Use of the NKJV?

[Steven m.]

Alcott writes:
Nonsense. Idiotic nonsense. A translation of anything is nothing but an effort to relate in one language what has been told in one or more others.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I comment:
Dont agree brother,cant win no spiritual warfare with man made armor.Bible verses took out is taking from the Word of God,it is the doing of sinful men.We have all we need in the KJV period.God`s word does not change unless man changes it.[snip]Rant all you want to God doesnt change and Im not compromising with the modern day bible(s)[snip]

Brother Steve.

[edited to remove descriptive term that violates Forum guidelines.]
Note : Hell awaits only those who fail to put their faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ.

[ May 02, 2003, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob the Younger ]

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Steven m.:
The NKJV Bible examined under the true KJV that I believe to be the only preserved Word of God to the english speaking people.

Steven, if you have a problem with a specific NKJV verse and why that verse is "counterfeit", please feel free to post it so that we have the opportunity to examine it.

 

[bapterian]

mesly,

I believe the reason that the NKJV is so popular for the study bible market is two reasons:

1) It's a accurate translation that's well received the evangelical community.
2) The royalties that publishers must pay for use of the NKJV are cheaper than the NIV.

 

[TomVols]

2) The royalties that publishers must pay for use of the NKJV are cheaper than the NIV.

I've never heard that. Where do you get this information?

 

[Dr. Bob]

Would like to see the actually royalty charged to use the
NRSV
NASB
NIV
NKJV
ESV
and KJV

And by using the KJV1769 revision of the AV1611, many American publishers can DEFAULT on the legitimate royalties/patent rights held in England.

And KJV defenders say it is "not" copywritten, which is another lie. Just that US publishers disregard international law and simply don't pay it.

Or maybe some do. Does anyone know? I'd sure be interested . . and would support publishers who are honest.

So it is used "free", but of course, unethically.

 

[bjonson]

I use the MacArthur Study Bible (NKJV) and I believe it's true that only the NKJV is faithful to always show alternate readings. In other words, every instance of a significant textual variant is referenced in the margin.

Is this true?

 

[bapterian]

TomVols,

I got this information from Henry Blackaby when I attended an Experiencing God For Couples weekend back in 1995. One of the participants asked Blackaby why the Experiencing God Study Bible was only available in the NKJV and not the NIV. His answer was and I paraphrase: "The royalties charged to use the NIV made it cost-prohibitive. We opted to use the NKJV to keep the sales price down."

 

[Keith M]

I have a NKJV copy of the Ryrie Study Bible, and I love it. I also have a NKJV copy of The Open Bible. And when I use the online Bible at my favorite Bible web site, I use the NKJV as my default version.

 

[HankD]

We have all we need in the KJV period.God`s word does not change unless man changes it

Quite true, but the KJV is a translation of God's Word and a good one for its specific time period.

However the KJV itself has been changed hundreds of times in 4 major revisions and two editions since 1611. One of these revisions included the removal of the RCC "counterfeit" Scripture the Apocrypha from the KJV.

So which is the "pure" Word of God? The 1611 or the 1769?

We are told that things which are different are not the same.

How many different words does it take between two Bibles for them to be "different"?

I'll give the answer: One.

Therefore, According to the KJVO definition, only one of the KJV revisions/editions is the "pure" Word of God.

Why not face the truth that the revisions of the 1611KJV were to remove identifiable imperfections and make the good even better.

But this of course would be to admit that the First Edition 1611KJV (Apocrypha and all) was not the "pure" word of God.

HankD

 

[AV Defender]

Quite true, but the KJV is a translation of God's Word and a good one for its specific time period

And still is,it is more than a translation,it is God's word!! And it has not been dethroned yet after 200+ tries.

However the KJV itself has been changed hundreds of times in 4 major revisions and two editions since 1611.

So?? You wouldn't have us to believe that the honest revision of sentence structure and spelling standardization of the English language is to be compared with the mess that has been going on since 1881? Ad Hominem!!

One of these revisions included the removal of the RCC "counterfeit" Scripture the Apocrypha from the KJV.

Well, here we go again! The actual 1611's did have the Apocrypha BETWEEN the testaments,and was meerly for historical reference only,just like the Scofield notes in a Scofield study Bible. However,the Alexandrinus,Vaticanus,and Sinaiticus(aka.the TCV) did in fact contain the Apocrypha in the old testament as inspired scripture,due to the fact that those listed manuscripts are Roman Catholic in origin! To deny that is a denial of the truth.

So which is the "pure" Word of God? The 1611 or the 1769?

Yes

We are told that things which are different are not the same.

Not completly true.The polyversions differ in thousands of places,but yet they hail from the same RCC based texts;so therefore, things that are different ARE same.

Therefore, According to the KJVO definition, only one of the KJV revisions/editions is the "pure" Word of God.

Ad Hominem! read the above statments.

But this of course would be to admit that the First Edition 1611KJV (Apocrypha and all) was not the "pure" word of God.

Why wasn't it?? Who told you that??

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Again JYD avoids the questions.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Terry, you are absolutely right.

JYD writes:
>>Well, here we go again! The actual 1611's did
>>have the Apocrypha BETWEEN the testaments,and
>>was meerly [sic] for historical reference
>>only,just like the Scofield notes in a Scofield
>>study Bible.

Absolutely not.
There is a HUGE difference between Scofield's notes and adding the Apocrypha to God's Word. The notes are not placed "between the testaments" as the Apocrypha is. You don't really believe that, do you? You are comparing Scofield's notes to the Aprcrypha?
By the way, I was called a heretic on another board because I had the "audacity" to use the Geneva Bible, which had Calvin's marginal notes.

 

[Alcott]

Originally posted by JYD:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Quite true, but the KJV is a translation of God's Word and a good one for its specific time period

And still is,it is more than a translation,it is God's word!! And it has not been dethroned yet after 200+ tries. </font>[/QUOTE]Don't some binding of papers look good "sitting" on a throne? That's one of your silliest statements yet here. And if any book is on the same throne little Jimmy put his butt on, I don't want any Bible of mine to 'dethrone' it!

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> We are told that things which are different are not the same.

Not completly true.</font>[/QUOTE]As if further confirmation was needed, Jimmyites can be counted on for being predictably unpredictable.

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

You are comparing Scofield's notes to the Aprcrypha?

They carry about the same weight compared to scripture(KJB).

By the way, I was called a heretic on another board because I had the "audacity" to use the Geneva Bible, which had Calvin's marginal notes.

And??

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

I don't want any Bible of mine to 'dethrone' it!

Dont worry,it wont!!

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Originally posted by MV-neverist:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I don't want any Bible of mine to 'dethrone' it!

Dont worry,it wont!! </font>[/QUOTE]Interesting. Please explain why each year the KJV is not the most popular bible sold. Each year the KJV is losing more ground to the NIV. Get used to it; it is only a matter of time.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

MV-neverist writes:

&gt;&gt;They carry about the same weight compared to
&gt;&gt;scripture(KJB).

Yeah………sure, I agree.........Um, what?

Nobody compared it to Scripture. As a matter of fact, nobody even implied that. I am not sure that I understand why you stated the obvious.


My earlier quote:
=====================
By the way, I was called a heretic on another board because I had the "audacity" to use the Geneva Bible, which had Calvin's marginal notes.
=====================

&gt;&gt;And??

And what? I was told that marginal notes were heresy. I am now hearing that adding the Apocrypha in the KJV is not unlike the marginal notes that make my Geneva Bible so blasphemous.

I am sure that Scofield (up in Heaven) would love to know that his study notes have been compared to inserting the Apocrypha into God's Word.....

 

[Alcott]

Originally posted by MV-neverist:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I don't want any Bible of mine to 'dethrone' it!

Dont worry,it wont!! </font>[/QUOTE]Very true. No Bible translation has any throne, nor a butt to park on it.

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

I am sure that Scofield (up in Heaven) would love to know that his study notes have been compared to inserting the Apocrypha into God's Word.....

So what? the Apocrypha was not deemed scripture then;just like Scofields notes nowdays.Ad hominem

 

[HankD]

Dear JYD,

Thank you for the "answers".

This imo is a step in the right direction.

However and with all due respect dear brother they do prove the futility of your position of the once-upon-a-time RCC dogma of dual-inspiration which the KJVO have resurrected.

Your commendable tenacity and loyalty (howbeit misplaced) to God's Word via translation would be better spent studying it rather than trying to defend it (imo).

Your weak rebuttals are not good for your cause.
Which, I suppose is a good thing after all.

The King James Bible is indeed the Word of God by derivation. But, here is some free advice: a more healthy position would be to defend (if you must) the Word of God by preservation, the Traditional Text underlying the KJV, The text from which it is derived.

I, like you, take
Psalm 12
6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

as referring to His Words.

But please notice the enigma that though the Lord "keeps them" and "preserves them", still, they must be purified in a "furnace of earth". Why must the "perfect" be purified? Because these perfect words forever established in heaven pass though the hands of imperfect and sinful men after they descended here to the earth and were copied.

Not only that but as the years roll by languages change. The "koine" of English is not 1611-1769 Elizabethan but Standard English.

The words in the original languages NEVER change as He promised.

You obviously do not believe Jesus words when He said not even a jot or tittle (indicating the Hebrew letters and particles) would pass from His Word (at least from the Law) since you claim the KJV corrections were only spelling matters (there were graver errors).

But given that premise, Jesus brought the matter down to the very spelling of the Hebrew words.

The King James translators had the good sense (in this matter anyway) to believe Him and correct the English text where it conflicted with the Greek and Hebrew. Many of these problems were more than simple spelling errors however.

Even John Burgon wanted a purified TR which, in my estimation, was accomplished with Scrivener's 1894/5 Greek Text.

It is ironic that the KJV translators themselves did not hold the RCC/KJVO position of dual-inspiration. I for one am glad they did not.

So, the doctrine of the enigmatic purification of the preserved Word of God in a "furnace of earth" (psalm 12) is ignored by many/most while the error of RCC/KJVO dual-inspiration of an "authorised" translation is debated...

HankD