• 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!

Finally, an answer to the KJV issue!

3

3dmk

New Member
If you would like me to quote the exact verses from that message, I am sorry, I do not remember. The message itself, which was questionable, was in regards to going to a church that fit your work schedule, and that it is ok to put work and personal interests in front of attending church.

There are plenty of sites on the net that provide comparisons of the KJV with these newer versions. Many, including the NKJV, change the context of passages to suit today's style of living.
 
S

Scott J

Active Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by 3dmk:


There are plenty of sites on the net that provide comparisons of the KJV with these newer versions. Many, including the NKJV, change the context of passages to suit today's style of living.
Click to expand...
I suppose that these websites provide some kind of proof that they KNOW the motives of all MV translators?!? Some translators are liberal and do make changes to their own peril. But I doubt that can be proven true of the NKJV, NASB, and a few others.

In fact, if we are to judge by which translators are the most "fundamental" as we accept the term then the NASB should be the Bible of choice. The KJV was translated by Anglicans and "moderate" Puritans under the authority of King James (as the earthly head of the church). Their theology was different from ours on several important points and some of them seemed to lean toward reunification with Rome.

Archbishop Andrewes, who presided over the translation committees, preached that the Eucharist is both sacrament and sacrifice. In other words, that taking communion somehow made a contribution to salvation. If you need proof, I am willing to search for the sermon.

The point I am making is not that the KJV translators did a poor job or were not excellent scholars. Their work has been affirmed by many who disagreed with their doctrines and practices. What I am saying is that MV's deserve the same treatment. Judge their accuracy and scholarship, not the fallibility of the translators. If you are going to judge MV translators by what they believe or by what someone assumes as their motives then you must look at the KJV the same way.
 
T

TomVols

New Member
Since we've now drifted off the path of the thread into the forest of the insane, I'm posting the twelve hour notice. Let's wrap this up.
 
DocCas

DocCas

New Member
I am of the opinion that a translator's theology may very well effect his translation work, but in most cases an honest translator will translate and not interpret. I believe the KJV committees did an excellent job in spite of some of their doctrinal errors. The same is true of most, but not all, of the new English versions.

In reference to the NKJV changing the meaning of a reading in the KJV, allow me to ask a serious question: Does the NKJV change the meaning, or clarify the meaning? There are several places in the NKJV where friends of mine have pointed out that it changes the meaning from the KJV. I then read both and discovered that was what I understood the KJV to be saying also. It was the problem of the person failing to understand the grammar and syntax of the KJV not the NKJV changing the meaning. Could this have been the problem with the passages in question as indicated by 3dmk? Could it be a problem of our understanding rather than a problem of the translators changing the meaning?

Just a thought.


By the way, this is turning into a very interesting discussion.
 
T

TomVols

New Member
By the way, this is turning into a very interesting discussion.
Click to expand...
Too bad it took so long to get there :D If we want to stay on the KJV vs. NKJV, that's fine. I'll rescind the twelve hour noticem but let's keep it fruitful.

[ May 09, 2002, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]
 
K

KEVO

Guest
Mr.Cassidy,a couple of days ago you were talking about acts 8:37 not being in the niv. There are fifteen more verses left out of the niv also.
Now I would like to make a statement about being suspended for ten days,and also ask a question,then I will never bring it up again. I know I broke the rules so I deserved to be suspended. My question is how can pastor Larry put down my pastor,attack Dr.Ruckman's personal life and get away with it? But regardless of that I will stay within the rules.
Kevin
 
T

TomVols

New Member
KEVO,
Where did Pastor Larry attack your pastor? Maybe I missed that. As for Ruckman, I don't know that I've ever seen him attacked so much as his liberal beliefs exposed and his lifestyle pointed out. But if we're going to suspend people for blasting Ruckman, we'll have to do the same thing for people who blast Westcott & Hort. I think that would leave about 5 people on BB ;) None of these three are members of this board, however.

If you would, PM me about this. This is how this should be handled and is typically the way I receive such complaints.

And I wonder about a lot of actions from folks here. So join the club. :confused:

Y'all play nice. I'm leaving for a pastor's conference on Sunday afternoon. May check in some though.

[ May 10, 2002, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: TomVols ]
 
P

Pastor Larry

<b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter
Originally posted by KEVO:
Mr.Cassidy,a couple of days ago you were talking about acts 8:37 not being in the niv. There are fifteen more verses left out of the niv also.
Click to expand...
This has not been proven. These differences are by no means clear deletions and could just as easily, if not more easily, be attributed to additions on the part of the KJV

Now I would like to make a statement about being suspended for ten days,and also ask a question,then I will never bring it up again. I know I broke the rules so I deserved to be suspended. My question is how can pastor Larry put down my pastor,attack Dr.Ruckman's personal life and get away with it? But regardless of that I will stay within the rules.
Click to expand...
I have no problem defending what I have said in public since I made the statement in public. I did not attack anyone. I made clear, defensible statements about Ruckman's doctrine and demeanor. Everything that I have said can be documented from the mouth of Ruckman himself. Not one word of it is made up or attributed to other sources. I have also showed where he is unqualified to pastor and teach. I have additionally showed where a commitment to biblical separation in obedience to Scripture demands separation and denunciation of Ruckman's doctrine and lifestyle. I am sorry that you are offended by that. However, I do not say it lightly. I say it, having read much of what Ruckman has written, having heard him speak, and having compared what he has said to scriptural doctrine. My information about Ruckman is not second hand and not from his detractors. It is from his own writing and speaking.

Where false doctrine and unqualified men propose themselves as teachers, we have a responsibility to take a stand for the truth of Scripture so that the word of God is not blasphemed. A commitment to biblical obedience demands that we not tolerate false teaching.

Romans 16:17-18 Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.

Titus 1:9 holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.

2 Tim 2:24-26 The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.

[ May 10, 2002, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
 
K

KEVO

Guest
So Larry you are saying that the kjv added words that were not in the niv? Explain that one to me. And don't tell me that it can't be proven that the niv leaves out verses that are in the kjv when I am setting here looking at them side by side.
 
F

Forever settled in heaven

New Member
but that oughta be easy for any KJBO textual critic to do--they don't need to wait for Pastor Larry at all. just apply the same verse-by-verse comparison tactic on the KJB, n they can PROVE to themselves "that the kjv added words that were not in the niv."

easy as that.
 
P

Pastor Larry

<b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter
Originally posted by KEVO:
So Larry you are saying that the kjv added words that were not in the niv? Explain that one to me.
Click to expand...
Nope. That is not what I said at all. What I said was that it seems most likely that the manuscripts that the KJV are based on added words that were not in the original autographs of the biblical author. Since the NIV and NASB are based on what most people "in the know" consider to be more accurate manuscripts, they do differ.

And don't tell me that it can't be proven that the niv leaves out verses that are in the kjv when I am setting here looking at them side by side.
Click to expand...
The foundational mistake that you have made is the assumption that the KJV is the perfect or closest representation of the original manuscripts. However, the evidence that God has preserved for us leads us away from that conclusion.

No biblical author ever shared your view that the KJV was the standard by which all others should be compared. We should compare English translations, not with other English translations, but rather with the original langauge manuscripts.
 
P

Pastor Larry

<b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter
Originally posted by trumpet:
I would like to know who holds the original manuscripts?
Click to expand...
Nobody has them. The earliest manuscripts that we have date back as far as the middle of the second century (c. 150ad). This very reason is why we cannot legitimately argue that a particular translation is perfect; there is no way to verify it. None of the 5000+ manuscripts that God has preserved for us match. Therefore, we must employ some means to make choices as to which readings among the manuscripts are most likely to be correct. We must always keep in mind the word "likely" when dealing with these differences. Since we do not have the original manuscripts, we are dealing with probabilities among the very small number of differences. In the providence of God, he has preserved a large number of manuscripts with very few variations, none of which affect doctrine. The 5000+ manuscripts is a testimony to the providential working of God in history by which he has preserved his word for us.
 
T

trumpet

New Member
Now that we have determined that God holds the true manuscripts, let us define for ourselves which was better. The text that came from Alexandria or the text that came from Antioch. Keep in mind that not much good came from Egypt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top