• 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!

Does having imperfect translations attack God's character and preservation?

Askjo

New Member
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?
 

LarryN

New Member
Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LarryN:
Gary R. Hudson
He is your W/H man. </font>[/QUOTE]THAT'S your counterpoint? That's all you can come up with: a straw-man rebuttal?

How does your intended slander against Hudson's character negate his meticulously documented comparisons of both the NKJV and the KJV against the Greek of the TR?
 

Dr. Bob

Administrator
Administrator
Askjo, rather than post links, just choose one or two salient examples. Larry gave 250 that show BETTER English translation from the same TR-type text (there IS no TR, we all understand - no one Greek document that is "it").

Yes, the NKJV is different than the KJV1769 revision I use. Different is not "bad", son. Work on some real, concrete examples for discussion.

Thanks.
 

Trotter

<img src =/6412.jpg>
I dunno, Dr. Bob. It sure is a lot easier to stand way back and throw rocks, than to step up toe-to-toe and duke it out.

In Christ,
Trotter
 

Orvie

New Member
Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LarryN:
Gary R. Hudson
He is your W/H man. </font>[/QUOTE]"W/H man", what is that? Wife and Husband? :eek: I doubt it if GH is a Westcott & Hort man. Guilt by association doesn't fly. It cuts both ways.
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.
 

Askjo

New Member
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.
Old or new? </font>[/QUOTE]About ten yrs.old. I assume the online version is the latest. </font>[/QUOTE]I mean Strong's.
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
LarryN:THAT'S your counterpoint? That's all you can come up with: a straw-man rebuttal?

How does your intended slander against Hudson's character negate his meticulously documented comparisons of both the NKJV and the KJV against the Greek of the TR?


Larry, the KJVOs often holler because we blast such KJVO authors as ruckman or Riplinger, as well as their "daddy", Ben Wilkinson. But we have GOOD REASON to blast'em - namely, that they've been PROVEN WRONG.

More than once, after posting an article or URL for a site by Hudson, Kutilek, or some other anti-KJVOism author, all I get is, "Well, just consider the SOURCE" or something similar, but when I ask them to point out their errors, they don't reply. When I tear into Ruckman's stuff, I can offer quotes from "da man" himself that only a non-Christian should believe. When ripping Riplinger's writings, I can point out many errors in her works.

Seems as if Askjo's position is, "If they aint KJVO, they're automatically wrong. Can't point out exactly WHERE they're wrong besides not being KJVO, but they're still wrong nonetheless".
 

michelle

New Member
Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


LarryN,

As I appreciate all your efforts in your post, and there are no doubt many instances where the changes make no difference at all, there are some quite obvious things to me, that the words and/or wording usages fall in line with New Age jargon, such as "the Christ" rather than "Christ, etc. 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?

And with all due respect Larry, you are NOT even a language scholar, and cannot even be REMOTELY compared to the working knowledge of the languages at hand (Hebrew, Greek, English)to that of teh KJV translators and neither are the scholars of today in order to make an accurate assesment. And furthermore, if the translators of the NKJV have put such an emphasis on the critical greek texts in their footnotes, thereby giving this corrupt text validity in the eyes of the reader, what then prevented them, or others from being influenced by it?

Your objections on the surface "seem" to be understandable and reasonable, but in fact they are not. Again, you are stuck on the label of KJVO, and all that comes with it, to which is blinding to the truth regarding this situation. Touch not the unclean thing, and be ye separate.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
 

michelle

New Member
Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


--------------------------------------------------
If it is “the Textus Receptus” that King James Onlys really want to have translated, they should acknowledge and warmly welcome a translation that more accurately brings the readings of the TR into the English language. This, however, most if not all of them refuse to do because they have only a hypocritical, KJV-only agenda.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


LarryN,

Then please explain to me what the "agenda" is? PLease, I am curious to know, what benefit or gain is the KJVO crowd to obtain from this?

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. 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 God and not modern man, unlike many of those who stand for the mv's. Why is it and what is the agenda of those on the side of the modern versions? 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 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.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
 

michelle

New Member
Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


--------------------------------------------------
You holler that the NKJV doesn't always follow the TR. SO WHAT ? ? Where does GOD make any version of the TR our final written authority?
--------------------------------------------------

robycop,

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. What a wonderful Lord and Saviour we have indeed!

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
 

michelle

New Member
Peace and love to you in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


--------------------------------------------------
Askjo, rather than post links, just choose one or two salient examples. Larry gave 250 that show BETTER English translation from the same TR-type text (there IS no TR, we all understand - no one Greek document that is "it").
--------------------------------------------------

Dr. Bob,

With all due respect, this is your opinion, not fact. Also remember, God is not the author of confusion, nor can God lie.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
 

Scott J

Active Member
Site Supporter
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.
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.

You are making the works of 17th century Anglican scholars equivalent to the works of God Himself. They were not perfect nor were they inspired by the One who is perfect.
They can see, and admit and proclaim that God's word is the truth, and that he has done what he promised to do.
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.
Their faith is in God and not modern man, unlike many of those who stand for the mv's.
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.
To excuse away their liberal views, and their liberal bibles, and quite honestly to cover their lack of faith in the promises of God.
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.

You can call yourself conservative and me liberal if you like- being self-deceived is your prerogative. However the bottom line is this: My beliefs are biblical, fundamental, and wholly orthodox but yours are not.
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.
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).
 

LarryN

New Member
Michelle, once again you've failed to provide any substance to back-up your beliefs. I've repeatedly asked you for just one chapter & verse in an MV that denies any fundamental doctrine, and you can't do it. I haven't seen even one example from you yet. As for some of your remarks here, here goes:


New Age jargon, such as "the Christ" rather than "Christ", etc.
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!:

Mt 16:16 -
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Mt 16:20 -
Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

Mt 26:63 -
But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

Mr 8:29 -
And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.

Mr 14:61 -
But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?

Lu 3:15 -
And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ, or not;

Lu 9:20 -
He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answering said, The Christ of God.

Lu 22:67 -
Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe:

Joh 1:20 -
And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.

Joh 1:41 -
He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.

Joh 3:28 -
Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him.

Joh 4:29 -
Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?

Joh 4:42 -
And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.

Joh 7:41 -
Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?

Joh 10:24 -
Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.

Joh 11:27 -
She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.

Joh 20:31 -
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

1Jo 2:22 -
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1Jo 5:1 -
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.


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?
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?


C'mon Michelle- let's see/hear some substance to back-up your KJVO claims!
 

Scott J

Active Member
Site Supporter
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.
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.

In human terms, the KJV became the standard in English because the Church of England used the force of law to get rid of its competitors. If you have an official church then it only makes sense to have an official (authorized) version... or so the thinking went. The same state-church union that our Baptists forebearers fought/resisted from the 1600's through the American Revolution is the one that made the Baptist Bible of choice, the Geneva, illegal in the 1630's.

One of the Baptist distinctives is the "separation of church and state". How ironic that supposed "conservative, fundamental, independent Baptists" would say that the only acceptable Bible is also the only one created by a government sponsored/mandated church!
 
Top