I appreciate this conversation & posts on this topic it has helped give me a better understanding of the arguments on both sides.

The New Testament was written in Greek. As you know, English isn’t the only language in which the Bible is translated. Those modern translations may believe that there is contextual evidence to make it indicative instead of subjunctive. Interesting though, isn’t it, how that you can pick the text to fit your position? That seems dangerous though. That is eclecticism for you. However, the Critical Text has Romans 5:1 as subjunctive. I was showing you how that this changed doctrine. I gave you another example from Ephesians. Earlier, I gave others. How many errors do you need? I can give many more, but as you noticed, no one is really that interested because they don’t care if there are errors in the Bible. Their Bibliology is safe with that.

KJV – Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ

NIV – Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ

ESV – Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ

They all say “we have peace” – I don’t see the “we are having peace” / “we may have peace” dichotomy that you area suggesting.

van·i·ty

1. The quality or condition of being vain.
2. Excessive pride in one’s appearance or accomplishments; conceit. See Synonyms at conceit.
3. Lack of usefulness, worth, or effect; worthlessness.
4.
a. Something that is vain, futile, or worthless.
b. Something about which one is vain or conceited.

In other words, not exactly a “big change” – more like a synonym.

If memory serves, Solomon is showing how by man’s reasoning (i.e., without God) life has no purpose.

The word translated “Vanity” in the KJV (in Ecclesiastes) means something like “to shepherd the winds”, denoting a lack of control that we all have in this life, that God is in control, and we aren’t. The NIV uses the word “Meaningless”, which of course is dead wrong, since life is not meaningless, our meaning is to glorify God, and that is the purpose of all life. This is a huge difference in theology, though the christian world tends to accept it today, since a large part of US Christianity is dispensationalist, which is an eschatology of pessimism.

Thanks for the good article references. The blog had a line in it that I think sums things up well:

“The habit of KJV apologists to simply make up a dissenter’s beliefs if no true guilt can be found is reason enough to read with extreme caution and serious discernment any of their work.”

I’m just a guy interested in the discussion

I guess I read to much into your statement that the critical text suffered “many doctrinal errors”. I had originally assumed that this meant that you would learn doctrine from the CT that did not exists in the TR or vice versa. I have read many passage-by-passage comparisons in the past and in all honesty came back unconvinced that the modern versions distort any classical Christian teaching.

Also, by no means am I suggesting there is some different standard to use in determining the reliability of modern versions – not that I’m in any position to make such a suggestion to begin with . I was simply trying to get a better understanding of the issue from a practical perspective (i.e., how would this impact my understanding of God’s Word).

I’m not sure of your last point regarding Romans 5:1. Not knowing the original languages I can’t go to the Greek, but all modern translations I checked say “we have peace”, same as the KJV.

Thanks.

http://hipandthigh.blogspot.com/2006/05/were-b.html
http://www.kjvonly.org/james/index_james.html

To say that Westcott and Hort were ‘non-Christians when it is well documented that Westcott at least (I cannot speak for Hort) believed in the deity and resurrection of Christ, and in the truth and inspiration of Scripture. Take this example from Westcott’s ‘Characteristics of the Gospel Miracles’: “The narratives of the Gospels admit of the most manifold combinations, not because they are constructed artificially, but because they are true records of the Truth. Everything tends to show that the intricate relations which exist between them were not the result of any conscious purpose, but of that Inspiration which led the Evangelists to preserve only such details as have a lasting and representative interest. This they did from different points of sight; and each special aspect of truth admits of a perfect combination with the others both in its parts and as a whole.”
‘True records of the truth’.
Or this: “The assumption of humanity, not for a time, but for ever, by the Word, who is God, was a truth undreamt of till it was realized.”
The suggestion that Westcott was an occultist is surely blown out of the water by the facts of history. The ‘Ghostly Guild’ was a university society founded to invesigate claims of the supernatural, NOT a spiritistic club. Of it Westcott wrote in 1893: “Many years ago I had occasion to investigate “spiritualistic” phenomena with some care, and I came to a clear conclusion, which I feel bound to express in answer to your circular. It appears to me that in this, as in all spiritual questions, Holy Scripture is our supreme guide. I observe, then, that while spiritual ministries are constantly recorded in the Bible, there is not the faintest encouragement to seek them. The case, indeed, is far otherwise. I cannot, therefore, but regard every voluntary approach to beings such as those who are supposed to hold communication with men through mediums as unlawful and perilous. I find in the fact of the Incarnation all that man (so far as I can see) requires for life and hope.”

Which is not to say Westcott was an orthodox, evangelical believer. He was an Anglican, and did indeed practice High Church or Anglo-Catholic rituals such as prayers for the dead. I hold no brief for any Bishops of Durham (Westcott held the See), past, present, or even future. After all, although such men as Butler the apologist, Lightfoot and Moule (both defenders of Evangelical Truth) have held it, so has Dr. Jenkins the arch-heretic, and N.T. Wright, the present Bisop, is hardly sound (not so sound as once he was).

Let me make one thing clear. I use the Authorised Version. I use the TR by conviction. BUT to circulate falsehoods about any man, such as those that have been circulated about Bishop Westcott, is deplorable. The Bible needs no such defence, no plotting, no misinformation or propaganda. The triumph of the cause of God and Truth is certain and is not doubtful, we have no reason to panic. God is on His throne still, and He is not glorified by our illegitimate and sinful tactics.