DC, because you asked, I will respond to the specific issue that underlies the persuade/entice variation as well as others that might be used. The variations [I believe] are there to enhance the basic event's message. The Kings/Chronicles books as well as the 4 Gospel accounts are frequently different from each other. If any statement is taken as a singular event, the other account's variation might be viewed as a change in the quote. [For me,] it is seen as an amplification, enhancement, or just a different prospective. For some Gospel variations, similar wording may not actually be from the same event. It is possible during the three+ years Jesus was with His followers that similar talks were given at different points of time. This would not explain all of the variations, but some. The key issue is that one must view the whole of the Scriptures as one message which cannot contradict itself. The student of the Bible must bring in the whole to more fully understand the part.

It is a certainty that the original manuscripts contained variations in the story/event/quote in a number of places. This has nothing to do with a translation. God has chosen to have this exist. You have honestly said that you were not sure why. I would say that [for me] the answer is that He wanted to give different prospectives of the situation to enhance the message.

As far as the variations in translating a particular word or phrase, because [I believe that] God carried His promise of preservation to the KJB, the same principle applies. The different wording (persuade/entice) fills out the message.

To answer your other questions. The doctrine that you lose is that God must preserve His Words in such a way that they are available to His church in each generation. While non-KJBers claim that the modern versions still do this, none will admit that the words are perfectly preserved. That is the doctrine that is lost. As time goes on (God permitting), there will be a wider and wider gap between the modern versions and the Truth. Evidence: Look at the further degradation from the NIV to the TNIV. (steelmaker, there is where you can find real New Age wording!)

While the KJB, as the pure truth, may be misinterpreted, creating variations of doctrines as evidenced throughout history, the absence of that truth altogether cannot by definition bring true doctrine to the reader. The missing verses, without having someone showing that they are missing, would not be known to BE missing. Example: Let us say that the story of the woman caught in adultery was removed from a new version. Let us then say that this version becomes the standard of a future generation. The readers of that generation are never made aware of the story. They would not know that something was missing (duh!). There would be nothing against which to compare for truth. This is how the doctrines are lost. As long as the KJB is available [and if I am right in my belief, it will always be - to some degree], there will always be truth as a standard.

You mention "blemishes". Just who determines what is a blemish? Who becomes the authority? This is a serious danger in my opinion. steelmaker often likes to hide behind the vague term "valid translations". Who decides what those are? Does not the next person have as much a right as you do to include some version in that steelmaker or you might reject? If someone picks up "The Message"* or the "New World Translation"* and says that this is his Bible, can you argue against it, based on your view of God's Word? (* I'm using these hoping that you don't count them as valid.)

As for differing doctrines, Matthew is very bright, but I never said he was perfect. Yes, I think that he has some areas where he may be incorrect, but I'm sure that the same might be said of me as well. (Here's where you chime in, steelmaker.)


In the Service of the KING,
Brother Tim Keyes (Proverbs 3:5-6)

When I fully rely upon God, I find that He is fully reliable.