-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Was the Nkjv translated from same sorce texts as used by the 1611 translators for Kjv then?
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
KJB1611reader
Active Member
No, I do not.
You reveal your inconsistency. KJV-only advocates use different measures/standards in their evaluations of the NKJV than they use in their evaluations of the KJV.
KJV-only advocates fail to apply the same exact measures/standards to the process of the making of the KJV that they inconsistently and thus unjustly apply to the process of the making of the NKJV.
KJB1611reader
Active Member
No, the nkjv is not a kjb.
KJB1611reader
Active Member
Dear Rick, is the Bishop's bible fully Anglcian?
I did not claim that the NKJV is a KJB, but I accurately acknowledge the truth that the NKJV is a revision of the KJV.
KJB1611reader
Active Member
Its claiming to just update old words.
The 1568 Bishops' Bible was the second official authorized version of the Church of England. Its translators were Church of England bishops.
KJV-only author Doug Stauffer acknowledged that the ministers of the Church of England in 1600 “incorporated an unscriptural Episcopal form of church polity, along with unscriptural views on baptism” (One Book One Authority, p. 462). In an article entitled “Short History of the English Bible,“ it is asserted that the Bishops’ Bible had “a tendency to use the hierarchical terminology of the Anglican Church” (Unpublished Word, Spring, 2009, p. 11). This article also stated: “The translators preserved the ecclesiastical terms largely because King James and the Anglican Bishops had strictly charged the translators to preserve the ecclesiastical terms of the Bishops’ Bible” (Ibid.).
Was that hierarchical ecclesiastical terminology kept or even increased in the KJV which was officially a revision of the Bishops‘ Bible?
KJB1611reader
Active Member
Should we rename all Baptist churches to 'congregation?'
Also, why Bishop's have 'by election?' Don't contradicts thy self.
I pointed out the truth that the KJV has more episcopal bias than the Bishops' Bible has, and one place that the KJV has more episcopal bias is at Acts 14:23. That is not contradicting myself.
KJB1611reader
Active Member
Dosen't change my mind the kjbo is perfect.
This post doesn’t make sense to me. If the translators used the same standards, they would have translated the KJV again. I’ll grant you some minor changes in grammar.
That is not what I see.
What is your goal in taking apart the KJV?
What is the purpose of agitating the KJVO?
At least they are consistent. They advocate for KJVO all the time.
You appear to say that any version is fine. If any version is fine, live the standard you preach and let them use the KJVO in peace without searing their conscience.
I could commend them at least for consistency.
In your quest to correct KJVO, (which you won’t do this way) you have become, or at least appear to be “Never KJV.”
Is the gospel wrong in the KJV?
Is doctrine changed in the KJV?
What is it that you hope to accomplish?
KJB1611reader
Active Member
He can't comprhend there is one single perfect English Bible.
Why should he comprehend and accept blindly something that you have not proven to be true and scriptural? Perhaps you assume your unproven claims by use of fallacies such as begging the question and special pleading.
The Scriptures do not state nor teach that the word of God is bound to one claimed single perfect English Bible. The Scriptures do not suggest that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611.
Its claiming to be a revision and updating of the Kjv in the same sense that the Kjv was updating and revising the bibles that came before it, such as the Geneva and Bishop and Tyndale ones
I respect the Kjv as a translation, was one of the best of the time, and would never state to anyone stop using it, but do think Kjvo is totally wrong, and has caused a division within the Body of Christ but casting false reports on modern versions as being corrupted, impure, Satanic etc
Neither did any of the 1611 Kjv translators themselves either
Thanks for clearing that up your position for me. I do think that it is the best translation. I don’t think that we are so far removed from 1611 English that we need a new translation. I am not against other translations. I have not seen of any translations or updates that I believe are as good as KJV.
I have heard of some grammar and spelling updates that people have made and even published. As far as I know, they are not widely available if they are still available at all. Too much pressure over changes to the Bible.
I don’t know how much change to the English language will be required to have happened before the thought of updating would be accepted.
5 point Gillinist
Active Member
The Message is the superior translation. In fact it is the re-inspired English version.
37818
Well-Known Member
Not perfectly.
The NKJV left out εκ σου, of thee, KJV, Luke 1:35. And the note M, NU omits, of you.