Bible Version Questions

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I know the KJV is the only Bible version around that comes from the Textus Recptus.

This simply is not true - The KJV is not a purely TR translation and the NKJV uses the same textual body.

The NKJV is NOT a translation from the Alexandrian texts.

 

[2serve]

Just curious,
To the best of my knowledge I didn't break any of the rules and yet it appears that my previous posts to this thread have been removed. Am I missing something?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Just curious,
To the best of my knowledge I didn't break any of the rules and yet it appears that my previous posts to this thread have been removed. Am I missing something?

I can see them.

 

[2serve]

I don't know, I logged out and back in and still don't see them.
The end of pg.2 is Dr. Bob and then pg3 begins with C4K.
Oh well.

 

[2serve]

No stones here. Just want to ask why everyone has to drag the Psalm 12 (which does not refer to Bible versions or translations unless you twist the Scriptures to make it seem so) deal out when there are much stronger verses in the Bible that DO deal with preservation- Psalm 119:152,160; Isaiah 30:8; 40:8; Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33; John 12:48; 1 Peter 1:23-25- for instance?

I don't use it to justifty KJVO, but if I'm not mistaken it does say that God will preserve his word. Does it not?

" ... Thou shalt keep them, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." I mean. It does say that doesn't it?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I don't know, I logged out and back in and still don't see them.
The end of pg.2 is Dr. Bob and then pg3 begins with C4K.
Oh well.

Thats a weird one - I see all your posts on page 2

 

[Salamander]

Nicholas, the NKJV is also translated from the TR. It seems like I've been talking a lot about it lately and maybe that's because it's my favorite translation but it may also be because the NKJV gets a bad rap. I don't know why KJV people are so against it. My church is also mostly KJV. My pastor says its the best but doesn't judge those who use other translations. Thanks goodness, or I would probably leave the church.

Then how did they get Job 24:22 so wrong?

 

[Salamander]

I don't use it to justifty KJVO, but if I'm not mistaken it does say that God will preserve his word. Does it not?

" ... Thou shalt keep them, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." I mean. It does say that doesn't it?

yes it does, so be ready for those who will try to prove it doesn't!:laugh:

 

[Salamander]

Fiction can be very powerful. I find the final quote especially disturbing:



Jehoiakim's actions have nothing to do with the KJV. Neither do Polycarp's words. But the writer chose to assign a new meaning to these accounts. I find the assigning of new meaning to Scripture to back up one's preferences especially distasteful.

Carefully re-read the opening of the aforementioned quote:



God never addresses KJV's versus MV's...and for someone to insinuate that He did is simply wrongheaded. The intent of the above sentence--to indict all MV's from a Scriptural standpoint, cannot be done without engaging in misuse of the Scriptures themselves.

Um, the warnings are about the word of God being tampered with. Your ideal states that the KJB is not the word of God.

We would find the same warnings, though worded differently, in other versions. yet something could be said that those " same " warnings don't carry the same impact and authority.:wavey:

 

[Salamander]

Askjo simply lied. I'm sure he believes it to be truth, but each point has been proven time and time again to be a proven lie. When someone will not accept the truth and passes on false teaching, it is at BEST a "lie"; at WORST it is an attack on the Word of God and an attack on new believers. Feel free to look at other threads on the Translation forum. You'll see quickly.

like some of your posts I've rresponded to and you never have?

If I could stop the only sect from lying, I'd think it a great legacy. But at least, when you read his post, understand that he is not telling the truth. It is fanciful thinking without an iote (iota) of validity. Very sad.

maybe it's the resource you accept as truth that is the problem?

Are you calling another member a "liar"?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Then how did they get Job 24:22 so wrong?

Job 24:22 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
He draweth also the mighty by his power, and when he riseth vp, none is sure of life.

Job 24:22 (nKJV = New King James Version)
But God draws the mighty away with His power; He rises up, but no man is sure of life.

Looks good to me! Of course, I believe two versions MAGNIFY the BIBLE and we can use it to Magnify the Lord. The mileage of others will vary (especially Bible Amenders who do not believe there are two Bibles).

 

[Rippon]

Um, the warnings are about the word of God being tampered with. Your ideal states that the KJB is not the word of God.

To the best of my knowledge rbell has never said that the KJV is not the Word of God.Could it be that you are stating an untruth?

We would find the same warnings, though worded differently, in other versions. yet something could be said that those " same " warnings don't carry the same impact and authority.

Sal,you are the primary one here who says that the warnings in the MV's "don't carry the same impact and authority." But your authority itself is not so authoritative.

 

[Ed Edwards]

This phrase from post #18: // The New King James Version draws on the resources of relevant manuscripts // is found only in this location:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/nkjv.html

Seems that the New King James Version would use that phrase somewhere on the Internet, if that phrase comes from the nKJV.

Seems to me the nKJV is being damned for doing the same thing the King James Version translators used: Using all available source material. The nKJV translators had more sources available than did the KJV translators

I highly recommend that authors of posts in this Forum CHECK their cut & paste before pasting. You know someone else will check them. I know I check things out AS REQUIRED BY GOD - 'to see if they are true or not'.

 

[Askjo]

Jehoiakim's actions have nothing to do with the KJV. Neither do Polycarp's words. But the writer chose to assign a new meaning to these accounts. I find the assigning of new meaning to Scripture to back up one's preferences especially distasteful.

Carefully re-read the opening of the aforementioned quote:

Correct because the KJV was not there in their lifetime. However Polycarp'a quotations, for example of Romans 14:10, in his letters agree with the KJV.

Jehoiakim did tampered God's Words as what Salamander pointed out. I agree with him.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Nicholas25: // 7.) do you think there is any chance at all that we could stand before the Lord one day and have to answer for our choice of Bible versions? //

2serve: // *7.) I don't know for sure, what I do know is this.

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God

Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

The bottom line is that the original Manuscripts were inspired of God and Psalms 12 tells us that God will preserve it for us for ever. //

1. IMHO 'All Scripture' includes the nKJV and HCSB both of which generally use the Majority Text (MT) over the Critical Text (CT).

2. It is nice to quote Revelation 22:19 but look it it's context:

Rev 22:18 (KJV1611 Edition, e-sword.com edition):
For I testifie vnto euery man that heareth the wordes of the prophesie of this booke, If any man shal adde vnto these things, God shall adde vnto him the plagues, that are written in this booke.

There are about 2% additions from the earliest Bibles (preserved by God inerrant - some sources in the dry desert of Egypt and Mt. Sinai defying the bane of manuscripts (MMSs): high humidity).

Psalm 12 is talking about preserving people, not His words - the KJV1611 edition says so.

So that is why some scripture seems to be missing from the Modern Versions, the extra scriptures were inserted in the 6th Century (0501-0600) through 10th Century (0901-1000).

 

[Ed Edwards]

Salamander: // Um, the warnings are about the word of God being tampered with. Your ideal states that the KJB is not the word of God. //

Rippon: // To the best of my knowledge rbell has never said that the KJV is not the Word of God.Could it be that you are stating an untruth? //

Amen, Brother Rippon -- Preach it! :thumbs:

My testimony is this:

I read three different inerrant preserved for their time KJVs every day:

1. KJV1611 Edition - preserved for the 17th century (1601-1700)
(electronic from e-sword.com;, paper form from Nelson reprint)

2. KJV1769 Edition - preserved for the 18th century (1701-1800)
(electronic from e-sword.com with Strong's numbers; paper forms - several, all different)

3. KJV1873 Edition - preserved for the 19th century (1801-1900)
(only a paper form: TODAY'S PARALLEL BIBLE /Zondervan/ )

 

[franklinmonroe]

... My testimony is this:

I read three different inerrant preserved for their time KJVs every day...

That is sooo COOL!

 

[franklinmonroe]

... there are no english versions other than the A.V. that come from the M.T. and T.R. and those solely. As a matter of fact allow me to qoute from the preface of two of them, the NKJV and the NIV, (lest I be accused of lying)...

First, there are MANY English versions based on the MT or TR. You'd have to be intentionally overlooking them to make this statement even if you had been studying this subject for only 10 days. Please, don't make us list them all again.

Second, why quote the NIV preface here? The NIV never claimed to be MT or TR based.

 

[Ed Edwards]

That is sooo COOL!

Early teens (and pre-teens) now say SWEET! instead of 'cool'.

But thank you for the '70s compliment :godisgood:

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

If the verse above can applied to the entire 'Bible' as you imply, then certainly these verses below also can be envoked from the time of their original writing --

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (Deut. 4:2, KJV)

Every word of God [is] pure: he [is] a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. (Proverbs 30:5-6, KJV)​

So, would you have us close the canon after Deuteronomy, or after Proverbs?