Thread:Superdadsuper/@comment-24874291-20150215020503/@comment-5175866-20150309002557

Actually Gotquestions.org has an article about KJV that has a good explaination to my argument that is different from your idea. I myself am I a strong believer and prefer NIV, people will try to twist the Scriptures but with guidance from the Holy Spirit you can see the light of how a Bible is correct. The thing is though that it would almost be like God hadn't planned or chosen a version for modern day English speakers and that God rather decide to seclude modern day English speakers and force them to read something difficult to understand. The review (which should be happening tommorow or within the next 3 weeks) so I reccomend you go ahead and post now your ideas concerning this on the forum.

As in what you could contribute things like "Romans Road" and "Way to Salvation" will most likely be something that we will implement but it is a bit difficult to add it because there is no official naming convention and articles like that often become more a scholarly article. The goal of the wiki (and during the review process we are going to clarify this more) is to present the Gospel and the message of Jesus Christ by using biblical-history. We would like to discuss (and have mass amounts of information available)  ancient history and boldly state God's involvement in it and hope the information help people learn from the mistakes of the past. We would like to pull this data from both the sorted context of a chapter and cross-referencing the Bible to prove its internal consistency and historical accuracy. There are going to be those who will try to twist the scripture who want to turn the Bible into mere myths and turn the focus away from that. Something we will need to devise in-depth is look in the Bible specifically how should we respond to these Bible-called fools. Often what people do though is they take the Bible out of context and they twist it to interpret what they would like it to mean. If you compare different English versions of the Bible you can see they have the same context and they aren't taken out of context and twisted. I should advise not to base an entire "KJV only" idea out of a few verses different. We should not take away or add to the Bible things are different for grammars sake. If you want you can chat with me on the chatroom further about getting your proposal on the forums.

To get into a little more depth grammatically often you need to look at the context as a verse often doesn't make total sense or the meaning doesn't come out right if you don't look at context. Often what would happen is Christ would be removed as (and I am not an expert on this) because it is a bit repetitive to say Christ over and over and over. Christ's name would've been mentioned in surrounding verses as if one verse favors using a pronoun rather than a proper noun doesn't mean they are not acknowledging the existent of the proper noun. Its difficult to say well they removed this out of this verse and so that version isn't right unless you look at the context. With the context you can see that these verses that you mention specifically are taken out of context in terms of Jesus's name not being there. You have to look at all the surrounding text.

Thanks,

Superdadsuper, Biblicalapedia Administrator and Bureaucrat