• 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!

Is it okay to use the NKJV?

C

Conan

Well-Known Member
KJB1611reader said:
You guys make me very sad, there are many people out there without a Bible, those who believe its perfect. Please, just accept its perfect and get it out to other countries that need it. We don't need constant updating.
Click to expand...
Wasn't the KJV constantly updated? Had they not done much updating there would not be a PCE KJV now would there?
 
C

Conan

Well-Known Member
KJB1611reader said:
Let's get rid of all parenthesis in the Bible then. Let's even more get rid of all disputed verses and words that aren't in the critical text.
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with the Critical Text or modern Bible translation. This all happened in the early 1500s. I will give you a picture of the facsimile so you may see for yourself.
 
C

Conan

Well-Known Member
KJB1611reader said:
Is 'in earth' also not in the text as is in brackets in verse 8?
Click to expand...
Correct. You can read the verses however you want. With, and without the words. The best of both ways to read. If you think the words are original and belong you can read every word right in the Text. If you think they don't belong do not read the words in (parenthesis). The best printed Bible ever in history!
 
KJB1611reader

KJB1611reader

Active Member
Conan said:
Correct. You can read the verses however you want. With, and without the words. The best of both ways to read. If you think the words are original and belong you can read every word right in the Text. If you think they don't belong do not read the words in (parenthesis). The best printed Bible ever in history!
Click to expand...
Do realize there is tons of parenthesis in the Bible now? Should I skip those too??????
 
C

Conan

Well-Known Member
F.H.A. Scrivener, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), its subsequent Reprints and modern Representatives. Cambridge: University Press, 1884. This is the definitive work on the textual sources and history of the Authorized Version
 
L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
KJB1611reader said:
Rick isn't wanting the Bible to be perfect.
Click to expand...
That assertion is not true. You bear false witness. I believe that all Scripture given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles is 100% absolutely pure and perfect.

The KJV was not given by a direct miracle of inspiration of God as proven by the actual proven errors in the 1611 edition of the KJV. The errors introduced by fallible men in the 1611 edition and in other KJV editions were not perfect regardless of your human opinions or claims concerning the KJV.

There would be the same problems with inconsistent human KJV-only reasoning/teaching as you allege concerning my consistent, scripturally-based view concerning Bible translations. Human KJV-only reasoning adds to the Scriptures opinions of men not stated nor taught in it.
 
C

Conan

Well-Known Member
Tyndale 1534 facsimile.

This Jesus Christ cam by water and blood. And it is the sprete that beareth witness / because the sprete ys truth. (for there are thre which beare recorde in heaven / the father / the word / and the holy goost. And these thre are one) for there are thre which beare recorde (in erth: ) the sprete / and water / and bloud: and these thre are one.

OR

This Jesus Christ cam by water and blood. And it is the sprete that beareth witness / because the sprete ys truth. for there are thre which beare recorde : the sprete / and water / and bloud: and these thre are one.
 
M

Marooncat79

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Guido said:
Many modern versions of the Bible, such as the NIV, the ESV, the NLT, etc, detract from the proper doctrines of scripture, as they are translated from tainted manuscripts, and as in many places, where proper doctrine is found in the texts from which those versions are translated, they are translated wrong.

But is it okay to use the NKJV, based on the majority texts, which faithalone.org claim is the Word of God, rather than the received text? On that site, they say that, although it is not as smooth as the KJV, it is more accurate than the KJV.

I apologize for not planning this post out before writing it.
Click to expand...
I don’t know, what manuscripts are weighted the heaviest with them?
 
C

Conan

Well-Known Member
Guido said:
Many modern versions of the Bible, such as the NIV, the ESV, the NLT, etc, detract from the proper doctrines of scripture, as they are translated from tainted manuscripts, and as in many places, where proper doctrine is found in the texts from which those versions are translated, they are translated wrong.

But is it okay to use the NKJV, based on the majority texts, which faithalone.org claim is the Word of God, rather than the received text? On that site, they say that, although it is not as smooth as the KJV, it is more accurate than the KJV.

I apologize for not planning this post out before writing it.
Click to expand...
The NKJV is based on the Textus Receptus just like the KJV is. It has some Majority Text readings in the footnotes when they differ, as well as Critical Text footnotes when they differ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top