1611 KJV only and anger

[Mexdeaf]

You misunderstand me. Those who promote the MVs inspire doubt. Anybody can come to this forum any time and see the debates between the MVs themselves, each arguing their version is superior, but often admitting it has many shortcomings as well.

Ask any person if their NIV or ESV is perfect, they will all say NO. But ask many who use the KJB if their Bible is perfect, and many will say YES!

Why is it that KJBs have this supreme confidence and faith in their Bible that others lack?

Ponder that for awhile.

So then your argument against MV's isn't really based on faith, it is based on what you see happening on the BB.

Because faith, my friend, without works is DEAD.

Don't show me your BV- show me what your BV DOES.

Headed off to church to worship my Lord with my iPad in hand which has multiple versions on it...:laugh:

 

[Winman]

So then your argument against MV's isn't really based on faith, it is based on what you see happening on the BB.

Because faith, my friend, without works is DEAD.

Don't show me your BV- show me what your BV DOES.

Headed off to church to worship my Lord with my iPad in hand which has multiple versions on it...:laugh:

What I see on BB can be seen everywhere, and is. Go to any forum and you will see the same debates, go to your library. If MVs believed they had a perfect version they wouldn't keep coming out with new ones.

But many KJBs are perfectly content to keep the Bible they have. Many are in perfect agreement with each other on their Bible, there are no debates between KJBs (or very few).

Why is this?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

What I see on BB can be seen everywhere, and is. Go to any forum and you will see the same debates, go to your library. If MVs believed they had a perfect version they wouldn't keep coming out with new ones.

But many KJBs are perfectly content to keep the Bible they have. Many are in perfect agreement with each other on their Bible, there are no debates between KJBs (or very few).

Why is this?

You can travel anywhere in the world and attend a Roman Catholic service and they will be the exact same. Many are in perfect agreement with each other services, there are no debates between Catholics about how a service is run (or very few).

Why is this?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

What I see on BB can be seen everywhere, and is. Go to any forum and you will see the same debates, go to your library. If MVs believed they had a perfect version they wouldn't keep coming out with new ones.

But many KJBs are perfectly content to keep the Bible they have. Many are in perfect agreement with each other on their Bible, there are no debates between KJBs (or very few).

Why is this?

There are plenty of KJVO factions. 1611 v 1769. Savior v Saviour. Scofield v New Scofield, study notes v no notes, etc.

 

[Winman]

You can travel anywhere in the world and attend a Roman Catholic service and they will be the exact same. Many are in perfect agreement with each other services, there are no debates between Catholics about how a service is run (or very few).

Why is this?

Oh, I agree, and Muslims believe the Koran. These all have faith, but it is a misplaced faith, the Catholics depending upon the Church itself to save them, the Muslims depending upon the teachings of Mohammed. The KJBs depend upon the Bible itself as their authority.

I would disagree about disunity among KJBs, I am not saying it doesn't exist, but it is extremely rare and usually limited to "scholars". You will almost never see lay people debate the KJB, I have never been involved in one or witnessed one.

You don't want to contrast the unity between KJOs and MVs, you won't win that argument.

 

[Logos1560]

Oh, I agree, and Muslims believe the Koran. These all have faith, but it is a misplaced faith, the Catholics depending upon the Church itself to save them, the Muslims depending upon the teachings of Mohammed. The KJBs depend upon the Bible itself as their authority.

.

KJV-only advocates also have misplaced faith in their man-made KJV-only view. The KJV-only view is not stated in the Scriptures. KJV-only advocates read their own assumptions and opinions into verses that do not state them.

Do KJV-only advocates depend upon the Scriptures that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles or do they depend upon the human wisdom, skill, and knowledge of an exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611? KJV-only advocates seem to reject the authority of the preserved words of God in the original languages and replace it with the translating/interpreting of a group of scholars.

The same guiding of the Holy Spirit was available to the KJV translators that was available to the translators of the 1560 Geneva Bible, the translators of the NKJV, etc. and that is available to believing teachers and preachers and all believers, but that guiding of the Spirit does not make them infallible in their understanding of the Scriptures. The only difference involved between the making of the 1560 Geneva Bible or the NKJV and the making of the KJV would concern the human scholarship and skill of the translators. The guiding of the Holy Spirit would be the same since there is no partiality with God. Are KJV-only advocates suggesting that human scholarship produces perfection and infallibility in translating?

 

[Mexdeaf]

There are plenty of KJVO factions. 1611 v 1769. Savior v Saviour. Scofield v New Scofield, study notes v no notes, etc.

Not to mention Cambridge v Oxford. That was a biggie back in the 70's.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Oh, I agree, and Muslims believe the Koran. These all have faith, but it is a misplaced faith, the Catholics depending upon the Church itself to save them, the Muslims depending upon the teachings of Mohammed. The KJBs depend upon the Bible itself as their authority.

So do I, C4k, Dr. Bob and every other person that I know personally who uses an MV.

Don't slime our faith by comparing it with the Muslim or Catholic.

The problem is not the BV, the problem is the FLESH. KJVO'ers included.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The KJBs depend upon the Bible itself as their authority.

I would disagree about disunity among KJBs, I am not saying it doesn't exist, but it is extremely rare and usually limited to "scholars". You will almost never see lay people debate the KJB, I have never been involved in one or witnessed one.

You don't want to contrast the unity between KJOs and MVs, you won't win that argument.

On what scripture does a KJVO place his faith the KJV is the only inspired translation? Unless there is scripture is faith properly based?

Not in a battle about division, however I have seen plenty of fights amongst KJVO factions. HERE is an example of a KJVO on KJVO fight -

 

[Logos1560]

Those who attack the KJB are really attacking faith. They inspire doubt.

You are misrepresenting and distorting the views of other believers. Believers who disagree with the modern KJV-only view are not attacking the KJV when they disagree with or point out the problems in the KJV-only view.

Are you suggesting that the KJV translators inspired doubt in the Bible or in the Geneva Bible and other pre-1611 English Bibles [Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Taverner's, Whittingham's, Bishops'] when they produced yet another English translation?

The KJV is a translation of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages in the same way or sense that the 1537 Matthew's Bible, the 1560 Geneva Bible, the NKJV are.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Why is it that KJBs have this supreme confidence and faith in their Bible that others lack?

Ponder that for awhile.

I have supreme confidence and faith in my Bible. I don't understand the question.

 

[preacher4truth]

I don't have faith in my Bible, which is Bible-olatry, I have faith in God's Word.

What is really being stated by winman (and others who are KJVO's) is they practice version faith. This is nothing more or less than bible-olatry.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I don't have faith in my Bible, which is Bible-olatry, I have faith in God's Word.

What is really being stated by winman (and others who are KJVO's) is they practice version faith. This is nothing more or less than bible-olatry.

Hmm, I never thought about it quite that way. You may be right.

 

[Winman]

I don't have faith in my Bible, which is Bible-olatry, I have faith in God's Word.

What is really being stated by winman (and others who are KJVO's) is they practice version faith. This is nothing more or less than bible-olatry.

Where is God's word according to you? The original autographs? The original texts disappeared centuries ago, even the KJB translators relied on copies (and many other texts).

This is the problem with those who claim only the original Greek and Hebrew texts are infallible, those texts were all worn out and disappeared in the very early centuries, no man on Earth knows exactly what those texts contained.

So, whether you like it or not, you are depending on preservation just as KJBs are, only you believe God's preservation stopped with the Greek and Hebrew texts.

I believe God has promised to preserve his words to all generations.

And if I am an idolator, so was David when he said, "for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." (Psa 138:2)

It sounds cute to say you believe God's word, but by that you mean the original autographs only, which do not exist. So, you believe in nothing.

 

[Logos1560]

I believe God has promised to preserve his words to all generations.

That is not what KJV-onlyism implies. A KJV-only view does not suggest that God kept His promises to preserve his actual words that He gave to the prophets and apostles. Those words that God gave by inspiration and promised to preserve were in the original languages.

If you suggest that those original language words were preserved in the printed editions of the original language texts from which the KJV translators, then those printed editions still exist and are still preserved. Just as original language words were the proper standard and authority for the making of the KJV and other translations, they are also the proper standard and authority for the trying or evaluating of translations just as the KJV translators themselves maintained. Later editors of the KJV used those original language words as their standard and authority in making many changes to the English text of the 1611 edition of the KJV.

A consistent belief and understanding of preservation does not lead to inconsistent modern KJV-onlyism.

What is the scriptural basis for suggesting that preservation was changed or transferred to different words in 1611?

 

[markthebaptist]

The above reasoning is wrong. The fact that the NKJV may have the same rendering as some of those listed translations is not evidence that the NKJV was translated from other Hebrew and Greek texts. Along with his unproven KJV-only assumptions and bias, your source jumped to wrong conclusions and made incorrect accusations. By a consistent application of the faulty reasoning above, it could be asserted that the KJV was translated from the Latin Vulgate since it has many renderings the same as those in the Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible. The KJV translators actually made use of the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament, changing some words in the pre-1611 English Bibles to the words in the Rheims.

KJV-only author William Bradley wrote: “Every word change in the text of the New King James Version was taken directly from the text that produced the Revised Standard Version, the New International Version, and all the other so-called bibles, the minority text of Westcott and Hort” (Purified Seven Times, pp. 121-122). Mickey Carter asserted: ‘Even the slightest changes in the King James Version, including the New King James Version, came from the polluted ‘stream’” (Things that are Different, p. 171).

It can be proven that such KJV-only accusations are misleading, inaccurate, and often completely false. I have compared the 1560 Geneva Bible, the KJV, and the NKJV and have found many pages of examples where the NKJV differs from the KJV but is the same as the 1560 Geneva Bible. KJV-only advocates assert that the 1560 Geneva Bible is translated from the same original language texts as the KJV and yet there are the same type differences in it as those found in the NKJV.

Then it begs the question...why the numerous changes in the verbiage?...they have weakened doctrine..did you see the changes?... or has fundamental doctrine been wrong all these years?..unbelievable..the comparisons are easy to make...as I said in an earlier post....5th grade research..

 

[markthebaptist]

I would like proof of this statement. I go to a church that uses primarily the ESV. We have approximately 2500 members. People are saved and baptized regularly. We support both SBC and independent missionaries. And you're telling me we have no faith??

It is statements like these, on BOTH sides of the aisle, that must make God sick.

He is much bigger than the KJV. The world is much bigger than the KJV. There are billions dying and going to hell who don't have a Bible, much less a KJV, and all we can do is sit around and play this, "My Bible is better than your Bible" game.

If it's so good, START USING IT AND LIVING IT. If our Bible versions are wrong then leave it up to the Lord and the Holy Spirit to show us that. That's HIS job. He is the "Spirit of truth". And He and I get along fine as I read and study my ESV as well as my KJV, my NIRV, and my NIV.

You don't like that- TOUGH!!!

...now back to your regularly scheduled time-wasting, flesh feeding sniping...

Have I become your enemy by pointing what I believe to be gross negligence on the part of the MV er's?..God is not much bigger than his word....HE IS THE WORD! Gospel of John chapter 1..your making this a he said, he said argument when in fact it is much bigger than that...the difference between old time fundamentalist doctrine and what will be eventually a complete apostate church...where the word is not that important( your words, "He is much bigger than the KJV. The world is much bigger than the KJV")..where do you think its going?...and no one here has commented on the different wording (KJV vs NKJV)...why the changes? do you not see what they(modern translators) do to the doctrine of salvation? and others?.. answer the question!....your answer will tell me a lot about where you stand...BTW...you call it "sniping"..I call it debate...their has been no personal attacks from me..dont you think this is a worthy issue?..I certainly do...

 

[markthebaptist]

"The New King James Bible was first published in 1979. It is a deadly version because its editors have succeeded in deceiving the body of Christ on two main points:

(1) That it's a King James Bible (which is a lie), and
(2) That it's based on the Textus Receptus (which is only a partial truth).

It is essential to know that many of the word changes between the original KJV and the NKJV are not changes which result from removing archaisms, etc. Instead, many are changes which clearly reveal that, contrary to their agreed basis, the NKJV translators departed from the original KJV and its underlying Greek text, the Textus Receptus, in favor of the very same wording found in versions translated from corrupted Greek texts.

There's nothing "new" about the NKJV logo. It is a "666" symbol of the pagan trinity which was used in the ancient Egyptian mysteries. It was also used by Satanist Aleister Crowley around the turn of this century. The symbol can be seen on the New King James Bible, on certain rock albums (like Led Zepplin's), or you can see it on the cover of such New Age books as The Aquarian Conspiracy.

Riplinger states that this same tri-part symbol is found concealed in the tail of the Green Dragon, illustrated in Harry E. Wedeck's occult classic volume, Treasury of Witchcraft.

Moreover, it is similar to the logo of the immense Krupp Works, the German manufacturing giant that was one of the most important producers for Adolf Hitler's Nazi war machine.

While passing off as being true to the Textus Receptus, the NKJV IGNORES the Receptus over 1,200 times.

IN THE "NEW KJV," THERE ARE

22 omissions of "hell",
23 omissions of "blood",
44 omissions of "repent",
50 omissions of "heaven",
51 omissions of "God",
66 omissions of "Lord".

The term "JEHOVAH" is completely omitted.

The NKJV makes a very serious doctrinal error when dealing with the word "JEHOVAH" in Exodus 6:3. They change the word "JEHOVAH" to "LORD" thus making the Bible to contradict itself. Even the corrupt "New World Translation" (Jehovah's Witnesses Bible) has a better rendering of this passage.

So what does Exodus 6:3 say? Please read carefully - "And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them." (KJV)

Now please note what the NKJV says - "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, LORD, I was not known to them." (NKJV)

If you will take a concordance and go back to Genesis 1 and go through to Exodus 6:3 you will notice that the word "LORD" is mentioned 242 times.

Did anyone before Exodus know God by the name of "LORD" before Exodus 6:3. The answer is a resounding, YES! Don't just sit there, look it up for yourself.

Adam & Eve knew - Genesis 4:1
Enos knew - Genesis 4: 26
Noah knew - Genesis 8: 20
Shem knew - Genesis 9:26
Nimrod knew - Genesis 10:9
Abraham knew - Genesis 12:7-8
King of Sodom knew - Genesis 14:22
Sarah knew - Genesis 16:2; 18:14
Hagar knew - Genesis 16:11
Lot knew - Genesis 19:14
Abimelech knew - Genesis 20:4
Eliezor knew - Genesis 24:3-12
Rebekah knew - Genesis 24:18
Laban and Bethuel knew - Genesis 24:50
Isaac knew - Genesis 25:21
Abimelech, Ahuzzath, & Phichol knew - Genesis 26:28
Jacob knew - Genesis 27:20
Leah knew - Genesis 29:32
Rachel knew - Genesis 30:24
Laban knew - Genesis 30:27
Joseph knew - Genesis 39:2-3
Pharaoh knew - Exodus 3:18
Moses & Aaron knew - Exodus 5:1

So to eliminate the word "JEHOVAH" is not only poor scholarship but also perverts and damages the text making it contradictory. It is a key passage that shows God as He reveals Himself BY ANOTHER NAME to mankind. Someone on the translation committee evidently does not like the name, "JEHOVAH."

The term "NEW TESTAMENT", is completely omitted.

It is interesting to note that Hebrews 9:15-20 in the NKJV lines up with the New World Translation (Jehovah's Witnesses Bible).

DOCTRINAL PROBLEMS
DEALING WITH SALVATION

The NKJV confuses people about salvation. In Hebrews 10:14 it replaces "are sanctified" with "ARE BEING SANCTIFIED", and it replaces "are saved" with "ARE BEING SAVED."

In I Corinthians 1:18 and II Corinthians 2:15. The words "may believe" have been replaced with "MAY CONTINUE TO BELIEVE" in I John 5:13.

The old straight and "narrow" way of Matthew 7:14 has become the "DIFFICULT" way in the NKJV.

In II Corinthians 10:5 the KJV reads "casting down imaginations", but the NKJV reads "CASTING DOWN ARGUMENTS". The word "thought", which occurs later in the verse, matches "imaginations", not "arguments". This change weakens the verse.

The KJV tells us to reject a "heretick" after the second admonition in Titus 3:10. The NKJV tells us to reject a " DIVISIVE MAN". How nice! Now the Alexandrians and Ecumenicals have justification for rejecting anyone they wish to label as "divisive men".

According to the NKJV, no one would stoop so low as to "corrupt" God's word. No, they just "PEDDLE" it (II Cor. 2:17). The reading matches the Alexandrian versions.

The KJV correctly says, "For we are not as many, which corrupt the Word of God .... "But the NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV, change "corrupt" to "peddling." Is there any great difference between peddling (selling, or making a gain of) the Word of God and corrupting (adulterating) it? Of course there is, and one does not have to be a Greek scholar to decide which word is correct. When this warning was given in the 1st Century, was there any way for people to peddle (make a gain of) God's Word? Of course not -- they were suffering for it. The warning clearly refers to corrupting God's Word, something that was common then as it is now. Only in our day has it ever been possible to peddle (make a gain of) the Bible. With its huge profits from the sale of many different Bible versions, the Thomas Nelson Publishers is both corrupting and peddling God's Word.

The NKJV gives us no command to "study" God's word in II Timothy 2:15.

2 TIMOTHY 2:15

KJV reads, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God." NKJV and NASV change "study" to "be diligent." NIV and RSV change "study" to "DO YOUR BEST."

MATTHEW 7:14

KJV - "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life..."

NKJV - "Because narrow is the gate and DIFFICULT is the way which leads to life,"

Is the way unto eternal life difficult? No, that is false teaching. The way unto eternal life is "strait," as the KJV says, meaning "constricted, restricted, distressed, narrow, restrained."



...please forgive the copy and paste routine here...but evidently you MV apologists do not want to address the stark changes and contrasts between the KJV and the NKJV...here it is in black and white..please save the "the author is wrong" routine...it does not fly in the face of this evidence..the differences are of a severe nature..like the author says...the NKJV is a fraud..

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

..and no one here has commented on the different wording (KJV vs NKJV)...why the changes?

The issue has been addressed, but the problem comes when human logic sets up a particular translation without any biblical basis.

Why not pick one of the earlier English translations? The KJV translating team made very clear changes to them. Why? Why not just leave God's word alone.

Logos has pointed out here the the NKJV, translated from the same texts as the KJV, often chooses to go with the translational choices of the Geneva and other older Bibles.

No man has the ability to declare one English translation 'God's word' to the exclusion of all others. He certainly has no Bible support for that decision.

How does anyone defend the changes from the Geneva Bible to the KJV?

 

[markthebaptist]

the rest of the page..again please forgive...trying to make a point...mods..if this is not acceptable please delete..I will understand..

"
MATTHEW 20:20

KJV - "Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him..."

NKJV - "Then the mother of Zebedee's sons came to Him with her sons, KNEELING DOWN..."

This is a wicked change. To kneel is obviously not the same as worship. "Worship" was in Tyndale's translation of 1526. It was in the Matthew's Bible of 1537. It was the Geneva of 1537. It was in the Authorized Version of 1611. Even the English Revised version of 1881 and the American Standard Version of 1901 retained the word "worship." It was the modernistic Revised Standard Version of 1952 which changed to "kneeling." Now the NKJV editors follow this same wicked error.

1 CORINTHIANS 1:18

KJV - "... but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."

NKJV - "... but to us who are BEING SAVED it is the power of God..."

This unnecessary change corrupts the doctrine of salvation and conforms to the heretics who teach that salvation is a process.

ACTS 8:9

KJV reads, "bewitched the people." NKJV and NASV change "bewitched" to "ASTONISHED." NIV and RSV change "bewitched" to "amazed."

COLOSSIANS 3:2

KJV reads, "Set your affection on things above." NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV change "affection" to "MIND."

HEBREWS 3:16

KJV - "For some, when they had heard did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses."

NKJV - "For who having heard rebelled? Indeed, WAS IT NOT ALL who came out of Egypt led by Moses?"

The NKJV make this verse to say something directly contrary to the KJV and to the Old Testament. The Bible plainly says that not all of the Israelites rebelled against God, but the NKJV creates a contradiction.

The NKJV also lines up with the (NWT) Jehovah's Witness Perversion in dealing with the above.

HEBREWS 10:14

KJV - "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."

NKJV - "For by one offering He has perfected forever, those WHO ARE BEING sanctified."

This unnecessary change in the NKJV conforms to heretical gospels, such as that taught by Rome, which claim that salvation is a sacramental process. The NKJV completely destroys the beauty and power of this verse, that through the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus Christ the believer is perfected and sanctified forever. This verse properly translated, as in the KJV, defeats false views of salvation. The NKJV, on the other hand, creates confusion. If Christ's offering gives eternal perfection, as the first half of the verse claims, why does the rest of the verse say that we are BEING saved? It is confusion and error.

And we know that God is not the Author of confusion. (1 Cor. 14:33)

ISAIAH 11:3

The entire phrase, "And shall make Him of quick understanding" in the KJV is eliminated in the NKJV, NWT, NASV, NIV and RSV.

ISAIAH 66:5

The wonderful phrase, "But He shall appear to your joy" in the KJV disappears without explanation from NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV.

DANIEL 3:25

The fourth person who was in the fiery furnace with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, was identified as "the Son of God." The same identification is given in the text of the NKJV but a footnote reads "or, a son of the gods," and both NIV and NASV actually have the latter reading in their texts.

In four different places in 1 and 2 Kings, "sodomites" is changed to "perverted persons." The NKJV does not deserve its respected name. It is a perverted version.

Duplicity is revealed in the preface of the NKJV and in a 16-page history of the KJV printed at the end. On page vi of the preface, NKJV readers are given the following erroneous information: "There is only one basic New Testament used by Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox, by conservatives and liberals." This is simply not true! There are two basic New Testament texts -- the Divinely preserved Textus Receptus from which the original KJV was translated and the satanically corrupted Westcott-Hort Text (and its revisions) which form the basis of all other modern Bible versions.

Dr. Arthur Farstad, chairman of the NKJV Executive Review Committee which had the responsibility of final text approval, stated that this committee was about equally divided as to which was the better Greek New Testament text -- the Textus Receptus or the Westcott-Hort. Apparently none of them believed that either text was the Divinely preserved Word of God. Yet, all of them participated in a project to "protect and preserve the purity and accuracy" of the original KJV based on the TR. Is not this duplicity of the worst kind, coming from supposedly evangelical scholars?

Some will argue that the changes noted do not affect any fundamental Bible doctrine. We strongly disagree. Is not the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures a fundamental doctrine? Is not every word of the Bible important? Jesus Christ said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4). He also said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matt. 24:35). Since Christ is concerned about every word, we should also be concerned about every word and raise a voice of protest whenever scholarly sleight of hand is discovered in any modern version, including the NKJV.

Many today are purchasing NKJV Bibles
for three reasons:

Many pastors and Christian leaders are highly recommending it.
They have been assured by translators and publishers that the NKJV is based upon the same Hebrew and Greek texts used by the KJV translators. However, as already mentioned, such a claim is simply not true and can be easily documented by comparing the wording of the NKJV with the NIV, NASV, RSV and other versions whose translators admittedly used other Hebrew and Greek texts.
The NKJV is supposedly easier to read and understand but its impurities actually make it doubly deceptive and dangerous.

The New King James Bible is a Counterfeit"

link: http://www.1timothy4-13.com/files/bible/nkjv.html

anyway its late Sunday....good day at church and God is good..please do not take any of my posts the wrong way...simply a voice trying to raise the banner of Christ and His Holy Word..more to come..