King James Bible Companion

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

God can and does use all types of men to get His will done.

Just as God uses people today to give us the Bible in our language. When we have that we don't have to carry around an extra 'companion.'

Did God superintend the work of the book mentioned in the OP to insure that we have a reliable 'companion?'

 

[Jaocb77]

You have mistaken me. I don't defend all of the MVs.

Ebonics and Dublin street talk are not languages. They are coarse crude dialects often including vulgar (in the modern sense of the word) phrases and words. The Ebonics 'bible' is not even an attempt at a literal translation.

There is a big difference between that and English of the 21st century.

How about the fact that the majority of the modern versions come from the same texts: the Alexandrian stream? Do you defend all of those or just some? If you defend only some and they come from the same stream, then how do you accept some and reject others? By what criteria do you use? Do you see the problems with this? Those who hold up the KJB do so because it has stood the test of time. It has just celebrated 400 years and needs no "Improvement" by men, while these MV are periodically being revised..They are all in modern English so why keep producing more and more bibles?

It just boggles the mind how people choose some and reject others if they all are the word of God.Those who stand behind the KJV reject the MV because we see not only the lack of agreement, but the lack of inspiration behind the work. If some are bad that you must reject them, what does that tell you? "Well, some are better than others." Really? The KJB needs no changes. This is why the NKJV is not at all like it. There is no comparison. The NKJV is of this generation as are the other MV. Where's the inspiration when we have all these bibles that differ one from another?

If the complaint is merely that the KJV has thee's and thou's, then why didn't the NKJV just change those old English words and leave the rest of the text unchanged? If the NKJV comes from the same texts as the KJV, which some on here claim, then why the vast different between the two?

 

[Rippon]

Those who hold up the KJB do so because it has stood the test of time. It has just celebrated 400 years and needs no "Improvement" by men, while these MV are periodically being revised..

The KJV has been revised,updated,improved --take your pick. Don't level charges against other versions when the very same can be said about the KJV.

The KJB needs no changes.

Yet it has undergone changes itself. Have you ever heard of Paris and Blayney for instance?

 

[Jaocb77]

I personally believe the only truly inspired word is in the original manuscripts. I believe the word has been preserved in essence through the various copies passed down through the ages. Hence, we do have the word of God in our hands.

In addition, this is also what makes systematic theology so important. It does not affirm a doctrine based on an isolated verse, but an accumulated meaning derived from the whole of scripture.

Thus I can hold my KJV and say I am holding the word of God. You may hold your version and truly say you are holding the word of God. The essence of what God gave to us IS contained in those versions, though there may be various differences in some verses, they do not affect the whole.

That is my understanding for what it is worth.

Cheers,

Jim

With all due respect, how can we say we are holding the word of God in our hands if we are all holding different bible versions and some of these versions have words deleted or meaning change, or puts the deity of Christ in question or even leaves out the name of Jesus Christ in certain verses? Why would anyone want to stand by such a bible and say its the Word of God?

If one believes that the Bible is no longer inerrant, because the original manuscripts no longer exist, then some other authority must be substituted.What other authority then? If the Bible were inspired only in the original manuscripts, no one in the entire history of the world has ever had an inspired Bible. Is this your belief?

 

[Rippon]

... some of these versions have words deleted or meaning change, or puts the deity of Christ in question

You are certainly wrong there. You are overstepping in your extreme loyalty to your tradtion.

or even leaves out the name of Jesus Christ in certain verses?

You need to study more. Two can play at this game.

 

[Jaocb77]

The KJV has been revised,updated,improved --take your pick. Don't level charges against other versions when the very same can be said about the KJV.



Yet it has undergone changes itself. Have you ever heard of Paris and Blayney for instance?

I've heard that mantra a million times. They are myths that keep getting repeated. There have been several editions but no revisions. The NKJV is nothing like the KJV,

 

[Jim1999]

If the Bible were inspired only in the original manuscripts, no one in the entire history of the world has ever had an inspired Bible. Is this your belief?
----------------------------------------------

Read what I wrote!

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Rippon]

I've heard that mantra a million times. They are myths that keep getting repeated. There have been several editions but no revisions.

No myth.No mantra. I'll ask again,have you ever heard of Paris and Blayney? Have there indeed been changes? Would a 1611 edition be identical to a KJV published in 2011?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

If the complaint is merely that the KJV has thee's and thou's, then why didn't the NKJV just change those old English words and leave the rest of the text unchanged? If the NKJV comes from the same texts as the KJV, which some on here claim, then why the vast different between the two?

Translation choices. Please provide one example of where the NKJV chooses the CT rendering over the TR - just one will do.

 

[BobinKy]

Jaocb77...

Brother, you are posting some good stuff.

Thank you.
...Bob

 

[franklinmonroe]

So you believe that God does not get involved when it comes to His holy Word? Or let me put it another way, God was not involved at all when the KJV translators set out to translate? That God just went away and allowed His word to be tampered with beyond restraint?

God can and does use all types of men to get His will done.

I can scripturally accept that God is involved in everything. I can only scripturally defend that the inspired delivery of His revelation was at the point of the writing.

It is my opinion that God progressively allows men to discover His words. Part of the process of discovering His words is through textual criticism, some through translation, some through interpretation, some through illumination.

There are only two types of men: saved and lost; it is scripturally sound to believe that God uses both.

 

[franklinmonroe]

How about the fact that the majority of the modern versions come from the same texts: the Alexandrian stream? Do you defend all of those or just some? If you defend only some and they come from the same stream, then how do you accept some and reject others? By what criteria do you use? Do you see the problems with this? ...

Your fallacy is known as the 'false dilemma'. Translations (books, chapters, verses, down to individual words) are accepted or rejected soley on the basis of the accuracy of the transmission from the source language to the target language; not by the origins of source documents.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... If the NKJV comes from the same texts as the KJV, which some on here claim, then why the vast different between the two?

If the NKJV doesn't come from the same texts as the KJV, which some on here claim, then why the vast similarities between the two?

 

[Jaocb77]

Jaocb77...

Brother, you are posting some good stuff.

Thank you.
...Bob

Thank you Bob. I believe its important for the others on here to tell us why they believe only the originals were inspired and that we have no 100% inspired Bible. I see nothing but side stepping and skirting around the real issue..

Trying to find faults with the KJV is just a smoke screen. They need to be honest about the problems these modern versions present.

The bottom line is: do we have a preserved text or not?

 

[Jaocb77]

If the Bible were inspired only in the original manuscripts, no one in the entire history of the world has ever had an inspired Bible. Is this your belief?
----------------------------------------------

Read what I wrote!

Cheers,

Jim

I did Jim, hence my questions to you.

 

[Jaocb77]

You are certainly wrong there. You are overstepping in your extreme loyalty to your tradtion.



You need to study more. Two can play at this game.

This is the problem Rippon. Telling someone they are wrong or need to study more is meaningless. What do you have to offer in substantiation?

 

[Jaocb77]

If the NKJV doesn't come from the same texts as the KJV, which some on here claim, then why the vast similarities between the two?

There are similarities in all the versions. So your point is?

 

[David Lamb]

The NKJV is nothing like the KJV,

A bit of an overstatement, to say the least. Here are just a few verses from both versions, chosen at random - I didn't deliberately look for verses in which the versions were most similar. (AV=KJV):
Genesis 1.6:

(AV) And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
(NKJV) Then God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."
​

1 Kings 10.5:

(AV) And the meat of his table, and the sitting of his servants, and the attendance of his ministers, and their apparel, and his cupbearers, and his ascent by which he went up unto the house of the LORD; there was no more spirit in her.
(NKJV) the food on his table, the seating of his servants, the service of his waiters and their apparel, his cupbearers, and his entryway by which he went up to the house of the LORD, there was no more spirit in her.
​

Psalm 119.116:

(AV) Uphold me according unto thy word, that I may live: and let me not be ashamed of my hope.
(NKJV) Uphold me according to Your word, that I may live; And do not let me be ashamed of my hope.
​

Mark 14.35:

(AV) And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him.
(NKJV) He went a little farther, and fell on the ground, and prayed that if it were possible, the hour might pass from Him.
​

2 Timothy 4.2:

(AV) Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
2 (NKJV) Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.
​

It seems to me that your assertion about the NKJV being "nothing like" the KJV is mistaken.

 

[franklinmonroe]

I've heard that mantra a million times. They are myths that keep getting repeated. There have been several editions but no revisions. ...

I have several KJVs and I can assure you that there are differences between them. This may be my error: I should never own more than one Bible at one time. I shouldn't be looking at my neighbor's Bible, either. I should close my mind to any comparison between KJVs. Please help me. I want to throw away my imperfect so-called KJVs. How can I know which one to hold in my hand as the perfect one?

 

[franklinmonroe]

There are similarities in all the versions. So your point is?

The similarities between the NKJV and KJV are much greater than with most other versions. Many, many specific similarities in English betray the use of very similar (if not identical) underlying ancient language texts.