Dear
@DougE
First, it is not necessary to create a new post for every portion of a post that you want to respond to. If it makes it easier for you to track and respond to, then so be it. I can work with that as well. Just remember to keep it in context to the whole.
Which by the way is how we need to consider Doctrine. One must consider that Doctrine is the method and subject being taught. That in itself "What makes/is a Doctrine?" can be a subject onto itself that can cover many a posting trying to explain. First and foremost, whose doctrine are you talking about in stating the following:
I am pointing out that the new Bibles have differences that can impact doctrine
Oh, and please don't say the doctrine found in the Bible! Depending on the teacher/denomination/church you very well may find a rather varied list of doctrines believed, and how they are supported scripturally, to be true or excluded all together! Which latter part I'm sure you are getting at.
So, identify the doctrine, then the verses supporting said teaching. I agree that comparing one verse to another can sometimes dilute a teaching, while omitting a verse can lead to distortion. However, the core message will remain intact if the doctrine is well thought out and presented by a speaker or writer in a contextual way to the whole. After all, creating a doctrine from just one verse can be in and of itself a distortion to the entirety of scripture regardless of how accurate it may be in the translation.
Should I speak about how each doctrine being spoken of, needs to be consistent with any other doctrine? I hope not!
This is why translations may vary for a number of reasons, which I have previously mentioned a few, yet still maintain consistency when conveying and teaching a particular doctrine accurately and as intended. This is why I don’t recommend paraphrased Bibles, as they often reflect the translator’s interpretation of the manuscripts or other Bibles used as the basis for their work, and can end up expressing only the author’s own thoughts and beliefs.
I have my own opinion as to whether I will deem the new Bibles as accurate and reliable and being the Word of God or just containing it. You can have yours
Would you mind explaining what determines for you as being accurate and reliable?
Just don't say, if it is not the KJV then it's not accurate. Because if I were to show you inaccuracies in the KJV to the original manuscripts being used, would you then change your mind? lol Don't worry that is not what I'll do. Maybe when I was younger and felt the need to take on a challenge, I might have. But with age has come greater wisdom from God, especially when it comes to clashing with someone I believe is a brother in Christ. Beating each other over Bible translations only leads to confusion and rarely brings clarity or accomplishes much.
Note: If you search this site, you'll see you're not the first, and certainly won't be the last, to bring up this subject. If it has you grow in the Word, then have at it. However, if it is to just push a doctrine of your own making or some other individual, then please don't.
One must also consider, an additional category, which is: Protestant, Catholic, or even Eastern Orthodox even and what is used by them!
Part of me doesn't even want to answer this, in case you really don't know! If you didn’t know that there are many different versions of the Bible, each with its own set of books considered canon by various churches, you’re in for a surprise! This can be a project in itself for you if you didn't realize that.
If you say none of that matters and insist on KJV only, then you’re just pushing an agenda rather than genuinely trying to help anyone grow in the knowledge of the Word of God.
Now you state in the last line of your reply to me that the assumption that it contains "our gospel" which is faith in Christ's blood; dying for our sins, rising again for our justification in order to be saved by "other versions". Knowing that it is not the versions of Scripture that save, but through Christ Jesus and His atoning sacrifice.
Yes our salvation is by the faith of Christ, but faith comes by hearing the Word of God. You cant have faith if the Word of God is omitted
Well said Brother Doug.
Who is the Word of God?
So, I gather your complaint is to the depth of information provided by one against another, that would allow for accurate study of the manuscripts originally used,
Sorry I have no idea what you mean
Apologies. Let me attempt to explain. I’m guessing your concern isn’t just about words being omitted or altered from the KJV, but also that the translators may not have been fully faithful to the actual manuscripts they used.
It's a conundrum brother Doug that we are faced with. For it is not only manuscripts, but the Greek being used, and the translator of said documents that is telling us what it would mean in the English. Then you have old English vs modern...
2 Timothy 3:16-17, All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
You have to all scripture, every word
You realize that when 2 Timothy was written that the Bible as we know it now was in the possession of "no one"? So, I ask you what Scripture was Paul speaking of when he penned the above?
Do, not lose site of the primary purpose of scripture and not the purpose assigned to it by man
Here are two words to look up. They might seem very similar, but they’re not. With some thoughtful reflection guided by the Holy Spirit, the differences should become clear and what I wrote earlier will make more sense.
Exegesis and Eisegesis
I hope this all-in-one post doesn't make it more difficult for you to digest. I find it much easier doing it this way, though I never know how long it may when I start typing! lol
Thank-you for responding brother, and God bless you and yours in Christ Jesus.
Moderator
Nick
\o/
