• 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.
 
J

JD731

Well-Known Member
Dr. Bob said:
Most of us here will not use the AV or the NKJV. Problems with language evolution and with biased/slanted word choices of the Anglican and Geneva crowds are evident. Remember God did NOT reach down in the past few hundred years and re-inspire new language. Translation into ANY receptor language is slow and painstaking to take HIS God-breathed words in Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek into ANY tongue.

God has supernaturally preserved every word. The problem, of course, are the minor errors of pious additions or deletions or simple man-made errors of scribes. We have wonderful translations. Don't you think of attacking US because there are small differences in this script from that script (there are 5500). God's Words have not been lost.
Click to expand...
I am for the missionaries translating the Bible into other languages and made available to the churches who speak those languages, but that is not what you are defending. If you cannot be confident you have gotten your own language right after all the failed attempts, you should just give up. You are making God look like you and me, weak and pathetic.
 
J

JD731

Well-Known Member
Logos1560 said:
You misrepresent and distort the view of believers who disagree with human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning. We do not at all present "a weak and pathetic god" as you falsely allege. I believe God was just as faithful to keep all His promises concerning His words before 1611 as afterwards.

The four gospels with their actual differences in parallel cases would provide evidence that would refute your misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the verse concerning speaking the same things.

The KJV itself also has the same type differences between it and the preserved Scriptures in the original languages as the NKJV would have. The KJV omits giving any English word/rendering for many preserved original-language words of Scriptures in its underlying texts, and the KJV adds many words in English for which it has no preserved original-language words of Scripture.

Modern, non-scriptural KJV-only teaching creates divisions in the body of Christ.
Click to expand...
Your preaching does not include a" biblical" argument but an intellectual one. You rarely have first hand quotes from any Bibles but constantly quote men who you think are expert and smarter than you. Even as you have titled yourself after the Geneva Bible I can't remember you ever quoting it. In the rare instances when you quote a Bible it is the KJV. You don't seem to be emotionally involved with the faith.

My conclusion and opinion; Christians should not take you serious. Your error is dealt with in first Corinthians under the warnings of the "wisdom of the world."
 
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...
Conan said:
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
Click to expand...
I don't trust him, he is a a.v. bible corrector.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top