Old or new?Originally posted by robycop3:
Askjo, I have a Strong's before me, plus, there's the online version. I checked with both of them, and found that both Skan and Hank are right.
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!
Old or new?Originally posted by robycop3:
Askjo, I have a Strong's before me, plus, there's the online version. I checked with both of them, and found that both Skan and Hank are right.
He is your W/H man. </font>[/QUOTE]THAT'S your counterpoint? That's all you can come up with: a straw-man rebuttal?Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LarryN:
Gary R. Hudson
Not one word to support your false claim that the NKJV was not translated from the TR. Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time?Originally posted by Askjo:
Erorrs translational in the NKJV.
Not one word to support your false claim that the NKJV was not translated from the TR. Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time?Originally posted by Askjo:
Click here: The NKJV is a counterfeit.
Not one word to support your false claim that the NKJV was not translated from the TR. Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time?
He is your W/H man. </font>[/QUOTE]"W/H man", what is that? Wife and Husband?Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LarryN:
Gary R. Hudson
what is the 9th Commandment? Exodus 20:16Originally posted by Askjo:
$$$$$$ What for?![]()
Old or new? </font>[/QUOTE]About ten yrs.old. I assume the online version is the latest.Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by robycop3:
Askjo, I have a Strong's before me, plus, there's the online version. I checked with both of them, and found that both Skan and Hank are right.
Old or new? </font>[/QUOTE]About ten yrs.old. I assume the online version is the latest. </font>[/QUOTE]I mean Strong's.Originally posted by robycop3:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by robycop3:
Askjo, I have a Strong's before me, plus, there's the online version. I checked with both of them, and found that both Skan and Hank are right.
Michelle, if you really loved the truth you would hear us and abandon your false beliefs about the KJV. Note: I did not say abandon the KJV, that is a valid choice of a superior translation.Originally posted by michelle:
I can see that many that are labeled KJVO only have a love for the word of God and the truth and trust in the Lord of his promises.
All of us on this side of the debate do this... where we separate from you is that we don't add our own imaginings or demands to what God has promised and done.They can see, and admit and proclaim that God's word is the truth, and that he has done what he promised to do.
Their faith is in a man-made false doctrine and incidentally in 16th and 17th century non-modern scholars... a Catholic and a group of Anglo-catholics (Church of England). These same people that KJVO's place on a pedestal HATED Baptists and our doctrines.Their faith is in God and not modern man, unlike many of those who stand for the mv's.
I suppose thats why the real fundamentalists that started our movement about 100 years ago used the ASV, RV, and KJV to refute real liberals.To excuse away their liberal views, and their liberal bibles, and quite honestly to cover their lack of faith in the promises of God.
Many don't want the Bible in a form that modern readers can readily study... reminds me of the Catholic church with its Latin Vulgate Only stance as well as those who would "hold (or suppress as the NKJV/NASB accurately say) the truth in unrighteousness" (Romans 1:18).Many do not want to study God's words anymore, but have someone interpret it for them. Reminds me of the parable of the ten virgins.
Oops, I guess someone forgot to mention to the KJV Translators that refering to Jesus as "the Christ" is "New Age jargon", because the phrase appears in the KJV not once, not twice, but nineteen times!:New Age jargon, such as "the Christ" rather than "Christ", etc.
You've ignored this question previously (and I'm sure you will now again), but why did the translators of the KJV place roughly 8,000 footnotes in the AV1611, many of which provided alternate renderings of the text, or otherwise expressed uncertainty regarding the translation? Wouldn't these have "sow(ed) doubt to the reader"- just as you claim they would in the NKJV?The other problem that you neglect to mention that many have problems with the NKJV, is the fact that the NKJV puts an emphasis and reliablity to those Alexandrian manuscripts, as indicated to and refered to in their footnotes. Now, just indicating such things, sows doubt to the reader whether God has said, which is exactly what satan said in the garden of Eden to Eve: Yeah, hath God said?
The KJV wasn't preserved by a direct act of God. It was not miraculous at all. I was providentially preserved... as were/are the Alexandrian texts, Byzantine texts, Syriac versions, the NIV, NASB, NKJV, etc. All of these things had a beginning point and by God's providence are still existing today.Originally posted by michelle:
To answer your/this question: the fact that he preserved it for the english speaking people for generations. God is the final authority regarding this matter, which is evidenced by the miracle of the preservation of it, to which he promised and has thus, so far fulfilled.