A different question about Bible versions

There are those who apply the "not spiritual enough" to many things, if you disagree with them.

I've even had people tell me that if you let the spirit interpret, he might interpret contrary to what is written, but "if you're spiritual enough, that won't matter".

I agree that it's spiritual, but I don't know which sprit would do that.

 

Frankly, I have never really been all that 'lost' with my NKJV or virtually any other more or less "formal equivalency" translation when another is reading from a different version, even a paraphrase.

But I guess, if one is really just looking for an excuse, one can almost always find one.

And without much difficulty at that!!

FTR, where are the standards about which version is really the "correct" one published??

Ed

 

Good point!! Isn't that idea called "spiritism" or its 'double first-cousin' "spiritualism" ?? And isn't that (spiritism), if not an outright heresy, at least, a cult??

Ed

 

I was just trying to give you a friendly warning before the mods did.
I am not a know it all, but we all have agreed to abide by rules to be members of BB.
I realize some just skim over the rules... that is why I gently pointed this out...

Please reconsider. We all have opinions, but there are rules of debate that govern how we express our opinions... your opinions are welcome, but just like there are rules stating that I can't call the KJV by a degrading nickname, there are rules in place that protect the slurring of other versions that others use.

It is a matter of respect.

 

There most certainly are versions not as accurate as others. I too was entrenched in the KJVO mentality for over 20 years, when I asked my self "why" and researched it myself. The result - the KJV IS a good translation, but it is simply that - an English translation using 16th century England English not contemporary American English. For the lomited manuscripts the translators had, their work is remarkable indeed.

I have looked at all the sides of the issues AND read various translations and for ME I like the ESV, NKJV, NASB95, KJV.

 

And/Or at least the founding source for cults.

 

While it's your right to use any version ya wish, I have that same right. And you have no right to diss other versions that're not your fave just because they read differently here or there. You simply cannot prove that this version left something out unlessya can prove your fave didn't ADD the material in question. That said, I'll shut up on that subject.

No, it's no sin to read ANY version, but sin can come from MISUSE of any version or teaching a false doctrine derived from any given version.

 

It's a simple, sensible rule, Sir. The Bible you label a XXX may be the ONLY Bible version available to some.

Likewise, we Freedom Readers are not allowed to use certain terms referring to the KJVO doctrine or those who advocate it. I hold this doctrine in lowest esteem, believing it to be totally false, but that's about the worst we're allowed to say about it.

MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE RANCH...

I read some versions I KNOW are bogus in order to "know the enemy".

 

The KJV and the NKJV disagree each other 2,000 times. The NKJV did not follow the TR 800 times. What say you?

 

I say it's still God's word.

Can you prove those 800 differences teach a different doctrine than that of grace through Christ? What say you?

 

The KJV did not always follow the TR. What say ye?

BTW, Askjo won't provide a source showing that the NKJV disagreed with the TR 800 times. He makes this claim over and over, but has never provided any evidence.

 

We should probably take our example from the Bible.

The Sadducees had a very different Bible from the Pharisees...they only believed the first 5 books of Moses were God's word. Yet you never see Jesus trying to convince them otherwise.

When Jesus corrected their mistaken view on the resurrection He did not do so with what would be clear texts from Scripture that they do not believe to be God's word. Instead, He quoted from the books that they held to be Scripture (Mat 22:31-32)

 

Does it REALLY make any difference, Roger? Askjo won't answer that one, either. Where, IN SCRIPTURE, are we committed to only the TR? Should be right beside the verses that commit us to only the KJV.

 

Askjo may be afraid to cite the source of this claim if the source is one with less than a good reputation for accuracy.

 

Of course it makes no difference, I thought of that as well but decided to leave it there.

 

That's very interesting. My experience (and I was a KJVO for many, many years, and in 3 different states) was just the opposite. Those who used other versions were deceived hypocrites at best or satanic plants at worse. The overwhelming majority of KJVOs I knew or encountered believed this. Just my experience.

 

I have the outline concerning the difference between the KJV and the NKJV. If you want to get the information THAN this outline by yourself, GO to Waite's WEBSITE. At the conference I saw this information -- MORE details than this outline.

 

No. I am not afraid. Go to to find my comment to C4K

 

I do not have to receive Waite's research, but I received his outline. If you want to get his research, GO to Waite's website!

 

As I thought - no source.

"Go find it yourself" is hardly evidence of a viewpoint.