Jesus is Lord
New Member
The NKJV is a more accurate translation of the TR (it has its errors, but so does the AV).
-
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!
Anti-Alexandrian
Member
According to whom? Who told you the AV has errors in it,God? If you are able to sit in judgment of the AV, then why dont you provide us with a error free Bible?
Daniel David
New Member
According to whom? Who told you the AV has errors in it,God? If you are able to sit in judgment of the AV, then why dont you provide us with a error free Bible? </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, God did tell me. Years ago, I was KJVO. However, since the kingdom of Christ is one of truth, the Lord delivered me out of that lie.
Btw, I would not say the NKJV has errors. There are certainly different options that could have been used, but that does not equate it to being an error.
Bartholomew
New Member
Sorry, pastor, but I disagree. The real problems are:
1. MVers only affirm the biblical doctrine of inspiration with respect to the original manuscripts. Although you think these were without error, it is a totally useless because you believe they have been irreversibly corrupted, and you can never know for sure which bits aren't errors. You might as well say that the bible was slightly IMperfectly inspired to begin with. It gives the same result.
2. You seem to work from a logical inconsistency. You say, "God inspired; God is perfect; therefore the Bible was perfectly inspired." However, you REFUSE to even contemplate, "God preserves; God is perfect; therefore the Bible is prefectly preserved."
3. MVers tell countless people they have "the word of God". The problem is that you also tell them, "whichever one you have, they've all got errors in them". It may be the TRADITIONAL view, but that doesn't make it right.
Bartholomew, I think your logical fallacies are showing!
This is not the Modern Version view. This is the historic 2000 year position of the church and of fundamental baptists. Read the 1895 Niagara Conference position (that formalized the fundmaentals of the faith). It IS the originals that were inspired. Perfectly. And copies of copies of copies allow us to discern that true and accurate reading. But not having the originals deprives the Catholics of worshiping them!
And the reason? Because GOD SAID his Word was inspired and that it was perfect and kept -- BUT NOT ANY ENGLISH TRANSLATION of His Word. That is the Kirkegaardian "leap of faith" that "onlies" make.
So is the NKJV, NASB et al. Now inaccurate translations that skew the Greek (New World of the Jehovah's Witnesses) are partially correct, but not accurately the Word of God.
This is not the Modern Version view. This is the historic 2000 year position of the church and of fundamental baptists. Read the 1895 Niagara Conference position (that formalized the fundmaentals of the faith). It IS the originals that were inspired. Perfectly. And copies of copies of copies allow us to discern that true and accurate reading. But not having the originals deprives the Catholics of worshiping them!
And the reason? Because GOD SAID his Word was inspired and that it was perfect and kept -- BUT NOT ANY ENGLISH TRANSLATION of His Word. That is the Kirkegaardian "leap of faith" that "onlies" make.
Any translation into any language that is accurate to the original Greek IS de facto an accurate translation of the "word of God" into that receptor language. KJV1769 revision that I use is just as much the Word of God as the AV1611, even though there are thousands of differences!
So is the NKJV, NASB et al. Now inaccurate translations that skew the Greek (New World of the Jehovah's Witnesses) are partially correct, but not accurately the Word of God.
Who told you the AV has errors in it,God?
Grab a hebrew/greek dictionary, a copy of the TR, and a KJV translation. You'll find several errors in it.
I've listed several of those errors on the board, so I can tell you for a fact that there are errors in the KJV.
To be fair, no translation is error free, and I think the KJV is a reasonably good translation. I think that there are other good, and a few better, translations out there.
But to say that the KJV is a perfect translation is a false statement. Worse, to say that the KJV is the perfect Bible is heretical.
Grab a hebrew/greek dictionary, a copy of the TR, and a KJV translation. You'll find several errors in it.
I've listed several of those errors on the board, so I can tell you for a fact that there are errors in the KJV.
To be fair, no translation is error free, and I think the KJV is a reasonably good translation. I think that there are other good, and a few better, translations out there.
But to say that the KJV is a perfect translation is a false statement. Worse, to say that the KJV is the perfect Bible is heretical.
Anti-Alexandrian
Member
{Inappropriate comment deleted}
I would and do! The NKJV is nothing but a [slander deleted]. It is not 100% from the TR as some would have you to believe.
[ May 09, 2003, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]
Anti-Alexandrian
Member
Why?? Most folks who say that the KJB has errors in it obviously cannot read plain English,much less a dead language God shelved 1800 years ago.A typical hobby horse argument.
All of which have never been proven! If some notable scholars( some with 25 years of formal education) cannot prove them,what makes one think that you can??
According to who's standards? Yours?
If you are able to judge the AV,then when are you going to provide us with a perfect Bible??
Because the Bible does not say that a translation is of greater inspirational value than the texts from which it was translated. Additionally, there are numerous errors in the KJV, so the KJV cannot be a perfect bible.
If you place a version, any version, higher than the texts from which it was translated, you're guilty of versionolatry. The KJV is a translation of the Bible, nothing more.
All [the errors which you pointed out]have never been proven! If some notable scholars( some with 25 years of formal education) cannot prove them,what makes one think that you can??
You're kidding. The errors I pointed out are clear. Such as the fact that the OT uses the word "brass". Brass was not invented yet. Another example is the heading "The Gospel According to Saint Luke" the kione Greek merely says "The Gospel According to Luke".
These are clear errors. There's nothing to "prove". It's perfectly clear.
Now, which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture — "whom ye" [Cambridge KJV's] or, "whom he" [Oxford KJV's] at Jeremiah 34:16?
Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture — "sin" [Cambridge KJV's] or "sins" [Oxford KJV's] at 2 Chronicles 33:19?
Why [grab a hebrew/greek dictionary, a copy of the TR, and a KJV translation] Most folks who say that the KJB has errors in it obviously cannot read plain English, much less a dead language God shelved 1800 years ago. A typical hobby horse argument.
That statement makes no sense at all. If looking up the greek supported the KJVO position, all the KJVO's would be doing it. But it doesn't, so the arguement is "why should I bother"? It's simply denying the facts. But the best reason to do this is because the Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew, so it would be wise for all Christians to have access to Greek and Hebrew sources.
FOr example, did Jesus teach a way for men to be "worshiped" according to Luke 14:10 in the KJV, contradicting the first commandment and what He said in Luke 4: 8? [Remember — you may not go the Greek for any "light" if you are KJVO!]
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the KJV is a bad translation. I'm saying it's a good, but imperfect translation. There are others, some better, some worse.
[ May 09, 2003, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]
You're kidding. The errors I pointed out are clear. Such as the fact that the OT uses the word "brass". Brass was not invented yet. Another example is the heading "The Gospel According to Saint Luke" the kione Greek merely says "The Gospel According to Luke".
These are clear errors. There's nothing to "prove". It's perfectly clear.
Now, which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture — "whom ye" [Cambridge KJV's] or, "whom he" [Oxford KJV's] at Jeremiah 34:16?
Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture — "sin" [Cambridge KJV's] or "sins" [Oxford KJV's] at 2 Chronicles 33:19?
Why [grab a hebrew/greek dictionary, a copy of the TR, and a KJV translation] Most folks who say that the KJB has errors in it obviously cannot read plain English, much less a dead language God shelved 1800 years ago. A typical hobby horse argument.
That statement makes no sense at all. If looking up the greek supported the KJVO position, all the KJVO's would be doing it. But it doesn't, so the arguement is "why should I bother"? It's simply denying the facts. But the best reason to do this is because the Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew, so it would be wise for all Christians to have access to Greek and Hebrew sources.
FOr example, did Jesus teach a way for men to be "worshiped" according to Luke 14:10 in the KJV, contradicting the first commandment and what He said in Luke 4: 8? [Remember — you may not go the Greek for any "light" if you are KJVO!]
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the KJV is a bad translation. I'm saying it's a good, but imperfect translation. There are others, some better, some worse.
[ May 09, 2003, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]
The NKJV is nothing but a [slander deleted]. It is not 100% from the TR as some would have you to believe.
Acts 9:6 is found only in the Latin Vulgate but not in the TR? Why in Rev 22:19 the phrase "book of life" is used in the KJV when absolutely ALL known Greek manuscripts read "tree of life"?
Why is the second half of 1 Jn 5:8 found only in the Latin Vulgate?
But some questions seem to always go unanswered. WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" — 1611, or any of the KJV major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850? Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words — would you say the KJV was "verbally inerrant" in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?
In summary, must we possess a perfectly flawless bible translation in order to call it "the word of God"? If so, how do we know "it" is perfect? If not, why do some "limit" "the word of God" to only ONE "17th Century English" translation? Where was "the word of God" prior to 1611? Did our Pilgrim Fathers have "the word of God" when they brought the GENEVA BIBLE translation with them to North America?
Acts 9:6 is found only in the Latin Vulgate but not in the TR? Why in Rev 22:19 the phrase "book of life" is used in the KJV when absolutely ALL known Greek manuscripts read "tree of life"?
Why is the second half of 1 Jn 5:8 found only in the Latin Vulgate?
But some questions seem to always go unanswered. WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" — 1611, or any of the KJV major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850? Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words — would you say the KJV was "verbally inerrant" in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?
In summary, must we possess a perfectly flawless bible translation in order to call it "the word of God"? If so, how do we know "it" is perfect? If not, why do some "limit" "the word of God" to only ONE "17th Century English" translation? Where was "the word of God" prior to 1611? Did our Pilgrim Fathers have "the word of God" when they brought the GENEVA BIBLE translation with them to North America?
Bartholomew
New Member
And the reason? Because GOD SAID his Word was inspired and that it was perfect and kept -- BUT NOT ANY ENGLISH TRANSLATION of His Word. That is the Kirkegaardian "leap of faith" that "onlies" make.</font>[/QUOTE]Not so, Dr. Bob. If it is "perfect and kept", then where is it??? I can see no better candidate than the AV; and the only people who seem to believe it is perfect and kept are those who hold to the AV being that book! If you can show me another candidate for the perfect, preserved word of God, I shall consider it. However, saying "the Hebrew and Greek" will not wash. Which Hebrew and Greek? If you are contending there are some manuscripts of the Bible (in whatever language) that are perfect, I will honestly consider them; but I have yet to encounter a non-KJVO who actually believes this.
But why make such a fuss over whether you call something, "the word of God", when you belive they ALL have errors in them? And why such hostility to the idea that God might actually have worked to perfectly preserve his word???
We have copies of copies of copies of the Original Inspired Greek documents. We evaluate them, compare them, contrast them, see where a scribe here or there might have copied something differently . . and come to an agreement on what the original text was.
Okay. Not complete agreement since the KJVO group bases their position on texts that ADDED words as theological debates arose.
So most Christians agree that God HAS preserved His Word and that while their might be fussing over a few words added by well-meaning scribes, we have the Word.
And any translation into any language that accurately (as much as language is able to) portrays the Greek is accepted.
Some might PREFER one English translation over another, but it's not like one is GOOD and the others EVIL as some of the KJVO have tried to portray in days gone by. (i.e. the devils version, the Not Inspired Version, etc)
Okay. Not complete agreement since the KJVO group bases their position on texts that ADDED words as theological debates arose.
So most Christians agree that God HAS preserved His Word and that while their might be fussing over a few words added by well-meaning scribes, we have the Word.
And any translation into any language that accurately (as much as language is able to) portrays the Greek is accepted.
Some might PREFER one English translation over another, but it's not like one is GOOD and the others EVIL as some of the KJVO have tried to portray in days gone by. (i.e. the devils version, the Not Inspired Version, etc)