TO KJV or not TO KJV that is the question hey kjv only and those against it list ...

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Surfer5:
If someone only takes 5 % of you during surgery, depending on where the cutting takes place, you may or may not - find that significant.

I suspected you would see it that way, that is why I asked where do you draw the line? Why is 2% perfectly acceptable, but 5% is cause for great amounts of blustering? Would taking 5% during surgery be cause for concern where taking 2% is not?

I do not believe that the changes are happenstance, nor statistical anomalies. I think certain people said "this is not what the Bible should say", and out of a desire to harm the Word of God and attack Christ, they cut many verses out.

I do not believe that the changes are happenstance either. They are very deliberate. But the reasons are due to manuscript evidence indicating those passages had been *added* since Scripture was originally penned. The motivation is to *restore Scripture to as close to "original" as possible*, not to "a desire to harm the Word of God and attack Christ". Since so far you have been unable to prove that this is the motivation, I can only conclude that your unsupported opinion is not based on the truth, but on your desire to see good men slandered for some strange reason.

 

[Jeffrey H]

Surfer5,

I regularly use the NKJV & NASB for study and devotional reading. I believe I have in my hands the Word of God and it is profitable for me as it says in I Timothy 3:16.

I do not believe my spiritual growth and conservative theological position have been stunted or harmed by using these translations. I have read and used the KJV in the past and the differences between the NASB and KJV are insignificant to affect my doctrinal positions.

I don't have time to do a scholarly study on translation issues for various reasons. Because of this, I'm not equipped to debate the issues. If I'm wrong and you're absolutely convinced that you're right, then pray for me that I will see the light. In the meantime, I will continue to read His Word as it is given in today's English. An excellent translation is important and something I do not take lightly.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Surfer5:
My point is that there are great differences between the Greek Text of the Textus Receptus, and the Greek Text of the Westcott & Hort and/or
the Nestle-Aland Version.

The test to see who is accurate is:

Take a copy of the Textus Receptus and then get a copy of Westcott & Hort, and start comparing. Then come back and share what you have noticed.

Surfer

Someone here hasn't studied adequately. To say that there are "great differences" is simply wrong. There is no way to make that claim while at the same time being truthful.

However, to do your test shows nothing except differences. It does not show which "difference" is the proper difference. The evidence shows that the additions found in the TR are just that ... additions. Those additions are as unbiblical as any supposed deletions would be.

In the end, no one can say for sure which are additions and which are deletions. We simply do not know for sure because God has not revealed it to us. The TR, just like the MajT (whether HF or RB) or the eclectic text (NA, UBS), are man's decisions about textual variants. To raise them beyond that level is unbiblical and unproductive.

BTW, I am still waiting for you to demonstrate for us what you know about the Hebrew text by listing these difference that you are so adamant about.