Featured Baptist churches that claim to use the "King James Bible AV 1611"

http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/NKJVOmissions.html

 

Check out these verses in context.

Also please point out 1 of the 1200 times where the KJV ignores the TR. This statement is simply a lie.

Where this chart is accurate it is simple a matter of translational choices - not omissions.

 

You know what? I apologize. I didn't realize that the source of that information ultimately goes back to Gail Riplinger... who is, to put it politely, a nut.

I did a quick search for the source of that deviations list and it goes back to her tract “New King James Errors & Omissions".

I should have done my research better.

 

Thank you for being a gentleman.

I am a big supporter of the traditional text body and formal equivalence. I checked out the NKJV for many years. It is a faithful and literal translation from the same text body as the KJV.

 

Seems to be so.

I've been in KJO churches all my life. Even the SBC church I attended years ago was KJO. But as I look at the issue more I continue to see that position being held up by bad scholarship and rhetoric. But the other side is rife with false-teaching and ecumenism. So I don't know what to do quite frankly... :tear:

 

Would say that wether you chose to use KJV or not is a matter of tastes/preferences/convictions, but there is NO credible evidencres from textual criticism or any other area that would give us a "KJVO", could be a KJV preferred version, but NOT only english version view that coud be supported!

 

As of right now I will definitely use only my KJV but my real issue is with the churches.

 

I would humbly say that "false teaching and ecumenism"- and ESPECIALLY false teaching- are no more rife on the "other side" than they are on the "KJVO side".

Of course, I say this not knowing exactly what your definition of "false teaching" is. For most of us, that definition is "anything someone teaches that I disagree with, whether it has a Scriptural basis or not." :smilewinkgrin:

 

Ditto THAT!!

RL....as I see it your assessment of the current state of affairs is SPOT ON! The answer as to what to do is simple...Don't look at the MEN....Believe the marvelous Book you have in your hand and keep your eyes on the Lord. By the way...welcome to the conversation.:type:

Bro.Greg

 

Ecumenism...YEP!

IT SEEMS....that the rising apostasy of the churches, be they main-line denominational churches or more and more the "independents" as well, is preceeded by the proliferation and influx of the use of the more Modern versions of scripture (just read the writings of most of the modern or post-modern authors) and a general abandonment of the biblical doctrine and principles of seperation(THAT would be another thread all by itself). Being a dedicated "Only" guy I always check the "copyright" page in the front of each book I'm looking at to see what versions of the Bible are being used. It is getting harder and harder each year to find books that rely primarily or "only" on the KJV. The churches seem to following the same pattern and in general....are becoming more like the world around them. Sad.:tear:

Bro.Greg

 

I have seen plenty of error on both 'sides.' The Mormons and JWs both started with KJV Bibles and the last I knew accepted it as an acceptable translation.

 

Exactly right! These kinds of charts must be checked. For example, in the chart the very first entry under NKJV Demotes Jesus Christ is Luke 13:8 which the NKJV changes to "Sir" (KJV has "Lord"). Here is the verse in its context with Jesus speaking (Luke 13:6-8, KJV) --

He spake also this parable; A certain [man] had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none.
Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?
And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung [it]: ​

As can be seen above, the term "Lord" is being applied to a fictious person in a parable; it is NOT be said about Jesus Christ.

 

To be fair to the poster he later apologised for not checking it out before he posted.

 

In light of the Hyles and Ruckman legacies I would have to agree that there is plenty of false-teaching in the KJO camps. And I also am guilty of assuming that anyone that doesn't agree with me is wrong... but I try to not be biased. i know I don't have any kind of monopoly on truth and try to be understanding when it comes to disagreements, however somethings shouldn't be up to debate. Trinity, Christ's divinity, Salvation through faith apart from works, believer's baptism, etc...

 

Thanks

Finding good books by KJVO or even KJVP people is virtually impossible (At least from the stores I've been in) so I just gave up on that. And not all evangelicals are nuts either. Just finished "not a fan." by Kyle Idleman. Nothing really knew but still solid.

Though I do get books from David Cloud's website. I seem to be closest to his beliefs when it comes to the KJV. And I love that he is an Independent Baptist that preaches repentance!:applause:

 

Truth. I used to live with some friends after I got out of the military, the wife was a Mormon... devout too, yet she never seemed to lack caffeine in her home... And part of the Mormon "Quad" is the KJB. too bad they don't read it...

 

On those things we can certainly agree.

But to blame "modern versions" for "apostacy" and the like is erroneous, in my opinion. There were apostates and modernists even before the modern versions came into being.

 

You are right and I apologize for posting such a misleading chart. However, I can kind of see their point in this instance because the man in the parable is representing Christ.

 

You are putting words into my mouth. I never blamed modern versions for causing apostasy. I never even used the word "apostasy".
I said

Someone can be a false teacher without being apostate. Also, I don't necessarily believe that the versions cause the false-teaching, but the false-teachers gravitate to the modern translations in their endless quest to be "relevant"... whatever that means

 

You have been misinformed by KJV-only sources. The KJV-only claim is not true.

The above assertion that the NKJV had to borrow from the copyrighted modern versions based on the Critical Text in order to get a copyright does not even make good sense. How would using renderings from a copyrighted version be a way to get a copyright?

The fact that the 1994 21st Century KJV that only updates some archaic language in the KJV has a copyright would be evidence that contradicts this KJV-only claim. In addition, the fact that the 1994 21st Century KJV and the 1998 Third Millennium Bible that are almost identical in text both have copyrights also conflicts with it.