-
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Which of the KJVs is the KJB?
- Thread starter Ed Edwards
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
The NKJV was translated from the TR. Same as the KJV.Blammo said:You must be joking. The NKJV shouldn't even be associated with the KJB. The NKJV should be call AMV, (another modern version). I used to believe the NKJV was an updated version of the KJB with the Thees and Thous replaced. But I learned that it is just another version based on corrupt manuscripts. I am far from an expert on Bible versions, but I have learned a lot by opening my mind and putting aside my pride.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
IronWill said:Personally I like the 1631! :laugh:
My favorite is a KJV 1850 Edition from the American Bible
Society that my Grandmother got from her Grandmother.
Ed Edwards said:My favorite is a KJV 1850 Edition from the American Bible
Society that my Grandmother got from her Grandmother.
Have you read the 1631? It's much funnier when you know what's in...or not...the 1631 KJV. :laugh:
No, 2,000+ in the NKJV are 40% non-TR! The NKJV is NOT same as the KJV. Many verses in the NKJV did NOT match with the KJV.IronWill said:The NKJV was translated from the TR. Same as the KJV.
Askjo said:No, 2,000+ in the NKJV are 40% non-TR! The NKJV is NOT same as the KJV. Many verses in the NKJV did NOT match with the KJV.
Who cares if it matches with the KJV? The TR is the underlying text of the NKJV. The KJV is not the underlying text of the NKJV.
Jarthur001
Active Member
Askjo said:No, 2,000+ in the NKJV are 40% non-TR! The NKJV is NOT same as the KJV. Many verses in the NKJV did NOT match with the KJV.
WELL...hello!!! If all words matched it would only be the old KJV
Jarthur001 said:WELL...hello!!! If all words matched it would only be the old KJV
*snicker*:laugh:
The KJV is still alive since 400 years. Why did the people need NEW Bible, NKJV? I do not want the NKJV because the NKJV is a [snip] version. The NKJV translators dishonor God's Word for many reasons: blood removed 18 out of 375 times; repent is omitted 11 of 43 times; damnation is missing all 11 times; JEHOVAH is altogether missing, some NKJV translators had participated in the NIV translation. And more... Only the old KJV that is accepted TODAY and in the FUTURE!Phillip said:Ed, Very interesting poll and it is going to be interesting the results. I do think you should have included the NKJV. It is my opinion that it will become an accepted KJV in the near future.
I have predicted before that many people are already seeing the NKJV as a KJV. I even know of people at my church who would not accept anything but a version of the KJV and now they are accepting the NKJV. Our pastor is now using the NKJV because he was afraid to use any other modern version. Of course, we're a small country church with lots of older people. I don't know any who are KJVO, but there are several that are preferred.
In saying that I predict that as soon as this generation passes (another 10 or 20 years), then the NKJV will become an accepted version and be considered a "King James" version. Mark my words.
Last edited by a moderator:
Askjo said:The KJV is still alive since 400 years. Why did the people need NEW Bible, NKJV? I do not want the NKJV because the NKJV is a corrupted version. The NKJV translators dishonor God's Word for many reasons: blood removed 18 out of 375 times; repent is omitted 11 of 43 times; damnation is missing all 11 times; JEHOVAH is altogether missing, some KJV translators had participated in the NIV translation. And more... Only the old KJV that is accepted TODAY and in the FUTURE!
Some of the KJV translators helped with the NIV? So why do you use it?
Jesus is mentioned more times in the NKJV than in the KJV.
Now is repent really missing, or did something else meaning the same thing take it's place?
Would you use the 1631 KJV or do you prefer the 1769?
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Askjo said:No, 2,000+ in the NKJV are 40% non-TR! The NKJV is NOT same as the KJV. Many verses in the NKJV did NOT match with the KJV.
How do you define MATCH?
Does the multiple KJVs all match each other?
Does the KJVs match the Greek Received Texts (TRs)?
Come on guys, the new software of the Baptist Board (BB)
limits me to no more than 10 possible answers. Of course,
I must always have a
Apathy & Ignorance answer: I don't care or I don't know
or 'whatever?'.
So I just can't mention every flavor of KJV that there might be,
for there are more then ten different KJVs.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Askjo: //The KJV is still alive since 400 years.//
A correct statement is:
"The KJVs are still alive after nearly 400 Years."
The KJV1611 Edition is 395 years old.
The KJV1769 Edition is 237 years old.
The KJV1873 Edition is 133 years old.
395+237+133 = 765. 765/3 = 255.
My average KJV is only 255 years old.
Yes, I use the KJV1611 Edition on a daily basis.
I use the KJV1769 Edition on a daily basis.
I use the KJV1873 on a weekly basis.
So my average KJV is NOT 400 years old
but is only 255 years old.
A correct statement is:
"The KJVs are still alive after nearly 400 Years."
The KJV1611 Edition is 395 years old.
The KJV1769 Edition is 237 years old.
The KJV1873 Edition is 133 years old.
395+237+133 = 765. 765/3 = 255.
My average KJV is only 255 years old.
Yes, I use the KJV1611 Edition on a daily basis.
I use the KJV1769 Edition on a daily basis.
I use the KJV1873 on a weekly basis.
So my average KJV is NOT 400 years old
but is only 255 years old.
I agree with you. I do not have to say PERFECTLY. Are you saying that I must be PERFECT? Are YOU perfect?????Ed Edwards said:Askjo: //The KJV is still alive since 400 years.//
A correct statement is:
"The KJVs are still alive after nearly 400 Years."
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Phrases in the 1978 NIV are exactly like phrases in the KJV1769.
Thrases in the KJV1769 Edition are just like the KJV1611 Edition
(except for spelling). So the 1978 NIV was built from
earlier English language translations just like the KJV 1611
Translators used phrases like the eight or so English translations
used before 1611.
Thrases in the KJV1769 Edition are just like the KJV1611 Edition
(except for spelling). So the 1978 NIV was built from
earlier English language translations just like the KJV 1611
Translators used phrases like the eight or so English translations
used before 1611.
Please provide me some verses that I will look up, but I WILL check the Greek TR.IronWill said:Jesus is mentioned more times in the NKJV than in the KJV.
Askjo said:It is your FALSE answer. It is IMPOSSIBLE for 1611 KJV translators to help the 1978 NIV. I do not see how they were alive in 1978.
You're the one who said the KJV translators worked on the NIV.
I corrected my error. :saint:IronWill said:You're the one who said the KJV translators worked on the NIV.
Askjo said:Please provide me some verses that I will look up, but I WILL check the Greek TR.
Go to http://www.biblegateway.com Do a word search on KJV(Results 1-25 of 942), then on the NKJV(Results 1-25 of 1026).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.