• 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 the absolutely error-free KJV teach that Timothy was lost?

Alex Mullins

New Member
Harald:

I respect you for your research. It is obvious you have been doing some digging. I cannot speak for the others but the NKJV is one I have had opportunity to research.

The NKJV is truly a masterpeice of deception. It was touted as an updated accurate version of the KJV, the Authentic Word of God, the Authorized Version. Christians from far and wide could not get their money out fast enough to get a copy of this bible. It was advertised as the fifth revision of the King James(AV).

It was rumoured that the source texts for this version were, the Hebrew Masoretic(Majority Text) for the OT and the Greek Textus Receptus for the New Testament.

However, careful examination reveals that the NKJV Translators put in the footnotes many references to "NU", the "N" representing the Nestle Almand text and the "U" representing the United Bible Society text. Both of these are dependant largely on the corrupt Vaticanus and Sniai, manuscripts, virtually the same as the Westcott and Hort Greek text of 1881.

It is also important to note that nine of the NKJV translators were also on the NIV translation committee, were well versed in the W & H Greek Texts. In addition they used a translation methodolgy known as Dynamic Equivalence, long regarded as a false and corrupt method of interpretation. It is considered to be "men's corrupt thoughts replacing God's Words".

This carefree abandon has resulted in God's name being mutilated and down-graded in hundreds of instances and important word and meaning changes applied in over 100,000 instances. The pure and godly approach to scripture and Theology of the KJV translators was far different from that of the NKJV translators some 300 years later following the rise of modern thought.

The true test, however, can be seen in the way the NKJV translators have mishandled, dishonored and abused the very Name of God, His Son Jesus Christ.

Just as it is well known that there was a practicing Hoosexual and a practicing Lesbian on the NIV translation team, those same pro-gay biases are carried over into the NKJV.

Furthermore, an examination of James 5: 16 will reveal the pro-Catholic influence and stance of the NKJV. The word "fault" has been replaced with "trespasses" in the NKJV. Faults are those things we confess "one to another. Trespasses, on the other hand, are "sins" and should be confessed to God alone. This, in itself is very small but when you add up all the subtle changes it is clear that the NKJV is not a revision of the KJV, far from it.

Thomas Nelson Publishers are the largest bible publishers in the world and they have reduced God's word to a commodity. Both the NKJV and the NIV are top money spinners.

I am sorry to bring you this news, Harald, but I cannot agree that the NKJV is anything except another counterfeit bible.

I cannot comment on the others you mention because I have not had opportunity to investigate them. I also don't know where I could go in Canada to buy one off the shelf. Not so with the KJV.

Your help, insight and friendly attitude are truly appreciated.

God Bless

Alex
 

neal4christ

New Member
However, careful examination reveals that the NKJV Translators put in the footnotes many references to "NU", the "N" representing the Nestle Almand text and the "U" representing the United Bible Society text.
But that is not translating these things into the main text of Scripture. Fact: The NKJV is a translation of the TR with footnotes noting other variations. It is NOT a translation of the NU texts.

The true test, however, can be seen in the way the NKJV translators have mishandled, dishonored and abused the very Name of God, His Son Jesus Christ.
Could you give some evidence of these serious accusations that you have brought against the NKJV translators?

addition they used a translation methodolgy known as Dynamic Equivalence
This is false. The NKJV is not a DE translation. And by the way, all translations use DE to some extent, even the KJV.

The pure and godly approach to scripture and Theology of the KJV translators
So I take it that you are an Anglican, correct? You do know that there were Baptists on the NKJV translation team, right? There weren't any on the KJV team.

Just as it is well known that there was a practicing Hoosexual and a practicing Lesbian on the NIV translation team
This is simply not true, so it is not "well known." First, it was one woman, not two people. Second, she was not a translator. Please check your information before you post it.

The word "fault" has been replaced with "trespasses" in the NKJV.
The NKJV rendering is perfectly acceptable for the Greek word.

Both the NKJV and the NIV are top money spinners.
Last time I checked the KJV was the number two bestseller behind the NIV, and the NKJV was third. Do you really want to make sales a criteria for determining the pure Word of God? I thought KJV folks boast about the KJV being the #1 bestseller of all time. If your logic is right, the KJV is corrupt.

Neal

[ May 20, 2003, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]
 

Askjo

New Member
Originally posted by MV-neverist:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Why is the KJV the standard?
It is the most hated Book on earth!!! It has been the goal of the scholars union to get rid of it since 1881,thats WHY!!!! [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Yes - absolutely! The KJV is the most accurate translation available today.
 

Askjo

New Member
Originally posted by Alex Mullins:
[QB] Scott:

I have not seen another version (other than the KJV) that I could call perfect. "Perfect" ,to me is, every word exactly where God wants it to be meaning what he wants it to mean. The KJV perfection VS the KJV accuracy -- I prefer the KJV accuracy rather than the KJV perfection.

The same might be said for all versions derived from the Traditional Received, or Majority Texts such as:
The Peshitta Bible(150AD), Itala Bible (157AD), Erasmus Bible(1522AD), Tyndales Bible (1525), Luther's Bible (1534), Coverdale Bible (1535), Matthews Bible (1537), The Great Bible (1539, Stephensons Bible (1550), The Geneva Bible (1560), Bishops Bible (1568), Beza's Bible (1604)The King James Bible (1611) and the three revisions to the KJB since 1611. These are preserved by God.

All others are suspected counterfeits because of who was involved in their translation (ie Westcott and Hort, RCC) and their obvious differences(ie - Matthew 18:11, Mark 7:16, Mark 11:26, Luke 17:36, Acts 8: 37, 1 John 5: 7) just to name a few. There are thousands of differences, many very subtle and some obviously more profound than others but all working together to pervert the scriptures and cause us to argue, doubt and get us off our main mission. Absolutely!

The King James Bible is the last version I am aware of that is derived from the Traditional Received or Majority Text but it would not surprise me if some "educated" Bible scholar will attempt to re-educate me. In the past 50 years the KJV has bcome the most hated, outdated, hardest-to-read book on the planet. IT MUST BE GOOD'S WORD!! The KJV was derived from the TR or the old MT, NOT 1982 MT!
 
P

Pioneer

Guest
Originally posted by Harald:
How would a KJV Onlyite explain this seeming contradiction/error in the KJV Bible?
Proverbs 26:4, "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him."

Proverbs 26:5, "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."

I am having trouble deciding which verse applies here.
 

Askjo

New Member
Originally posted by Scott J:
Originally posted by Alex Mullins:
[qb] Scott:


[qb]The same might be said for all versions derived from the Traditional Received, or Majority Texts such as:
The Peshitta Bible(150AD), Itala Bible (157AD), Erasmus Bible(1522AD), Tyndales Bible (1525), Luther's Bible (1534), Coverdale Bible (1535), Matthews Bible (1537), The Great Bible (1539, Stephensons Bible (1550), The Geneva Bible (1560), Bishops Bible (1568), Beza's Bible (1604)The King James Bible (1611) and the three revisions to the KJB since 1611.
... none of these works were directly inspired by God. In fact, some of these were the works of people who probably weren't even saved, Erasmus for instance who remained in the RCC. He protested its corruption but not its doctrine.

These bibles before 1611 KJV appeared were preserved by God.
All others are suspected counterfeits because of who was involved in their translation (ie Westcott and Hort, RCC)
W and H were Anglicans like the KJV translators. Erasmus was RCC.

Erasmus was a RCC, but did not function in the RCC because when he died, RCC never took care of him.
 
Top