1. 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!

A deadly article of hooey!

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by robycop3, Mar 4, 2005.

Top Posters
  1. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,396
    Likes Received:
    672
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The NKJV: A Deadly Translation

    By Dr. Michael E. Todd

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

    This article, in its various incarnations, is a large source of much of the KJVO hooey being bandied about today. It takes up most of the original "party line" garbage of Wilkinson, Ray, & Fuller & adds some modern trash talk.

    I believed we've discussed most of this garbage before, but we have some newer members who may not have seen it before. IMO, it's simply a compilation of MISINFORMATION, AND OUTRIGHT LIES.
     
    #1 robycop3, Mar 4, 2005
  2. mcgyver

    mcgyver New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Roby......

    A lie by any other name, would smell as deceit...

    (Forgive me, Bard, wherever you are.....)
     
    #2 mcgyver, Mar 4, 2005
  3. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hooey? Garbage? Amen to that! More KJVO drivel...
     
    #3 Keith M, Mar 4, 2005
  4. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    We are all aware of the multitude of resources available that even most KJVOs on the Baptist Board would not agree with. There are extremeists in every camp of believers.

    I, for one, would like to see threads that dealt with translational issues and bonafide version issues instead of KJV-vs-MV threads all of the time.
     
    #4 Pastor_Bob, Mar 4, 2005
  5. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,583
    Likes Received:
    25
    I think that it is more fun to play cops and robbers and shoot each other. This forum is more fun than a blood and guts video game. :rolleyes:

    Unfortunately, however, as long as there are unscrupulous “Christians” disseminating false information and lies, those who know the truth have to stand in the gap and expose the false information and lies, and proclaim the truth.

    [​IMG]
     
    #5 Craigbythesea, Mar 4, 2005
  6. 4His_glory

    4His_glory New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with Pastor Bob. [​IMG]
     
    #6 4His_glory, Mar 4, 2005
  7. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see this lie right up front:
    //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 took the nKJV haters six years after the
    release of the New King James Version (nKJV)
    to notice this 'logo'. BTW, the logo is on
    the title page, and has nothing to do with
    the translation. The original KJV1611 (i have
    a reporduction) has a Sun God image on the title page,
    upper left hand corner.
    The triskelian symbol is a traditional Christian symbol of the Blessed Trinity: God the Father,
    God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Please
    do not use this site of Bible bashers.

    I was converted in 1952. I am familiar with
    the history of the nKJV, but i head it as news,
    not history. The proto-KJVos said that if
    a book was translated from the Textus Receptus
    manuscripts, like the KJV1769, then they
    would accept it. They lied, not accepting it.

    Like the KJV1611, the nKJV has translator margin
    notes that denote the variances between the
    sources texts from which the document was
    translated. The 1985 nKJV of course, had
    more sources available than the KJV1611 had.
     
    #7 Ed Edwards, Mar 4, 2005
  8. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    In fact, I for one am glad that we have a modern translation of the TR. I would have preferred the majority text, but its close enough. ...gives us something to compare with the CT. Nothing wrong with that, RIGHT???????
     
    #8 Phillip, Mar 4, 2005
  9. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,396
    Likes Received:
    672
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Amen to standing in the gap! That "doctor" has added very little to the collection of trash talk in his article. I'm just amazed at the tunnel vision exhibited by several of these gents who hold doctorate degrees, such as Moorman, Reagan, Herb Evans, John Hinton, and the above-mentioned Michael Todd, to name a few.

    It's quite OK to deal with translational issues and the KJVO myth in the same forum and at the same time, as they often coincide. To knowingly allow a KNOWN, PROVEN FALSE DOCTRINE to be proclaimed unopposed is almost as bad as actually spreading it. Silence indicates acceptance, and that, I will NOT do.
     
    #9 robycop3, Mar 5, 2005
  10. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,537
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This website ends with the claim "The NJKV is a counterfeit".

    Well, it does leave out the Apocrypha which the AV1611 included and the Crown decreed had to be left in under penalty of imprisonment.

    HankD
     
    #10 HankD, Mar 5, 2005
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...