Group wall: Biblical Discussions§↻

Now for Molin.
Rom. 3:23 tells me I am a sinner. So did my backside. John 3:16 and John 14:6 I believe tells there is one way: Jesus
The Bible says that whosoever shall call on him shall be saved. I did that. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved” I did that. I didn’t say any special prayer, I didn’t do any special ritual, or make a certain promise; I asked God to save me and he did. That was that.
I was saved at the age of 5 and baptized at 7.

Personally, I also prefer immersion, but I still will respect the churches that do it through sprinkling.

I will answer Lne first.
Yes I do. There is nothing in the Bible that mentions sprinkling, bucket dump or whatever. All I know is that Jesus and John the Baptist both went down INTO the water. Same with Philip and the Ethiopian.

I am a Christian but how do you believe you are truly saved?

So you mentioned baptism by immersion, do you think that that is the only legitimate way?

I totally agree Jappel.

I do completely agree with Lne. I am going to put myself out there, so if you want to bash me, I am gonna expose myself. I am a Baptist. I believe that baptism is by immersion as a public example in Christ.
There are many verses out there that make people think that baptism is apart of salvation, but the thing is, that would make it a works based salvation. Baptism is an action that gets you wet. It doesn’t make you holier, it doesn’t save you, it just shows that you ARE ALREADY a Christian to those around you.
I don’t want this to become another relationship breaker. I have slot of respect for certain people on here, no matter their stand on things. I just believe what I have been shown by God’s word.

I wonder if I should have called this group “Biblical debates”

As for the earlier comment by onfire247 about baptism, I think that we can be saved without baptism, but it is still important as a public confession of faith.

I usually tend to stick with using the KJV, but I don't think that it is worth getting upset about it. I am just grateful that God has enabled us to read his word!

Totally agree. Thank you for participating. God bless you guys.

Onfire, sounds like a good idea!

This conversation is circular. I'm not sure what further value there is in continuing it. I think all parties involved have made their opinions known, and it does not appear that a consensus is possible here. Perhaps we can all just agree to disagree and move on?

I don't know who came up with the arbitrary and rubbery yardstick that it's ok to remove words and verses from the Bible, as long as "core doctrines" are not affected.
We have been conditioned for too long that this is acceptable.
I, too, fell into the trap of accepting it, so I'm not pointing the finger at anyone.

Any kind of tampering with the Word of God should be viewed seriously, and removing the word "Lord" from the title of the Lord Jesus Christ is disrespectful.

Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
and also, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matt 5:18.

So from this we know that God cares very much about the accurate preservation of His Word, which we can find in the Byzantine/KJV text.

Being "found many more times" does not mean that the doctrine is weakened or not taught. We don't base our core doctrines off of a single verse, but on the whole counsel of God, the entire Bible.

So, in summary these important Christian doctrines are weakened or in some way affected by the changes made to the manuscripts:
1. The Trinity, with Jesus Christ as the Alpha and Omega.
2. Baptism and the Great Commission
3. The title of the Lord Jesus Christ
4. Hell

There's probably more, but these are just the ones that come to mind.

Hi Onfire,
My comment was in relation to this:
"And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest."
I can't see this proviso in any of the verses you mentioned, and it seems like a very logical requirement.

And, yes, repentance is required, but paedobaptists would say that an innocent baby doesn't need to repent.

And if a baby cannot even talk, how can the baptizer know that they believe with all their heart?

It's a very inconvenient verse for a church system that teaches the necessity of infant baptism.
So, not surprisingly the verse was removed from the three famous manuscripts, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, and Sinaiticus.

Unfortunately even Protestant academics have been tricked into believing that these are the best manuscripts we have, and forsaken the Byzantine ones which include Acts 8:37 and are consistent with believers baptism.

Also, as I mentioned, Jesus said,
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".
Nothing that Paul said cancels this out.
And Paul does speak of the people he baptized, although that was not his primary objective, of course.

Acts 2:38 highlights the importance of baptism even more.

"As far as I know Acts 8:37 is the only verse that gives a requirement for Baptism, and establishing believers baptism rather than paedobaptism."

There are several in fact, and two at least specifically in Acts.

“And Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’”
Acts 2:38

"And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name."
Acts 22:16

It is also covered in Gal 3:27, John 3:5, 1 Pet 3:21, and Mark 16:16. So you see, if this is a deliberate modification, believers are still going to be fine on that subject.

Not to muddy the water, there is some debate on whether baptism is required. Consider, for example, 1 Corinthians 1:17:

"For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power."

When you stack that up with the verses on how one is saved (Romans 5:8; 2 Corinthians 5:21, John 3:16; Acts 16:31; Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5), it makes it hard to be dogmatic on the subject. Paul also did not include it in his list containing what the gospel is (1 Corinthians 15:1-8).

I post this last part not to start a new debate, but to reinforce that there are certain non-negotiables and negotiables, and baptism seems to fall into the latter category.

And Joosep, as you're my brother, I sincerely hope the Lord uses you as an evangelist, with whatever Bible version you use.

Another difference I found today.
"Lord Jesus" and "Lord Jesus Christ" are found many more times in the KJV than other versions.

And, speaking of burning, I did a search today and found that "Hell" is mentioned 54 times in the KJV, but only 17 times in the ESV.
And JWs don't believe in hell, however it's a very important theological subject, and we need to be trying to save people from going there.

Yes, Evangelism is important, and I recommend to everyone that we should be sharing the gospel as often as possible.
In my attempts to share the gospel with JWs, the version used is important, for the reasons I have mentioned.

Let's imagine that we are firefighters.

Let's have a nice, vigorous discussion regarding the best fire engine to use.

One fireman says that only one kind is the right one to use.

Others say that there are other options available.

In the meantime, a house burns down while we are having our discussion, and several people die.

But we did have a good discussion.

**********************

Those are my true feelings regarding the nature of this discussion.

As far as I know Acts 8:37 is the only verse that gives a requirement for Baptism, and establishing believers baptism rather than paedobaptism.

A specific teaching may be included or removed from a specific verse, but that does not mean that the subject being taught is completely added or removed from the Bible as a whole.

Here is another one:
Revelation 1:11
KJV starts with, "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last:
ESV omits this.

Why is this important?
Because it's Jesus speaking. In verse 13 it says he is the Son of Man.

This is linked to 1:8 which says,
8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

If you were trying to convince a JW that Jesus Christ is God and used this verse, you would want to have a KJV, not an ESV.

That's one thing they teach - Almighty God = Jehovah. But they won't believe Jesus Christ is Almighty God or Jehovah.

From my perspective, these omissions are an attempt to remove Jesus Christ from the Trinity.
(combined with removal of 1 John 5:7)

You would be familiar with Revelation 22:19
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

So if these words were removed deliberately from ancient manuscripts, those scribes will be in trouble.

It shows how important the role of copying manuscripts was, and from what I've heard, most scribes took it very seriously.
If they made a slight error, they were trained to start over again, as ink could not be erased.

Take another look at Sinaiticus and all the alterations seen on a single page.

http://www.sinaiticus.net/other%20mss.html

Of course I used the ESV for years and consider it better than perhaps all the other alternatives, but I'm glad to be in the KJV camp now.

Onfire, I may be in the minority opinion compared with modern day theologians,
but I join in the tradition of historical KJV preachers and theologians, such as John Wesley, John Bunyan, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, William Carey etc.
So I'm not feeling too lonely!

I understand your position though.
I used to hold it.
But I would encourage you to prayerfully consider the KJV again, as now you're mature, you should be able to handle the Old English.
Perhaps just try it for a while and see what difference it makes?
I think you'll adapt quickly, as you seem pretty smart!

FinalAsgard, take a look at Acts 8:37.
Do you think it was added in the KJV or removed from ESV and the others.
It is the answer to a question, which if not answered, seems strange.
Also, what motive would a church, such as the Catholic Church have for removing this verse?
Note that it's removed from Codex Vaticanus, kept at the Vatican, as well as Alexandrinus and Sinaiticus.

It requires a profession of faith for Baptism, which babies cannot do.
This excludes Paedobaptism and is the only verse in the Bible which clearly does that.

Is Baptism an important doctrine?

It's part of the Great Commission in Matt 28, and obedience to Jesus Christ is of major importance.

Also, do you think fasting is important?
Well strangely is was deleted from 1 Cor 7:5 and Matthew 17:21.
If you want a successful exorcism, KJV is the way to go!

No, Jappel. There are certain things that have to occur because God has spoken them to occur. The obstinance of some Pharisees and Jewish leaders had to occur for God not to be a liar. Or, perhaps those things were going to occur and God crafted his plan around it. Who knows. Free will conversations would take a long time (and probably be more divisive!) so I think I'll avoid commenting further on that ha! I was simply showing through an analogy that "suspicion of bad" and "bad" are not necessarily equal.

Also, you are correct that you are entitled to your opinion. It is amazing how much opinions affect our lives. Personally, I believe that the Tennessee college football team is the best in the nation. I wear orange clothing and attend the games like any loyal fan. My belief in their awesomeness will never be shaken by the reality of their terrible win/loss record for the last decade! Its kind of funny (and sad), but in Tennessee when the Vols lose, Church attendance drops by as much as 40% the next Sunday!

Opinions are fine and don't have to be bound by reality. Opinions are also fine so long as they don't contradict the Bible teachings. Choosing the KJV over another translation is perfectly fine. Saying the KJV is the only valid translation and basing that belief on a lack of hard textual evidence (not saying anyone has done this here necessarily, but I've known those types) is a whole different affair. Not once in this discussion have I advocated for someone discontinuing the use of the KJV, and I never will. You should use the translation that helps you understand God better, and more than one preferably.

FA, regarding the status of the ESV vs. the KJV, neither of them are an upgrade or a downgrade. They are two tools used for the same purpose that reach different audiences. I mean, that's basically why we have four gospels as well. They all say the same thing differently. The different versions are all the inspired Word of God from my perspective.

You also make a great point about how the changes between versions does not invalidate the other teachings in the Bible on the subjects. I fail to see why one must use external tools to understand the KJV properly but then will not, for example, read the NASB and use online tools to see why the translators changed certain verses. Either way you're exploring the text in a deeper way. If you make the argument that a new believer will not do that, I would counter by saying that a new believer will not understand the KJV very well on their own either.

I did not grow up in a Christian household. My mom did not get saved until I was 12. When we first started going to church it was at a KJV-only church. I could understand the pastor's teachings very well because he could make the Word come alive. When I read it on my own, however, I fell asleep. All the thees and thous just hurt my head. Because that was the only accepted translation I just stopped reading the Bible. It was not until someone introduced me to the One Year Bible translation that the Word of God had any significant meaning on my own. Had I not received that version, chances are I would have probably abandoned God altogether once I got out on my own. (As a side note, don't try to witness out of the One Year Bible. It is harder than it looks!)

I was discussing this thread with one of my friends who is the director of a doctoral program here in the US, and he gave me one very good reason for memorizing the Word in the KJV: because much of it is written in iambic pentameter. That explains why the ESV is so hard to memorize certain parts that were much easier for me in the KJV. It also explains why the KJV interferes with my memorization of the ESV or NASB. So if you want a reason to use the KJV to the exclusion of others based upon textual evidence, there it is.

As long as we remember that it is our opinion, and not scripture, so to speak. :)

One thing to remember, we are all servants of our Lord, Jesus Christ. We are all called to follow. But how each person follows is different, and unique. Every person has their own life experiences, their own temptations, and their own strengths.

So... We are all called to follow, but how each person follows is not up to us. They are servants of Christ, not servants of us to follow the way we think is best.

We are called to encourage one another, and to exhort a person to avoid sin when necessary, but not make each person follow exactly how we think is best. They are followers of Jesus. Let Him deal with them. Be an encouragement.

I agree, but we have right to our own opinions.

We need to be aware of our own biases when we go into conversations like this.

@Jappel said "Say that the KJV is the original, and that the ESV was the good, newer translation of the KJV. If it is "just" an upgrade into modern English as you say, FA, Why are things missing."

The biased assumption is that anything not in the ESV that is in KJV is "missing" in the ESV, rather than thinking through this without that bias, and maybe you would see that it *may not* be "missing" in the ESV, but "added" in the KJV.

I'm not concerned with how the NIV or the ESV compare to the KJV. I'm concerned with how each version compares to the original, as translated. Now we don't have the originals, but we do have hundreds of thousands of manuscript copies that we can compare to. They are the best thing that we have to figuring out what was in the original.

How does KJV compare to the best example that we can figure out of what was in the originals? It looks like things were added to it...

But, do any of these differences change any of the core doctrinal differences? Do they change any teaching, or are we only arguing over what few words are the most accurate? If the differences changes the gospel, if it changes core Christian teachings then absolutely we need to figure this out. But if they don't... then why are we being so dogmatic over it?

The only things in question are minor changes of wording, and do not change any significant Christian doctrine.

@onfire247 Thank you for that resource! I definitely will be looking into that. Thanks :)

Those are good actions, and I plan on doing a few of them. But I would like to question your first paragraph. This may not relate to the topic. But you said that if the Jewish authorities had listened to Nicodemus things would have changed. If that did happen, what do you think would have happened?

Here's the thing, Jappel. You view these changes with suspicion. That is great, but just because something is suspicious does not mean that it is bad. Jesus himself was viewed with suspicion by the Jewish authorities, and we all know how that turned out. If they had followed Nicodemus' suggestion that they give Jesus a hearing to learn what he says, maybe things would have turned out differently.

I have explained as a textual scholar why translators made the decisions they have made on those specific verses. There is also plenty of evidence for why the change was made in those other verses I haven't covered as well, but I do not have the time to cover them all.

Questioning is good! Now follow it up with action.
1. A good place to start is https://bestcommentaries.com/. There they list all the major commentaries and whether they are pastoral or technical. The NIVAC is a good place to start as it is more pastoral than technical. If you want technical, go with the NICNT, NIGTG, or the WBC (avoid the Anchor series until you can distinguish between liberal and conservative views.)
2. Purchase Accordance and get the digital versions of a few of those you choose and explore the evidence yourself. These commentaries (even the pastoral ones) are scholarly and have tons of sources on each point that you can explore yourself.
3. Look at those original sources and see if you come up with the same conclusions.
4. By a book on Greek and teach yourself. The 4th edition of Mouce's Basics of Biblical Greek is a good place to start. Be warned, Greek is tough and you will constantly feel stupid as you try to learn it. His video series and flashcards are a great help as well.
5. Better yet, enroll yourself in a school that will teach you the mechanics of Greek and textual interpretation and become an expert yourself. The old ones are dying off and we can always use another!

You bring up a great point 1 John 5:7. Even the website you link states that the only copies of the manuscripts come from the 14th century or later. He is wrong, though. The wording found in the 1611 KJV only comes from six sources (61, 88mg, 429mg, 629, 636mg, and 918). None of the Greek church writers quote it earlier than the 12th century. None of the ancient versions of the NT contain the words "the Father," "the word,", and "the Holy Spirit." Instead, there are hundreds of manuscripts, many written a thousand years earlier, that have "the Spirit," "the water," and "the blood." They do not appear in the earliest versions of the Old Latin or Jerome's edition of the Vulgate. Even Erasmus himself rejected it from his first two editions of his Greek NT, refusing to put it in his translation until he found a respectable manuscript which had it. Side note, he found one written in 1520 (61) which caused him to finally add it to his third edition, but he did so with forceful protest and put that protest in writing. So, as a language scholar, you expect me to accept this translation is the best use of the Greek when there is so little attestation within even a thousand years of Jesus' death? That I should blindly accept the sources you link which have no bibliography of any sort simply because it is in print on the internet? Be reasonable.

This and other supposed changes between the KJV and the modern translations have been so thoroughly explored by textual critics (in writing with bibliographies) for the last thousand years that baring a new trove of documents being found in a cave somewhere in Iraq, they are beyond contestation. Without that happening, all the supposed quotes from pastors in the middle ages cannot be verified. Unverifiable evidence is no evidence at all. That is the reason why the positions of the scholars you've quoted earlier are in the minority. Not because they are deceived, but because they use the best textual EVIDENCE available to come to their conclusions. Yet you throw out the weight of all that evidence because you've studied it for the last 15 years. Yet the evidence that you provide does not back up your claims. And whenever I try to point out that inconsistency, you respond back with condescension ("Don't worry little child, I was where you were 15 years ago. You'll get there someday little guy.") The evidence speaks for itself, and has done so for a long, long time.

There are plenty of reasons for reading the KJV. You have mentioned some of them (it is free, it does not change, etc.). It is a great translation for those who use it. Some people do so because of tradition. Some view any changes to it with suspicion because it is new, seeing the lack of KJV use as causing the loss of essential doctrines in the Church (correlation vs. causation). Some see it as a literal translation of the Greek (it is not), elevating it almost to the level of the Greek manuscripts. Some simply want to see the red letters of Jesus when he talks. All of these, and others, are great emotional reasons for deciding the KJV is best. They are not, however, based upon textual evidence.

But all of that evidence aside, let's just be frank. Some people will never read the Bible if it is in the KJV form. I've used it for forty years, and I still find it unwieldy and hard to understand because it uses language forms that have not existed for 400 years. It is great that you and I can understand it. It is also great that there are more tools available now to help someone understand it. But the fact that those tools must exist for someone to understand it gives an indication of why other translations must exist. Your experience is not the same as everyone else's experience. Even if everything you said is true and everything I said is completely false, those reasons alone will prevent people from engaging with God. Would you consign those people to hell because the KJV is the best version? Surely not!

It pains me that we cannot come to a common conclusion that God has allowed these other translations to exist for a reason: to allow people from different backgrounds and different cultures to find him. Even Paul himself modified his language based upon the target audience:

For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you. (1 Cor 9:19-23 KJV).

Perhaps we should all just follow Paul's example in this area as well?

You see, that is the thing. Why is that missing. Say that the KJV is the original, and that the ESV was the good, newer translation of the KJV. If it is "just" an upgrade into modern English as you say, FA, Why are things missing.
Like I said earlier. People only hear what they want to hear (Don't take this as going at you) and the translators and penmen of the ESV had a reason for leaving verses or parts of verses (like Rom. 8:1 and Acts 8:37) out.
Why, because they didn't like what those verses had to say. It was intolerable, and demanding, and judging, and true. Why don't we like fences and rules, because they keep us in line. When we try to take away these rules, some serious consequences can ensue.

Rev. 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
(KJV)

Deut. 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
(KJV)

Also, compare Romans 8:1 in ESV and KJV.
This has implications for whether Christians are permitted to "walk after the flesh" or not.

The ESV is a literal translation (compared to others such as the NIV) and when I was at Bible College, I compared all the translations with the Greek text (UBS) and ESV was the best. So that's the version I used for years afterwards.
And yes, you can derive the doctrine of the Trinity from it, however the clearest presentation of the Trinity is 1 John 5:7 which in the ESV just says, "For there are three that testify."
KJV says, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

Usage of 1 John 5:7 dates all the way back to 200 AD by Tertullian who obviously had an even earlier manuscript of the Byzantine type.
https://www.scionofzion.com/1_john_5_7.htm

By comparison, Codex Sinaiticus is dated 325 AD.

Personal experience leads me to doubting that it is easier to understand... :D

Years ago my dad (again, KJV Only) got my son a Bible. KJV of course. It was his new Bible so we decided to encourage its use by all using KJV. Some of it is easy, but then there is a lot that is way more difficult to understand. And if I need to go look up definitions of words every time I read the Bible, then that isn't really helping encourage anyone to read the Bible or to grow in the Lord. You take what should be easy and make it difficult.

Plus, the thing with languages changing, is that some of the words we *think* we know, because we use those words today, but then the entire meaning of the passage has been changed, because we are reading into the verse our own meaning of that word instead of the original meaning, and we will never know unless we start dictionary searching every verse we read to make sure we are not in error.

That's cool that it helped you grow closer to God. Keep using it. But you can't say that it will help everyone. My relationship with God is growing closer by me meditating on the Word of God and reading it often with prayer.

Anyway, that is all anecdotal evidence. To a question I think should be at the heart of this. What theologically is changed between KJV and others? You said the trinity? I'm pretty sure the trinity is still taught in my ESV Bible... :P

If thou knowest not the meaning of a word, thou canst search for it in many sites.
eg. https://www.kingjamesbibledictionary.com/
Which shall render the meaning unto thee immediately.