to understand in the KJV, I have an ESV here that I also use. I Like it because it is more literary in style, But for doctrine I have found the KJV is better, especially with regard to getting into the finer doctrines of the faith. Also, Use a concordance such as Strong's as this will help also. Some Words in the Greek or Hebrew do not have English equivalents. Or are more nuanced in meaning For example in the Greek there are 2 words for the concept of "Before" One means before as in sequence and time, the other means in front of. Where this comes into play is in rev. 13:12 where the word before is referring to in front of and not Before as in sequence. I have seen many timelines out there that have the beast ruling first, and then the false prophet is his successor, In fact Muslim eschatology is largely based on this in a negative way. The False prophet rules along side of the first beast of rev. 13, meaning their rule is concurrent with one another. In Fact, the KJV is less clear on this than the NIV and NASB etc.

There is also Daniel 9:27, where the words Midst of are used in the KJV and for half of the week are used in the ESV, Both are the right way to translate the words there and there is precedent for both translations, but they make the passage mean totally different things, and the timelines that result from them will be vastly different. The translation I believe is accurate is the ESV in this passage, which is based on many other scriptures that verify this such as the Olivet discourse.

So For me it is not that the other versions are bad it is that they have some changes that make the Word of God watered down, But if you are KJV only you can still be led into errors, because of the inaccuracies in the translation. As far as doctrine goes IMO the KJV is the most accurate.

 

  

[LadyKay]

28 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

"newer" versions are watered down of the Power they possess for dealing with things such as demons. 

Can you back this up? Like...well I don't know maybe with some facts or something?

Quote

My Point is that despite the attacks

There are no attacks taking place here. Just fellow Christians having a discussion. 

Quote

Now the NIV omits this verse altogether, There is no verse 21 

It is at the bottom of the NIV in a footnote. In my Holman Student Bible is in included in the chapter with ( ) around it with a footnote at the bottom explaining that other manuscripts omit it. 

I think I covered why this was. That being was that it is thought that the verse was added by mistake in the KJV. These verses are not found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. Modern translators include  them in footnotes.  

 

Quote

But my main concern is that these things are used to justify unbelief, and false belief in a different Jesus and another Gospel giving a false Hope to many people who will then later complain "Lord, Lord, did we not..." 

 

I don't see the NIV giving "false hope" to anyone. It tells the story of salvation just as the King James dose. Nothing more nothing less. 

[dhchristian]

Just now, Jayne said:

Your verse in question is not in the oldest manuscripts available.  The very oldest manuscripts have been discovered after the King James was translated from much newer texts.

The only logical answer to this is that some scribes somewhere transferred Mark 9:29 over to Matthew 17:21 since it is the same story.

It's not a matter of leaving out, but of older manuscripts being closer to the originals and newer ones having marginal notes and additions.

Here is what the KJV people will point you to, and that is that it is not the Oldest that is always the most reliable. One of these codex which has been used is now being discovered to be a forgery. read the Link below.

https://www.jesus-is-lord.com/sinaiticus.htm

This is the codex that causes the resurrection account in mark to be left out, and the parts of John 8 dealing with the Woman caught in adultery, or the changes to Mark 1:1, and if this is what they are basing these translations on and it turns out to be a forgery, then all those versions are based on a corrupt text. 

Some of the Other manuscripts come out of Alexandria Egypt, which was the hotbed of Gnosticism, that the Apostle John wrote against in his epistles, Many of these texts were altered to reflect this Gnostic viewpoint. The Lineage the KJV takes comes through Antioch which was the birthplace of Christianity, and where Christians were first called Christians.

These are all fact that you need to know and understand, this is not a competition to see which version is supreme for me, but to get you to see that this is a more complex issue than what your preference is. Educate yourself on all sides of this debate, Older is not always better, Let the Holy Spirit teach you the truth and do not appeal to antiquity as superiority.... The KJVers also tend to do this especially the purists who push for the 1611 KJV.

 

[LadyKay]

This is a wonderful site for Bible reading and study. https://www.biblegateway.com/

It has many man translations of the Bible.  I highly recommend it for study. 

[LadyKay]

8 minutes ago, Cletus said:

so... in a nutshell you did not cover everything.  you dropped the ball on everything. 

I did not drop the ball on nothing. You are refusing to accept what is fact. Refusing to expand your knowledge of things. It has been explain to you why certain verses were omitted from the NIV. Yet you refuse to accept this fact. Well I can't help any of that.  How does that saying go? You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink?  Well anyway, I have enjoyed this discussion and I like looking up facts and Bible verse so that was fun. But now I think it time for me to go. Take care and God Bless.  

[dhchristian]

Just now, LadyKay said:

35 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

"newer" versions are watered down of the Power they possess for dealing with things such as demons. 

Can you back this up? Like...well I don't know maybe with some facts or something?

I Did, click on the links I posted, read what I wrote about Matthew 17, 1 Cor, 12:3 etc. these are just some examples. And I will give you one other one, a most important one...

 

Mark 1:1The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah,[fn] the Son of God,[fn] (NIV)

Notice the footnotes on this verse, the Son of God is placed into dubious position on this doctrine that Jesus is the Sone of God. "The manuscript that leaves this out that resulted in this footnote.... You guessed it.... the Codex Sinaiticus, the one that is believed to be a forgery https://www.jesus-is-lord.com/sinaiticus.htm 

Why is this important, because Mark is considered to be the earliest Gospel written. Thus, this affirmation of the deity of Christ before his baptism by John is vital to the doctrine of Jesus being eternal God, and not a man who became God when he was baptized by John as some false religions claim (JW's). Now with Mark being the earliest Gospel, and doubt can be placed on this essential doctrine of the church with a simple footnote, the next step is to say the later Gospels added the deity of Christ to them after the fact. Do You see how this works yet? 

I MA just presenting facts here so that you can be informed, an appeal to antiquity is not always the best thing and if the codex that they claim these translations off of is a forgery then all those versions based on Codex Sinaiticus are forgeries as well. The Niv being the primary one. This is why even footnotes matter. If You are a Christian and the Holy Ghost is in you this is less of aproblem because he will confirm the eternal Sonship of Jesus to you, But for the masses who do not hear this will give them pause to doubt the claims, and open the door to false teachers, teachings.  

6 minutes ago, LadyKay said:

I don't see the NIV giving "false hope" to anyone. It tells the story of salvation just as the King James dose. Nothing more nothing less. 

Have I not said here, I have seen many come to Christ using an NIV placed by the Gideon's in a hotel room? Your getting defensive because the facts here are "scary" to think about especially if you are a fan of the NIV. But that is what they are facts that you need to understand as a student of the Word of God. I have an ESV and a KJV in front of me here now, I own an NIV that I rarely use, but there was a time I did use that soelely in my study. I Know more of the facts now, soI no longer use the NIV and use the ESV selectively to help me understand the wording better. But ultimately We should all use multiple sources. I am not KJVOnly I Would classify myself as KJV primarily if you want to put a label on me. I acknowledge that there are translation errors in the KJV, and we need to look at the Original languages to fully understand this, But if the sources of those Original languages themselves are forgery, what do we stand on? The Holy Ghost. 

Please, just educate yourself on this. I Also invite KJV only people to educate themselves by watching James White's video on the Topic as well who promotes the newer versions as well. 

[ayin jade]

3 hours ago, dhchristian said:

 

How does this test of the Spirit work, if you ask a non-believer (A wolf in sheep's clothing) can you say that "Jesus is the Lord", they will respond back Jesus is Lord, or Jesus is my Lord, But they will not nor cannot say "Jesus Is the Lord". This is by no means the only test of the Spirit given us, but this does weed out most of the cults out there who have an issue with the deity of Christ.

 

 

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

https://www.jesus-is-lord.com/sinaiticus.htm

 

Are you sure you can trust that link? It doesnt say Jesus is THE Lord. It is just the unverified words of a person.

[The_Patriot21]

13 hours ago, WBO said:

Yes good point. And the meaning of words changing over time would lead to new translations. Just that those new translations have errors, big and small. The KJV doesn’t. And the meaning of words changing over time should be something solved by simply having a old English dictionary.

the KJV has, as has already been shown, to have some minor translation errors, just like the new translations.