• 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!

The flaws of the KVJ

Status
Not open for further replies.

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The NKJV demonstrates the KJV is deeply flawed.
The use of mythical animals in the KJV demonstrates it is deeply flawed.
Translating different places as the same place, i.e. Hades and Gehenna both as Hell, demonstrates the KJV is deeply flawed.
I could list dozens of flaws and each and every one would be said to be a non-flaw.
 

MB

Well-Known Member
There are far more flaws in the Critical Text than in the KJV. The critical text being what is used in the newer versions. Nothing upsets me more than for someone who does';t know what they are talking about when they run down the most successful Bible of our time The Catholic Church is ecstatic over it fooling the people once again. After al, it comes from the RCC
MB
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
There are far more flaws in the Critical Text than in the KJV. The critical text being what is used in the newer versions. Nothing upsets me more than for someone who does';t know what they are talking about when they run down the most successful Bible of our time The Catholic Church is ecstatic over it fooling the people once again. After al, it comes from the RCC
MB
The Critical Greek text so called is what we seen being used to a large extent back in first centuries of the Church though!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
@37818 :
In the end, we'll have to agree to disagree.

When it comes down to it, I still see the AV as being a translation of the correct Greek and Hebrew texts, and having what could be construed as poorer translation choices when examined in the light of more modern Englishchoices;
But the reality of it is, is that I believe that it is far superior to what came before it, and it is definitely far superior, using the English of its day, than anything that has so far come after it.

In addition, to me it is the word of God,
and the best representation of it in my own native language that I've seen so far in my 43+ years as a believer.
To others it is an old horse that needs to be put out to pasture, which I will respectfully disagree with probably until the day that I go to be with the Lord.


I'll make this my last reply in this thread.
May God bless you and all who read this.:)
Even the 1611 Translators stated was the best of their time, but that when future evidences was discovered, as in manuscripts and historical, the KJV must be updated and revised!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
There is only one way to interpret it and that is by believing what you read. Look at this explanation by John. Keep in mind that when he writes his gospel in 90 AD, it is in retrospect and his understanding of the ministry of Jesus Christ is far greater than when he lived out these details he put in his gospel. He writes in the past tense, looking back. Note;

John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

He wrote John 6 and was in the band of the 12 who did not know what it meant at the time to eat the flesh of the son of man in order to have everlasting life. He surely did know when he wrote his gospel and he knew how sinners became sons of God, which requires a birth into God's family through his son.

1 John 3:Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

Now, for a definition or an equivalence of supper time that we found in Lk 14.

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5 To redeem them that were under the law, (that would be the circumcision) that we might receive the adoption of sons.
6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

The fullness of time (singular) was the end of a time and the beginning of another. Under the former time that had come to it's fullness, sinners could be a servant of God by keeping his law as a lifestyle but they could not be a son. Under the law of liberty, which Jesus Christ our Lord ushered in at his resurrection, men could be a son of God when they received the Spirit of Christ into their bodies by faith in his death, burial, and resurrection.

Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Ga 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus

This is written to gentiles because Israel would not come. Who failed here? God? No, Israel failed and God wrote his history a different way than he would have.

Rom 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

The righteousness of God would be Christ. What glorious and wonderful truths God has given us. What a privilege for us gentiles to be accepted in the beloved. A saved man ought to shout right here.
That truth is not just in the Kjv, as the Lord made sure that we had his word from early on!
 

MB

Well-Known Member
The Critical Greek text so called is what we seen being used to a large extent back in first centuries of the Church though!
That is false The critical text was translated in the 1800's by two men named Wescott and Hort..Both of ill repute.
MB
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The NKJV demonstrates the KJV is deeply flawed.
The use of mythical animals in the KJV demonstrates it is deeply flawed.

Actually, it was because the AV makers believed they were real. After all, a unicorn was depicted on their nation's & their king's coats-of-arms.

Translating different places as the same place, i.e. Hades and Gehenna both as Hell, demonstrates the KJV is deeply flawed.
Translating hades as hell is a goof, but doesn't ruin the whole work.
I could list dozens of flaws and each and every one would be said to be a non-flaw.

A "deep flaw" would be saying something such as "Jesus was just a man", etc. What we have are a number of nicks & scratches.
 

MB

Well-Known Member
The NKJV demonstrates the KJV is deeply flawed.
The use of mythical animals in the KJV demonstrates it is deeply flawed.
Translating different places as the same place, i.e. Hades and Gehenna both as Hell, demonstrates the KJV is deeply flawed.
I could list dozens of flaws and each and every one would be said to be a non-flaw.
The new King James started off stealing the name KJV. It is not a new KJV it was translated from the critical text and has nothing to do with the same manuscripts of the KJV..
MB
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The new King James started off stealing the name KJV. It is not a new KJV it was translated from the critical text and has nothing to do with the same manuscripts of the KJV..
MB
It was translated off the TR greek Text, and same OT text as Kjv used!
 

Conan

Well-Known Member
The new King James started off stealing the name KJV. It is not a new KJV it was translated from the critical text and has nothing to do with the same manuscripts of the KJV..
MB
That is not true at all. You have been given false information. Read the preface to the NKJV for the facts.
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The new King James started off stealing the name KJV. It is not a new KJV it was translated from the critical text and has nothing to do with the same manuscripts of the KJV..
MB
MMRRPP ! WRONG !

It was translated from the same texts the AV was translated from, with due consideration being given to the several thousand mss. found since then.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
That is not true at all. You have been given false information. Read the preface to the NKJV for the facts.
Think that some in the myth of the KJVO seem to think that due to the Nkjv giving in margins the MU and CT renderings as if they used those texts!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
MMRRPP ! WRONG !

It was translated from the same texts the AV was translated from, with due consideration being given to the several thousand mss. found since then.
Correct, as the translators used the same sources as the 1611 team did!
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Actually, it was because the AV makers believed they were real. After all, a unicorn was depicted on their nation's & their king's coats-of-arms.
Translating hades as hell is a goof, but doesn't ruin the whole work.



A "deep flaw" would be saying something such as "Jesus was just a man", etc. What we have are a number of nicks & scratches.
Once again this post offers absurdity. Did anyone say the KJV contains "deep flaws?" Deeply flawed refers a numerous flaws such that the whole work is deeply flawed. Did anyone say the whole work was ruined? Nope. Much better translation choices are available, that use more up to date words and are better understood by readers.
 

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The new King James started off stealing the name KJV. It is not a new KJV it was translated from the critical text and has nothing to do with the same manuscripts of the KJV..
MB
Your allegation is not true. You have been misinformed. The NKJV is not translated from the critical text. The NKJV lists critical text readings in its marginal notes, but that does not mean that the NKJV was translated from it.

The NKJV is based on the same original-languages texts as the KJV.

The KJV may have more influence from non-Textus Receptus sources than the NKJV has since the Church of England makers of the KJV borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament translated from an edition of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The new King James started off stealing the name KJV. It is not a new KJV it was translated from the critical text and has nothing to do with the same manuscripts of the KJV..
MB
On and on the false claims concerning the NKJV are posted.
1John 5:7 (KJV) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (TR)

1John 5:7 (NKJV) For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (TR)

1 John 5:7 (WEB) For there are three who testify: (MT)

1 John 5:7 (NASB) For there are three that testify: (CT)
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Once again this post offers absurdity. Did anyone say the KJV contains "deep flaws?" Deeply flawed refers a numerous flaws such that the whole work is deeply flawed. Did anyone say the whole work was ruined? Nope. Much better translation choices are available, that use more up to date words and are better understood by readers.
Nupe! Posted the TRUTH. But I agree there are better English Bible translations around, & the KJV is a "Model T" version.
 

MB

Well-Known Member
Your allegation is not true. You have been misinformed. The NKJV is not translated from the critical text. The NKJV lists critical text readings in its marginal notes, but that does not mean that the NKJV was translated from it.

The NKJV is based on the same original-languages texts as the KJV.

The KJV may have more influence from non-Textus Receptus sources than the NKJV has since the Church of England makers of the KJV borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament translated from an edition of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome.

How about Hebrews 2:16 .With verses Like 1st Cor 1:18 Are we being saved or are we saved? Does Christ aid the seed of Abraham? or did He take on the seed of Abraham? Matt 2 :16 Did Herod kill all the children or only the male children 2 years old and under?
The Latin Vulgate was old testament.
MB,
 
Last edited:

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nupe! Posted the TRUTH. But I agree there are better English Bible translations around, & the KJV is a "Model T" version.
Since you did not post a reference to where anyone claimed the "deep flaws" rather than "deeply flawed" you did not post the truth. Full Stop
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top