• 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!

KJV Was Not So Easy To Read Before 1900

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mexdeaf

New Member
Mexdeaf, I am speaking to you and my questions were directed to you as well. You have not answered a single one and have offered nothing in substantiation. Either you are just here to argue, or you really don't have any answers.

The aim of the devil has always been to destroy God's word. He is doing so through these modern, condensed, water downed versions that have done nothing but cause confusion and dissension.

I can see that I'm wasting my time here. Others have already answered your assertions and there's no need for me to rehash the hash.

The Devil won't touch God's Word with a ten-foot pole- He trembles at it and it's much easier to get Christians to fight each other, to repeat lies, and to waste time arguing about whose Sword is sharpest rather than using them.

Be blessed.
 

Johathan01

New Member
Johathan01, this was the second time my question was ignored. If you don't know the answer, just say so. But if you cannot personally support your assertion with evidence that there is a translational issue with the NKJV's Hebrew base text then you ought not repeat it as fact.

First of all you need to understand that I cannot answer everyone at once. Nor can I be on this forum all day. I have asked questions and have not received a direct answer from anyone. Not one person has been able to show that there's no such thing as a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible. No one has proven that its impossible to have an infallible translation. Not one person has had the courage to closely examine the Alexandrian text, where it originated from, and why it isn't trustworthy.

2nd, I am under no obligation to do the work for you. If you believe the KJV and the NKJV are exactly alike in their OT, then you haven't done your homework. Check out Deut 23:17-18, Gen. 2:18, Prov 18:8, 16:10, 11:16. Zech 9:17. These are just a few examples

The NKJV is not the King James Bible, nor is it anything comparable to any of the editions of the KJB. In many places where it differs from the KJV, it agrees with the Alexandrian family of texts and those modern versions following that textual family. Regarding the editions of the Authorized Version of 1611, the revision committee of the American Bible Society said in 1852, “The English Bible as left by the translators has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text.”

The KJV OT is based on the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text. But the NKJV is based on the Biblia Hebraica. .The Textus Receptus follows the Masoretic text. Biblia Hebraica does not. Therefore, the NKJV OT does not truly follow the Textus Receptus, does it?

These are the facts and if you and others only wish to argue, I'm not interested. I think its a shame that there are professing Christians that do not believe we have a 100% inspired Bible!

The Holy Bible is a supernatural gift from God and has been both inspired and preserved by the Holy Spirit. “The Scripture cannot be broken” and we do have a complete, inspired and 100% true Holy Bible on the earth today.

God said: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD." Amos 8:11
 

NaasPreacher (C4K)

Well-Known Member
So I take it you are not going to show where the NKJV deviates from the TR?

Just saying it over and over does not make it true. You could silence your critics with one example.
 

Johathan01

New Member
I can see that I'm wasting my time here. Others have already answered your assertions and there's no need for me to rehash the hash.

The Devil won't touch God's Word with a ten-foot pole- He trembles at it and it's much easier to get Christians to fight each other, to repeat lies, and to waste time arguing about whose Sword is sharpest rather than using them.

Be blessed.

I'm sorry you feel that its a waste of time. I am also sorry that you couldn't care less about answering the questions put to you. It seems you prefer to just give your personal views. You are right about one thing though: There is a lot of rehashing that goes on here but not one person has proven that we no longer have a 100% inspired infallible word of God. Not one person has shown that the KJV has errors.

If you believe satan will not tamper with the Bible, you are sorely mistaken. The devil has used men to do such things for him and we are seeing it through these modern bible versions. He is behind the very fact that many doubt the Inspiration of the Bible. He places clouds of doubt upon the Bible by saying that the Bible is full of errors and contradictions. .He is the author of confusion. This is why many no longer respect the word of God.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The aim of the devil has always been to destroy God's word. He is doing so through these modern, condensed, water downed versions that have done nothing but cause confusion and dissension.

So you claim that the Devil is in the Bible business. Satan is responsible for God's Holy Word being spread abroad. You have God and Satan confused. In reality Satan does bad things. Now you are saying that the Devil should be blamed for good things. But God is good. That's basic theology. Distinguish between God and the Devil.
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Not one person has had the courage to closely examine the Alexandrian text, where it originated from, and why it isn't trustworthy.

There is a separate thread devoted to this issue and the reasons given for the Alexandrian texts to be 'corrupted' are unconvincing.


The NKJV is not the King James Bible, nor is it anything comparable to any of the editions of the KJB. In many places where it differs from the KJV, it agrees with the Alexandrian family of texts and those modern versions following that textual family.

You say, "it agrees with the Alexandrian family of texts", the reality is that the NKJV doesn't use those texts, however, the translated word the NKJV uses is similar to the translated words because they are a more accurate translation of the underlying language.

The KJV OT is based on the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text. But the NKJV is based on the Biblia Hebraica. .The Textus Receptus follows the Masoretic text. Biblia Hebraica does not. Therefore, the NKJV OT does not truly follow the Textus Receptus, does it?

?? Now I'm confused. Since when does the Textus Receptus contain the Old Testament?


These are the facts and if you and others only wish to argue, I'm not interested. I think its a shame that there are professing Christians that do not believe we have a 100% inspired Bible!

I haven't seen anyone on this board say the Bible is not 100% inspired. I'd ask you to point that out, but your record in presenting evidence is flaccid.
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Not one person has shown that the KJV has errors.

Well, since you asked....


Proverbs 30:28--Spider or Lizard?

The KJV says the animal in question is 'spider'.
The NKJV says 'spider' with a footnote saying 'or lizard'. (I don't see how it can be both.)
The NIV says 'lizard'.
The NASB says 'lizard'.
The ESV says 'lizard'.
The CEV says 'lizard'.



Acts 12:4--Easter, really?

4And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. [KJV]

(NKJV correctly has Passover.)


Deut. 8:9--KJV says you can mine brass

9 A land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness, thou shalt not lack any thing in it; a land whose stones are iron, and out of whose hills thou mayest dig brass. [KJV]

9 a land in which you will eat bread without scarcity, in which you will lack nothing; a land whose stones are iron and out of whose hills you can dig copper. [NKJV]

(brass is a manufactured alloy of copper and zinc and does not occur naturally, therefore thou mayest not 'dig' brass.)
 
Well, since you asked....

Acts 12:4--Easter, really?

4And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. [KJV]

(NKJV correctly has Passover.)
Easter is correct, not Passover:
This is the only place in which "easter" appears in the Authorized Version. Some say that this should be translated "passover" and they point to this as an error in the KJV, but they are wrong. The Easter of Acts 12:4 occurred after the Passover. We know this because Acts12:3 says it was "the days of unleavened bread." The feast of unleavened bread followed the Passover (Numbers 28:16-25), but this Easter was after the feast of unleavened bread. It refers to a pagan holiday, probably the celebration of Tammuz, the sun god (Jack Moorman, Easter or Passover?). "Easter" is a proper translation to distinguish it from the Jewish Passover, and the KJV translators were wise in their choice of this word. In using the term "Easter" in Acts 12:4, The King James Translators merely left intact the reading of Tyndale, Matthews, and the Geneva Bible: "Then were the days of unleavened bread, and when he had caught him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to be kept, intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people" (The Newe Testament by William Tindale, 1526, John Wesley Sawyer, The Martyrs Bible Series).

Enlarging on this subject, Ken Johnson adds: "[Those who claim this is a mistranslation in the KJV] show a lack of two things. First, they neglect the context of the verse for it is a season that is also noted. Second, in English the season or time of year marked as the Passover season has for years been expressed in English as 'Easter.' The KJV translators did not invent this usage nor were they wrong. The Geneva Bible of 1557 translates Acts 12:4 as 'Easter.' This is also true of the 1539 Cranmer Bible-'Easter,' and the Tyndale Bible of 1534-'ester.' This takes the time element back almost 100 years for the usage of 'Easter.' Alfric, at the beginning of the eleventh century, wrote a Homily using the term Easter: 'Fram dam halgan easterlican [Easter season] (A.C. Champneys, History of English, London: Revington, Percival and Co., p. 178). This calls the Passover season 'Easter' season and it is some five hundred years plus before the KJV saw its publication with 'Easter' in Acts 12:4" (Ken Johnson, A Response to J.H. Melton's Forum Re. the King James Version and Inspiration, p. 12).
 

Johathan01

New Member
Since you are convinced that the KJV never deviated from the TR, could you point out the Greek word(s) for 'God forbid' in Romans 6v1-2 in the TR please?

You know, this is getting old and tiring. You are not the first, nor will you be the last to bring this up. Doug Kutilek is the latest to jump on the KJV critic bandwagon.

As for "God forbid," it has been explained many times. It is a rendering of "mE genoito" which is "may it not be" or "let it not be." This is perfect 1611 idiom for "God forbid." It was quite literal in 1611..You can check the Oxford English Dictionary which gives the meaning of "God forbid" in 1611. It is found seven times in the O.T.: (Gen. 44:7,17; Jos. 22:29; 24:16; 1 Sa. 12:23; 1 Ch. 11:19; Job 27:5). It is a rendering of "chalal" which is "may it be something profane" or "may it be far from me." Again, "God forbid" is a perfect 1611 mode of speech..
 

NaasPreacher (C4K)

Well-Known Member
You know, this is getting old and tiring. You are not the first, nor will you be the last to bring this up. Doug Kutilek is the latest to jump on the KJV critic bandwagon.

As for "God forbid," it has been explained many times. It is a rendering of "mE genoito" which is "may it not be" or "let it not be." This is perfect 1611 idiom for "God forbid." It was quite literal in 1611..You can check the Oxford English Dictionary which gives the meaning of "God forbid" in 1611. It is found seven times in the O.T.: (Gen. 44:7,17; Jos. 22:29; 24:16; 1 Sa. 12:23; 1 Ch. 11:19; Job 27:5). It is a rendering of "chalal" which is "may it be something profane" or "may it be far from me." Again, "God forbid" is a perfect 1611 mode of speech..

It is a cultural idiom - it is not a direct word for word translation. Does that mean that 2011 cultural paraphrase are acceptable today. In other words could we translate this today as 'NO WAY!!'

The NKJV is MUCH more literal with it's 'certainly not!' Why would you choose a cultural idiom over a literal translation?
 

Johathan01

New Member
So I take it you are not going to show where the NKJV deviates from the TR?

Just saying it over and over does not make it true. You could silence your critics with one example.
.

I gave examples. Guess you chose to ignore them.

The NKJV, omits "hell", "blood", "repent", "heaven", "Lord". numerous times. The terms "devils", "damnation", "JEHOVAH", and "new testament" are completely omitted. It demotes Jesus Christ. In John 1:3, the KJV says that all things were made "by" Jesus Christ, but in the NKJV, all things were just made "through" Him. The word "Servant" replaces "Son" in Acts 3:13 and 3:26. "Servant" replaces "child" in Acts 4:27 and 4:30. The word "Jesus" is omitted from Mark 2:15, Hebrews 4:8, and Acts 7:45. The list goes on. But it hardly matters if your mind is already made up.

If someone is convinced the KJB is not the inspired word of God, no matter if all copies in its long history read exactly the same, his mind would not be changed by this fact
 

NaasPreacher (C4K)

Well-Known Member
You have yet to show a single deviation from the TR just some random charges. Just one example of where the NKJV chooses a CT rendering over the TR, that would do it. You claim to have 1,200. Just post the CT rendering, the TR rendering, and show where the NKJV chooses the CT. It should be easy with 1,200 choices.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
.

I gave examples. Guess you chose to ignore them.

< Snip list >

The differences between the KJV and NKJV in your examples are differences of scholarly TRANSLATIONAL opinions. They are not examples of where the NKJV uses the Critical Text in place of the Textus Receptus.
 

Mexdeaf

New Member
. If someone is convinced the KJB is not the inspired word of God, no matter if all copies in its long history read exactly the same, his mind would not be changed by this fact

I am convinced the KJV is not inspired, and thousands of Bible believers through the past 400 years have believed the same. God never promised to inspire translators- a fact with which the KJV translators themselves were well aware.

From the Preface to the reader of the KJV:

[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?[/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be sound in this point. For though, "whatsoever things are necessary are manifest," as S. Chrysostom saith, [S. Chrysost. in II. Thess. cap. 2.] and as S. Augustine, "In those things that are plainly set down in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concern Faith, Hope, and Charity." [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christ. cap. 9.] Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from the loathing of them for their every-where plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God's spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est debitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis, [S. Aug li. S. de Genes. ad liter. cap. 5.] "it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain." There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother or neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. [/FONT]

The KJV is a good translation. No modern translation reads as beautifully (although not quite as easily understood by the majority of modern readers), IMHO. But it is no more or less inspired than the NIV (which I am not particularly fond of), the NASB, the ESV,... etc.

You need to stop reading and parroting Jack Chick, Ruckman, Riplinger, Waite and so forth and start doing some serious study on your own. I have, I know what I believe, and I have the utmost confidence that the Bible that I am studying and will be preaching out of this Sunday IS the Word of God- even if it isn't the KJV.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Doug Kutilek is the latest to jump on the KJV critic bandwagon.

No,he has been a critic of KJVO'ism for qite a long time.

As for "God forbid," it has been explained many times. It is a rendering of "mE genoito" which is "may it not be" or "let it not be." This is perfect 1611 idiom for "God forbid." It was quite literal in 1611.. Again, "God forbid" is a perfect 1611 mode of speech..

It is indeed an idiom. It is a paraphrase and not literal. It was idiomatic in 1611,not a word-for-word construction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top