Missing Doctrines?

glenlogie

Well-known member
Through the blood of Jesus removed in some MV’s. Propitiation removed from some MV’s. Godhead removed from some MV’s. Those are doctrinal issues.
i am calling your bluff, Give examples, with specifics, where a doctrine is totally removed.

Removing one instance when dozens more references to that doctrine does not count.

I mean TOTALLY remove the doctrine.
 

RiJoRi

Well-known member
i am calling your bluff, Give examples, with specifics, where a doctrine is totally removed.

Removing one instance when dozens more references to that doctrine does not count.

I mean TOTALLY remove the doctrine.
Which is what I said in the OP:

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!?


<sigh>
--Rich
 

glenlogie

Well-known member
Which is what I said in the OP:

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!?


<sigh>
--Rich
I predict the poster will completely ignore my challenge and go on spouting his baloney
 

imJRR

Active member
Through the blood of Jesus removed in some MV’s. Propitiation removed from some MV’s. Godhead removed from some MV’s. Those are doctrinal issues.

I submit that the above post is an excellent example of dishonesty in KJVONLYism. Here's why I say that:

The author poster has made the allegations above before, and his posts (plural) have been proven to be blatantly false accusations.

But here we have the dishonest accusations being repeated and continuing - Even after real, actual evidence has been produced that proved them to be false.

Now, the question is --- Is this a common characteristic of the KJVONLYist movement? Does this sort of thing happen rarely or often?

You decide.
 
Last edited:

glenlogie

Well-known member
I submit that the above post is an excellent example of dishonesty in KJVONLYism. Here's why I say that:

The author poster has made the allegations above before, and his posts (plural) have been proven to be blatantly false accusations.

But here we have the dishonest accusations continuing - Even after real, actual evidence has been produced that proved them to be false.

Now, the question is --- Is this a common characteristic of the KJVONLYist movement? Does this sort of thing happen rarely or often?

You decide.
It happens often, in my opinion.
 

Oldman0311

New Member
Oohrah tuefalhunden.
Missing verses that change doctrine?
#Matthew 17:21. Apostles not able to exorcise demon possessed boy. Jesus tells them it would require “fasting and prayers”. Scolds their lack of faith. Deletion removes Jesus info of need for dedication and faith to accomplish God’s goals
#Matthew 18:11. Parable of the lost sheep. Jesus telling his purpose for “coming to save that which is lost”. Deletion takes away from Jesus being the only way to salvation.
#Mark 15:28. Shows fulfillment of Isaiah 53:12. A proof of Jesus being the Messiah. Would have been (and still is) an important prophesy proof to early Jewish and modern believers.
#Mark 16:9-20. Entire post resurrection narrative is deleted. Some say that it isn’t important because other books have this but we have remember that each Gospel was standing on its own until what we call the Bible was compiled. Early readers would have lost all this and the Great Commission to spread the word.
#1 John 5:7-8. Deletes description of the Trinity (Father- Word- Holy Ghost are one). Jesus is described as the Word in John 1:1. This is the clearest verse describing Father-Jesus-Holy Ghost as a single unit. Deletion of this verse is directly responsible for the apostate cult know as the Jehovahs Witnesses.
#Luke 2:33. Words changed. Jesus as a baby presented at the temple. In KJV it says “Joseph and his mother marveled at those thing which were spoken of him”. Other versions (NIV. ESV. NLT.). Says the “the child’s father and mother marveled”
Jesus is the Son of God. Not Joseph. Makes it look like Jesus is just human, not divine.


These are just a couple of examples where deletion or changes can corrupt.
Not saying that KJV is only way to be saved but that it is the most complete. If it most complete why use something else that is diluted and can cause confusion and doubt?
 

RiJoRi

Well-known member
Missing verses that change doctrine?
NO. What I said was:
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!?


Do you understand the difference between "change" and "completely removed" ? Think hard!
 

imJRR

Active member
Quite right RiJoRi. What you are referring to - the accusation (or at the very least major inferring) of complete omission of important doctrines - a big accusation that KJVONLYists make - is simply not true. That has been proven on this board. Another poster sought to make this accusation regarding the ESV and the doctrine of propitiation. That accusation was openly and solidly proven to be as false as a three dollar bill. However, I believe the poster continues to make the accusation.

This is simply not being honest or truthful.

So, in terms of "confusion and doubt", I would say that that kind of thing causes confusion and doubt about the validity of KJVONLYism - and rightly so. KJVONLYism is not a valid belief, period. From my own personal experiences (plural), there is really no difference here between this and proving to a JW that Jesus Christ is NOT Michael the archangel....but then having them re-post that He is two threads later. The very same thing happens with KJVONLYists when their position and accusations are shown/proven to be wrong - Just wait awhile; they'll be voiced again.
 
Last edited:

Theo1689

Well-known 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.

One of the most disturbing things I find about KJV-only argumentation is that they ALWAYS try to project evil motives (usually out of thin air), while critics of the modern translations address the manuscript evidence in the most accurate way possible, and find innocent reasons for the variant readings, eg.:

- marginal notes migrating into the main text, eg. John 5:4
- accidentally omitting phrases due to similar endings, "homeoteleuton";
- mishearing a text dictated to them (eg. "umin" vs. "hmin")
- attempting to make parallel passages read identically (whether intentionally or unintentionally);


When KJV-only's always look for "malicious" or "demonic" reasons for textual variants, they demonstrate that they lack the charity of true Christians. They worship the KJV rather than worshipping God.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
One of the most disturbing things I find about KJV-only argumentation is that they ALWAYS try to project evil motives (usually out of thin air), while critics of the modern translations address the manuscript evidence in the most accurate way possible, and find innocent reasons for the variant readings, eg.:

- marginal notes migrating into the main text, eg. John 5:4
- accidentally omitting phrases due to similar endings, "homeoteleuton";
- mishearing a text dictated to them (eg. "umin" vs. "hmin")
- attempting to make parallel passages read identically (whether intentionally or unintentionally);


When KJV-only's always look for "malicious" or "demonic" reasons for textual variants, they demonstrate that they lack the charity of true Christians. They worship the KJV rather than worshipping God.
Wrong
 

Theo1689

Well-known member

You know, LN, in order to intelligently discuss the topics you want to bring up here, it is crucial to have some sort of foundational study of relevant topics.

1) Can you read Koine Greek?

2) Have you seen, or do you have direct access, to the NT manuscripts?

3) Have you ever studied the discipline of "textual criticism", such as reading the texts of Metzger, Comfort, or others?

The fact that you summarily dismissed my last post with the single word "wrong", demonstrates that you have NEVER studied textual criticism, and are therefore ill-equipped to have ANY kind of reasonable discussion here.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
You know, LN, in order to intelligently discuss the topics you want to bring up here, it is crucial to have some sort of foundational study of relevant topics.

1) Can you read Koine Greek?

2) Have you seen, or do you have direct access, to the NT manuscripts?

3) Have you ever studied the discipline of "textual criticism", such as reading the texts of Metzger, Comfort, or others?

The fact that you summarily dismissed my last post with the single word "wrong", demonstrates that you have NEVER studied textual criticism, and are therefore ill-equipped to have ANY kind of reasonable discussion here.
Nope, it demonstrated that my faith is in God not you. I understand that textual critics only trust what they believe wether the Holy Spirit led them into their beliefs or not.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Nope, it demonstrated that my faith is in God not you. I understand that textual critics only trust what they believe wether the Holy Spirit led them into their beliefs or not.

Again, you are hopelessly confused.

Textual criticism determines WHAT the Scripture text says.
The Holy Spirit confirms THAT the Scriptural testimony is true.

You also seem ignorant of the fact that the KJV translators LIKEWISE engaged in "textual criticism" in their translation of the KJV. So if "textual critics" are bad, then the KJV is necessarily "bad" as well.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
Again, you are hopelessly confused.

Textual criticism determines WHAT the Scripture text says.
The Holy Spirit confirms THAT the Scriptural testimony is true.

You also seem ignorant of the fact that the KJV translators LIKEWISE engaged in "textual criticism" in their translation of the KJV. So if "textual critics" are bad, then the KJV is necessarily "bad" as well.
Partially true it has never been about translation it has always been about the manu scripts that were translated. The early church and reformers rejected the minority texts because they were corrupt.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Partially true it has never been about translation it has always been about the manu scripts that were translated. The early church and reformers rejected the minority texts because they were corrupt.

So tell us what Greek "manu script [sic]" is in existence which reads, "and shalt be" in Rev. 16:5?

Still waiting....
 

glenlogie

Well-known member
Nope, it demonstrated that my faith is in God not you. I understand that textual critics only trust what they believe wether the Holy Spirit led them into their beliefs or not.
Again nobody has asked you to put your faith in them.

That is one of your nonsensical responses.
 
Top