BrianT proposed:
Quote:
Consider: two people can both read the KJV exclusively, and yet ... disagree on doctrine, yet two people can read differing versions and end up agreeing on doctrine. If one KJV-only supporter concludes that Trinitarianism is true, and another KJV-only supporter concludes Trinitarianism is false, do they both really have "the word of God"? ...
Is not the correct understanding more important than the correct text?
|
Your illustration is not sensible in the least. One day when I was in front of an abortion mill, I was joined by a group of Catholics and several Krishnas (an eastern religion) who were pro-life as well. Does this mean that we agreed on much else? Of course not. Agreeing or disagreeing on a specific doctrine does not indicate unity or disunity on the whole.
Your last statement is particularly erroneous. How can one have correct understanding of the whole of Scripture when reading a false or confused text? How can one draw truth from error? Most modern versions have enough basic truth to provide the foundation for the fundamental doctrines, (and even that is fading with each new generation of versions) so, yes, there will be agreement in a general sense. The deeper truths are the first to be lost when the text is altered. Example: John 1:3 - the KJB: "All things were made
by him" versus the NKJV "All things were made
through Him". The NKJV moves the LORD Jesus from being the active agent of creation to being the passive agent. The NIV, NASB, and ESV all do the same. What is interesting is to examine Colossians 1:16 as a parallel. The MVs alternate between "by" and "through", even contradicting themselves within the verse.