Missing Doctrines?

RiJoRi

Well-known member
Many KJVO folks proclaim that "modern bibles remove important doctrines from the Bible!" yet they seem reluctant to show where these scriptures are (or aren't!). Therefore, I dug into my copy of Porter Barrington's "Master Outlines and Study Notes" which I first saw in "The Christian Life New Testament". These Master Outlines cover: the Bible, God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Sin, Judgement, Rewards, the Church, Prayer, Faith, the Abundant Life, Repentence, the New Birth, the Plan of Salvation, and Witnessing. I figured this should cover the "important doctrines"!

Using my Bible program, "the Word" I checked the 89 scripture references in the M. O. with the following Bible versions: ABP, AFV, AKJV, ASV, ERV, ESV, HCSB, ISV, KJV, LEB, LSV, NET, UKJV, VW, and YLT. (Note: the versions with "KJV" in them are KJV updates.)

My results show that for most of the versions the message is equivalent. The differences are in word order and/or word usage. ("Jesus responded" instead of "Jesus answered and said unto him").
There are, however, a few versions that are on my "warning" list: LEB (1), NET (1), LSV (4), YLT (6). The number of problematic verses (of the 89 checked) are shown in parentheses.

What's a "problematic verse"? Romans 10:15 reads "How beautiful are the feet..." [HCSB]. LEB reads: "How timely are the feet...", and NET reads: "How timely is the arrival". Yet in both versions, the refernce back to Isaiah 52:7 shows "How beautiful..." The LSV and YLT give me fits in Acts 17:30 and 26:20 where they translate "repent" as "convert" and "reform" repectively.

There may be "impotant doctrines" that the modern Bibles have "removed," but until a KJVO person shows where an important doctrine has been completely* removed from the Bible, I ain't gonna believe 'em!

--Rich
* I say "completely" to avoid the silly Col. 1:14 "bloodless bible" argument. Look at Eph 1:7 and explain how the translators MISSED this verse!?
 

Shoonra

Active member
Even when Moderen versions omit a verse (because there are doubts it was in the original text) there is usually a similar text elsewhere that is preserved. The only doctrine that Modern versions undeniably omit is for snake handling.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
Many KJVO folks proclaim that "modern bibles remove important doctrines from the Bible!" yet they seem reluctant to show where these scriptures are (or aren't!). Therefore, I dug into my copy of Porter Barrington's "Master Outlines and Study Notes" which I first saw in "The Christian Life New Testament". These Master Outlines cover: the Bible, God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Sin, Judgement, Rewards, the Church, Prayer, Faith, the Abundant Life, Repentence, the New Birth, the Plan of Salvation, and Witnessing. I figured this should cover the "important doctrines"!

Using my Bible program, "the Word" I checked the 89 scripture references in the M. O. with the following Bible versions: ABP, AFV, AKJV, ASV, ERV, ESV, HCSB, ISV, KJV, LEB, LSV, NET, UKJV, VW, and YLT. (Note: the versions with "KJV" in them are KJV updates.)

My results show that for most of the versions the message is equivalent. The differences are in word order and/or word usage. ("Jesus responded" instead of "Jesus answered and said unto him").
There are, however, a few versions that are on my "warning" list: LEB (1), NET (1), LSV (4), YLT (6). The number of problematic verses (of the 89 checked) are shown in parentheses.

What's a "problematic verse"? Romans 10:15 reads "How beautiful are the feet..." [HCSB]. LEB reads: "How timely are the feet...", and NET reads: "How timely is the arrival". Yet in both versions, the refernce back to Isaiah 52:7 shows "How beautiful..." The LSV and YLT give me fits in Acts 17:30 and 26:20 where they translate "repent" as "convert" and "reform" repectively.

There may be "impotant doctrines" that the modern Bibles have "removed," but until a KJVO person shows where an important doctrine has been completely* removed from the Bible, I ain't gonna believe 'em!

--Rich
* I say "completely" to avoid the silly Col. 1:14 "bloodless bible" argument. Look at Eph 1:7 and explain how the translators MISSED this verse!?
Many KJVO folks proclaim that "modern bibles remove important doctrines from the Bible!" yet they seem reluctant to show where these scriptures are (or aren't!). Therefore, I dug into my copy of Porter Barrington's "Master Outlines and Study Notes" which I first saw in "The Christian Life New Testament". These Master Outlines cover: the Bible, God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Sin, Judgement, Rewards, the Church, Prayer, Faith, the Abundant Life, Repentence, the New Birth, the Plan of Salvation, and Witnessing. I figured this should cover the "important doctrines"!

Using my Bible program, "the Word" I checked the 89 scripture references in the M. O. with the following Bible versions: ABP, AFV, AKJV, ASV, ERV, ESV, HCSB, ISV, KJV, LEB, LSV, NET, UKJV, VW, and YLT. (Note: the versions with "KJV" in them are KJV updates.)

My results show that for most of the versions the message is equivalent. The differences are in word order and/or word usage. ("Jesus responded" instead of "Jesus answered and said unto him").
There are, however, a few versions that are on my "warning" list: LEB (1), NET (1), LSV (4), YLT (6). The number of problematic verses (of the 89 checked) are shown in parentheses.

What's a "problematic verse"? Romans 10:15 reads "How beautiful are the feet..." [HCSB]. LEB reads: "How timely are the feet...", and NET reads: "How timely is the arrival". Yet in both versions, the refernce back to Isaiah 52:7 shows "How beautiful..." The LSV and YLT give me fits in Acts 17:30 and 26:20 where they translate "repent" as "convert" and "reform" repectively.

There may be "impotant doctrines" that the modern Bibles have "removed," but until a KJVO person shows where an important doctrine has been completely* removed from the Bible, I ain't gonna believe 'em!

--Rich
* I say "completely" to avoid the silly Col. 1:14 "bloodless bible" argument. Look at Eph 1:7 and explain how the translators MISSED this verse!?
So removing in one place changing words in another place is ok with you ?
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
NOT my point. If one is going to claim that "important doctrines" have been removed, PROVE IT!
Ok one modern translation says we have been obtained instead of purchased. Something can be obtained in a variety of ways but being purchased by the precious blood of Jesus and being obtained are not even close to the same.
 

RiJoRi

Well-known member
Ok one modern translation says we have been obtained instead of purchased. Something can be obtained in a variety of ways but being purchased by the precious blood of Jesus and being obtained are not even close to the same.
Version? Book? Chapter? Verse? And which major doctrine does this totally remove from the Bible?

--Rich
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
Version? Book? Chapter? Verse? And which major doctrine does this totally remove from the Bible?

--Rich
Acts 20:28 ESV
Unchecked Copy Box
Act 20:28 - Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God,[fn] which he obtained with his own blood.[fn] if I have to explain how this change changes God’s word you wouldn’t understand anyway. Yes KJV
Unchecked Copy Box
Act 20:28 - Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
Acts 20:28 ESV
Unchecked Copy Box
Act 20:28 - Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God,[fn] which he obtained with his own blood.[fn] if I have to explain how this change changes God’s word you wouldn’t understand anyway. KJV
Unchecked Copy Box
Act 20:28 - Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. www.blue letter bible.com
 

RiJoRi

Well-known member
Acts 20:28 ESV
Unchecked Copy Box
Act 20:28 - Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God,[fn] which he obtained with his own blood.[fn] if I have to explain how this change changes God’s word you wouldn’t understand anyway. Yes KJV
Unchecked Copy Box
Act 20:28 - Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
You don't know, either, huh? :D.
If you don't know which major doctrine this verse is affecting, how can you say that that doctrine was removed?

Thanks for the reference. Many of the modern translations use "purchased"; others use "obtained", "acquired", or "procured". When I checked Dr. Strong's dictionary, the definition given (G4046) was: "to make around oneself, i.e. acquire (buy)." Personally, I find "purchased" to be a better choice...

Looking around, I saw Eph. 1:7 referenced. Looking there, we see "redemption". Again calling on Dr. S., (G629) the meaning is "ransom in full". "Ransom" implies a payment of some type. KJV has "ransom-" in other places: Eph 1:14; Heb 9:12; 1Pe 1:18; and Rev 5:9.

Now, to the unasked question: What is a 'major doctrine'? Do any KJVO authors define the term? "Major" implies "minor", so saying "They're ALL major" won't cut it. Historically, the Nicene Creed was a new believer's "gotta believe this" list, so that may do for a definition, unless you have another idea.

--Rich

(OH, and being snarky ("if I have to explain how this change changes God’s word you wouldn’t understand anyway.") won't work. It just reflects badly on your upbringing.)
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
You don't know, either, huh? :D.
If you don't know which major doctrine this verse is affecting, how can you say that that doctrine was removed?

Thanks for the reference. Many of the modern translations use "purchased"; others use "obtained", "acquired", or "procured". When I checked Dr. Strong's dictionary, the definition given (G4046) was: "to make around oneself, i.e. acquire (buy)." Personally, I find "purchased" to be a better choice...

Looking around, I saw Eph. 1:7 referenced. Looking there, we see "redemption". Again calling on Dr. S., (G629) the meaning is "ransom in full". "Ransom" implies a payment of some type. KJV has "ransom-" in other places: Eph 1:14; Heb 9:12; 1Pe 1:18; and Rev 5:9.

Now, to the unasked question: What is a 'major doctrine'? Do any KJVO authors define the term? "Major" implies "minor", so saying "They're ALL major" won't cut it. Historically, the Nicene Creed was a new believer's "gotta believe this" list, so that may do for a definition, unless you have another idea.

--Rich

(OH, and being snarky ("if I have to explain how this change changes God’s word you wouldn’t understand anyway.") won't work. It just reflects badly on your upbringing.)
Got ya, you have zero problems with minority manu script translations and textual criticism where the translator is not bound by anything except what they think. No thanks I will stay with the KJV.
 

RiJoRi

Well-known member
Got ya, you have zero problems with minority manu script translations and textual criticism where the translator is not bound by anything except what they think. No thanks I will stay with the KJV.
Have I said ANYTHING about you not staying with the KJV? My first sentence to this thread reads:

Many KJVO folks proclaim that "modern bibles remove important doctrines from the Bible!" yet they seem reluctant to show where these scriptures are (or aren't!).

So far, nobody has provided any evidence of a "major doctrine" being removed. One word being changed to an equally-valid alternative (per Dr. Strong, who died in 1894), cannot prove that an unidentified doctrine has been removed. I even offered to let you choose which "major doctrine" you wanted to show me was removed /eradicated/taken from the Bible. Your response shows a sad lack of charity.

Remember, Jesus said, "But I say unto you, Love your enemies" (Matt 5:44,KJV). And if we are to love our enemies, how should we treat others?

Thank you for your time and effort. I do not expect a reply. And truly I say, enjoy your KJV - it's still a good translation!

God bless you,
--Rich
 

imJRR

Active member
Besides what Rich posted above, I've studied the Bible using various versions for 40+ years. On the basis of that, I know of NO important Christian doctrine that is threatened or omitted by versions other than the KJV. If someone prefers the KJV, I have no problem with that. If someone says that "the KJV is the ONLY reliable English translation of the Bible - Other versions remove important doctrines", they are, quite plainly and simply, wrong.
 

RiJoRi

Well-known member
Besides what Rich posted above, I've studied the Bible using various versions for 40+ years. On the basis of that, I know of NO important Christian doctrine that is threatened or omitted by versions other than the KJV. If someone prefers the KJV, I have no problem with that. If someone says that "the KJV is the ONLY reliable English translation of the Bible - Other versions remove important doctrines", they are, quite plainly and simply, wrong.
:( Gee, and here I was hoping to to find another volunteer! <BIG sigh> :D

Thanks, JRR!
--Rich
 

imJRR

Active member
I can't speak for "many" KJVONLYists, but I personally heard that statement from a radio preacher who was KJVONLY. I do accept that he may not have been speaking for many KJVONLYists. If you wish to say he misrepresented KJVONLYists and was wrong, I'd be glad to read that.
 

RiJoRi

Well-known member
"The NIV is a bloodless bible" said Kenny. My wife and I heard him at the local church. Blood IS a major doctrine, is it not? Unless you're asking about "many", in which case I could name Kevin, Amber, Rina, Billy, Mark, Bridget, and Brooke, along with Kenny. I will not give their last names because they are private individuals and I don't feel free to do so.
 

imJRR

Active member
"The NIV is a bloodless bible" said Kenny. My wife and I heard him at the local church. Blood IS a major doctrine, is it not? Unless you're asking about "many", in which case I could name Kevin, Amber, Rina, Billy, Mark, Bridget, and Brooke, along with Kenny. I will not give their last names because they are private individuals and I don't feel free to do so.

Okay, that charge is just plain ridiculous and wrong. It is not true; it is not even reality.
 
Top