Is the KJV weak on Sin and Salvation?

Please explain why 40% of 2,000+ twisted words in the NKJV is not based on the TR.

 

Askjo: //Wrong! 40% of 2,000+ in the NKJV is not TR.//

The true/false value cannot be determined for this statement.
This statement has no meaning.

What are the '2000+'? Changes from the TR? Changes from
the KJV1769? Please go to your blind guides and make a
statement which we can exampine for it's true/false value.
Thank you.

 

I correct error in my previous post. :saint:

 

Unfortunately i cannot discern what you changed nor
why you changed it???

 

Here's a list of the versions that are translated from the TR or its sources:

Tyndale New Testament 1526-1530
Coverdale's Bible 1535
Matthew's Bible (using Tyndale's New Testament) 1537
The Great Bible (also by Coverdale) 1539
Geneva Bible (the Bible of the Pilgrims) 1557-1560
Bishop's Bible 1568
King James Version (original version) 1611
King James Version (Dr. Benjamin Blayney's revision; the standard KJV used today) 1769
Webster Bible 1833
Young's Literal Translation 1862-1898
New King James Version [book review] 1982
Revised Webster Bible 1998

 

Using the reasoning that, because the NKJV uses a different word or word order than the KJV, it is not derived from the TR is completely and utterly ridiculous.

As has been said many times already, the KJV did not strictly follow the TR itself. The NKJV translators used the TR but not the other sources the KJV did... plus the fact that they translated it in today's venacular and grammer. OF COURSE IT WILL DIFFER FROM THE KJV because if it didn't it would just be a copy of the KJV. [Duh.]

How long will some cling to the KJV as an idol, instead of clinging to Christ and His finished work?

 

Very well:

THe KJB translators even if they misspelled a word would take an absense of leave wash themselves and repent daily before returning to the "BOOK" it got really deep and convicting! Now Other MV's maybe contain it here and there but seriously, I have alot of doubt on the convictions and all the Modernistic views. I beleive we lost a whole generation of folk in the 70's and wouldn't you Know it, the NKJV was Printed in 1979. With all that said there is no conviction in the MV's and there is only feelings! I don't buy into that modernistic say so! I will stick to the TR. And Brother the NKJV Aint it! Also the truth of the matter is that God only wrote ONE BOOK and we Know His words when he Speaks to us thru His Word And NO other will we listen to! E-Sword KJB Thank you and Good by!:type:
2Ti 3:15 And2532 that3754 from575 a child1025 thou hast known1492 the3588 holy2413 Scriptures,1121 which are able1410 to make thee wise4679, 4571 unto1519 salvation4991 through1223 faith4102 which3588 is in1722 Christ5547 Jesus.2424
2Ti 3:16 All3956 Scripture1124 is given by inspiration of God,2315 and2532 is profitable5624 for4314 doctrine,1319 for4314 reproof,1650 for4314 correction,1882 for4314 instruction3809 in1722 righteousness:1343
2Ti 3:17 That2443 the3588 man444 of God2316 may be5600 perfect,739 thoroughly furnished1822 unto4314 all3956 good18 works.2041

 

If that is true and counts in their favor, maybe we should consider the fact that they baptized babies, considered anyone who didn't a heretic, and participated in the persecution of Baptists and other dissenters because of this falsely held doctrine and others.

Nope. Like the KJV translators said: Faithful MV's are the Word of God. From what you've posted, I seriously doubt that you understand what modernism is and why it DOES NOT contradict faithful and accurate translating of the Bible after the KJV.

I believe we lost a whole generation in the 70's and wouldn't you know it, it was during that period that KJVOnlyism first infected fundamental Baptist Churches in great numbers. Real IFB's like Rice worked hard to prevent that false doctrine from taking root but ultimately they failed.

I guess that's why literally millions are being saved and sanctified through the use of MV's... many having never read nor studied a KJV Bible. In fact, most of the people saved throughout history have never used the KJV.

The only ones depending on feelings here are the KJVO's. You have yet to substantiate your "felt" opinions with scriptural or historical facts.

Believe it or not, you have much more so than we have.

Your prerogative... but if you want to condemn others for not doing so you need to have a little more than your preference as a reason.

Your "feelings" have now spoken, show us the real proof.

And that book was not the KJV nor the TR. They are faithful versions of what He did write but the unique wordings of both have no evidence of existing before the 17th and 16th centuries respectively.

Amen! That is precisely why I am not KJVO... I will listen to His Word, not yours. Scripture does not say what you believe. A scripturally principled study of the historical evidence using equal balances does not support what you believe. Therefore you are one of the "NO other(s)" that we shouldn't be listening to.

 

Prove it Askjo. I know that is asking a great deal of you since you think your opinion should be more than sufficient... but it isn't. Scripture tells us to prove all things and hold to that which is true. I am asking you to "prove" the things that you claim... If they are true then I will hold to them.

BTW, if you really want to talk about words in an English version that are not in the TR... we can take a look at the KJV as well. For instance all those italicized words.

You've never proven that MV's have... only that they aren't the same as the KJV. That is no where near good enough.

I have looked at them. I have used them. Your statement is patently false. You have believed a profound, fundamental lie.

That is totally absurd and you demonstrate yourself to be so blinded by a false doctrine that you will not even recognize clear evidence that is laid before you.

"our great God and Savior" clearly means one person.

"the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" The use of "the" and "our" separated by "and" reflects two persons, not one.

Get your head out of the sand.

 

Once again we have wandered far off topic (Is the KJV weak on Sin and Salvation) are once again running around mulberry bush of hashed and rehashed issues.

Pop goes the weasle.