Bibles That Remove Or Confuse The Deity Of Christ

[Johann]

On 12/14/2021 at 1:18 PM, BrotherTony said:

I a working to answer each of these individually. Personally, I've never used the Good News version TEV...So I'm not acquainted with its alleged problems.. I will post the answers when I'm done....and remember, these aren't necessarily MY beliefs as you're implying...I'm just making the arguments that those who hold to the CT's as better or just as good. Maybe you need to come down off your high horse a bit. 

It seems to me that this is sort of disengenous on your part...you're not giving the whole of the text in context....This whole chapter acknowledges that Joseph is raising Christ as his own son, but is very well aware of his parentage...Seems the KJV translators didn't have much of a problem with this either. Mary refers to Joseph as Jesus's father...and in fact...he was playing the part of the father. Dishonesty solved.

And you and I know , of course, that Joseph was not Jesus' biological father.
J.

[Jerry]

2 hours ago, Johann said:

Christ Jesus not God?

Isa_7:14  Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Isa_9:6  For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

J.

I think perhaps you missed what I was saying. I believe Jesus IS God - my point was that by modern versions changing or removing words, they are changing or diluting Bible doctrines.

 

2 hours ago, Johann said:

And you and I know , of course, that Joseph was not Jesus' biological father.
J.

Yes - but how much change can the world make upon our Bibles before that doctrine is no longer evident in them, or watered down enough that they think it is not essential or necessary for people to believe?

[BrotherTony]

42 minutes ago, Jerry said:

I think perhaps you missed what I was saying. I believe Jesus IS God - my point was that by modern versions changing or removing words, they are changing or diluting Bible doctrines.

 

Yes - but how much change can the world make upon our Bibles before that doctrine is no longer evident in them, or watered down enough that they think it is not essential or necessary for people to believe?

Jerry, I've emboldened your statement here....Can you PROVE that they've changed anything against THEIR underlying texts? Can you PROVE they've watered down their underlying texts that they were translated from? Can you PROVE that they've changed or REMOVED words from their underlying texts? If not, how are they changing or diluting Bible doctrines. Let's get honest here. You KNOW that I used to be KJVO for many years, but am now KJV PREFERRED. I believe it's the best version available, and I use it exclusively in my preaching and teaching. But, I'm not going to be dishonest as most KJVO proponents are and claim that these other translations, based on a different underlying text, have been unfaithful to those underlying texts. It's comparing apples to oranges and is quite dishonest. And I'm not trying to imply YOU personally are dishonest. I'm definitely implying that those authors who intentionally misrepresent the truth in their books and commentaries for mass consumption on the subject ARE! Hope that's understood.

Edited June 1, 2022 by BrotherTony

[Jerry]

Let's make this simple then. The KJV is God's preserved, inerrant Word in English. Regardless of how much others may or may not change their own Critical Text manuscripts (and I truly do not have the resources or the time to study this issue out right now), the fact that they depart from the preserved Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus (which have had God's hand on them throughout history) is good enough for me to warn others against this corrupted stream of manuscripts and whatever is translated from it, inasmuch as it differs from those preserved texts I have mentioned above. Even if a particular English translation was 100% exactly the same (as much as possible as a translation can be) as THEIR underlying Critical Texts, I would still warn against the changes that their CT texts have made to the Word of God.

God didn't inspire two streams of competing manuscripts (or changed manuscripts) - so as much as they do differ, one or both are wrong. However, studying out the history of the texts and of the English (and some other language) translations from these underlying texts, I know where and why I stand on the King James Bible and its underlying manuscripts. There is more to the issue than personal preferences on either side. There are doctrinal changes because certain people - editors, translators, compilers, and scribes - chose to change or corrupt things along the way. Yes, granted some of the changes may even have been unintentional (ie. a copyist error), though most are not, and these changes are significant and do affect the doctrine of the text that they are in.

You are welcome to your preferences - but I would rather have convictions based on the evidence behind and for both streams of manuscripts.

[BrotherTony]

1 hour ago, Jerry said:

Let's make this simple then. The KJV is God's preserved, inerrant Word in English. Regardless of how much others may or may not change their own Critical Text manuscripts (and I truly do not have the resources or the time to study this issue out right now), the fact that they depart from the preserved Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus (which have had God's hand on them throughout history) is good enough for me to warn others against this corrupted stream of manuscripts and whatever is translated from it, inasmuch as it differs from those preserved texts I have mentioned above. Even if a particular English translation was 100% exactly the same (as much as possible as a translation can be) as THEIR underlying Critical Texts, I would still warn against the changes that their CT texts have made to the Word of God.

God didn't inspire two streams of competing manuscripts (or changed manuscripts) - so as much as they do differ, one or both are wrong. However, studying out the history of the texts and of the English (and some other language) translations from these underlying texts, I know where and why I stand on the King James Bible and its underlying manuscripts. There is more to the issue than personal preferences on either side. There are doctrinal changes because certain people - editors, translators, compilers, and scribes - chose to change or corrupt things along the way. Yes, granted some of the changes may even have been unintentional (ie. a copyist error), though most are not, and these changes are significant and do affect the doctrine of the text that they are in.

You are welcome to your preferences - but I would rather have convictions based on the evidence behind and for both streams of manuscripts.

Thank you for that explanation. I agree, and I appreciate the way you worded it. I did indeed refer to it as my PREFERENCE...yes. It's also my CONVICTION that this is the best text, otherwise it wouldn't even be a PREFERENCE. I guess I PREFER to use what I consider to be the PRESERVED WORD. Again, I appreciate your response. Blessings.

[Jerry]

3 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

Thank you for that explanation. I agree, and I appreciate the way you worded it. I did indeed refer to it as my PREFERENCE...yes. It's also my CONVICTION that this is the best text, otherwise it wouldn't even be a PREFERENCE. I guess I PREFER to use what I consider to be the PRESERVED WORD. Again, I appreciate your response. Blessings.

I'm sorry, I am not sure what text you are stating is the best. The one you prefer? Ie. the KJV?

If it is the best, then isn't what differs from it inferior - inasmuch as it does so?

I don't want an approximation of the Word of God. God promised to preserve His Word, including the exact words of His inspired books of the Bible (and of course, the whole Book); therefore, I am sticking with what I am convinced is that inspired, inerrant, preserved Word, and the faithful English translation from it.

[BrotherTony]

1 hour ago, Jerry said:

I'm sorry, I am not sure what text you are stating is the best. The one you prefer? Ie. the KJV?

If it is the best, then isn't what differs from it inferior - inasmuch as it does so?

I don't want an approximation of the Word of God. God promised to preserve His Word, including the exact words of His inspired books of the Bible (and of course, the whole Book); therefore, I am sticking with what I am convinced is that inspired, inerrant, preserved Word, and the faithful English translation from it.

Seems to me you want to take this to an argument stage...so, I'll stop by not replying further to you on this subject. This is why I've stopped replying to you on most things. I will say this, if I didn't believe it was the Word of God, Nowhere did I state it was an "approximation," and I don't appreciate that insinuation.  I wouldn't use it. If that doesn't suffice for you, that's YOUR problem, ot mine. I've gotten in trouble for being direct with you once before, but, I'm being direct again, and if I get in trouble, so be it. You stand where YOU stand, and I'll stand where I stand. 

Edited June 2, 2022 by BrotherTony

[Jerry]

3 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

You stand where YOU stand, and I'll stand where I stand. 

Exactly. And I will not be afraid to state my opinion, my beliefs, my understanding of the Word of God just because you don't like it when I do. I am of the same opinion and beliefs of the majority of the members of these boards, as well as of the Admins and Mods - so I don't need to walk on eggshells when declaring where I stand any more than any other regular member on these boards does.

[BrotherTony]

3 hours ago, Jerry said:

Exactly. And I will not be afraid to state my opinion, my beliefs, my understanding of the Word of God just because you don't like it when I do. I am of the same opinion and beliefs of the majority of the members of these boards, as well as of the Admins and Mods - so I don't need to walk on eggshells when declaring where I stand any more than any other regular member on these boards does.

Whatever, friend. 

[Salyan]

Let's move back to the topic now without any personal discussions.