Is anything wrong with this verse?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Salamander, Sep 23, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    [SIZE=+1]"If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also." John 14:3 NKJV[/SIZE]

    Didn't Jesus rather say it a little different?

    I've always thought, and read, that Jesus IS preparing a place for us and if it were not so, He would have told us!

    Seems the NKJV has altered doctrine here. And all this time , so many have declared "No major doctrines have been changed in the modern versions" but here's one!

    I know some will claim this isn't a "major doctrine" alteration, but anything Jesus said he would do and then some one offer something that says the big "if", then they make Jesus a liar or at least not presenting the whole truth.

    Why, some will even call this a "bible attack", but how can this be an attack when it is nothing more than showing what that version says? Seems more that the NKJV is attacking the very words of Jesus!:wavey:
     
  2. Lukasaurus

    Lukasaurus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2008
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brother, I'm all for the KJB, but I am not sure I understand your post...

    Joh 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
    Joh 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. (KJB)

    John 14:2 is the part where he tells them if it were not so, I would have told you, not 14:3.

    Here are the same verses in the NKJV

    (John 14:2 NKJV) "In My Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
    (John 14:3 NKJV) "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also.

    It's almost identical. I am not in anyway defending the NKJV [Off topic], but I think you may have gotten confused...

    God bless :)
    Luke
     
    #2 Lukasaurus, Sep 23, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 24, 2008
  3. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Folks, we must stick to the topic at hand. We are discussing Sal's verse above, not how the NKJV translated some other verse.
     
  4. 4His_glory

    4His_glory
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well lets see:

    "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also." KJV

    "And if I go and prepare a place for you, ​​I will come again and receive you to Myself; that ​​where I am, there you may be also." NKJV

    Where on earth is this saying anything different. Sounds practically identical to me. The only difference is that one is in old english and the other a more modern english.

    I have not checked this recently in the original, but if memory serves me correctly it is a type of conditional. So, sorry Sal. You are straining at nats!
     
  5. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nope, I was quoting from a SBC website on it's evangelical statement.

    The key to this verse is the conjunctive "and", which is found in both the KJB and the NKJV.

    Also note I said " Seems".

    But in the case of the wording of the NKJV, "to myself" sounds redundent where "unto myself" sounds best.

    Sharp little Bible scholars here aren't we?:laugh:

    As it reads from the SBC website they are misquoting the very version they uphold as "better".

    I would have to conclude they are not very accurate in detail and should correct their error as to not cause confusion.
     
  6. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,142
    Likes Received:
    365

    Huh? "To myself" sounds redundant and "unto myself" sounds best?? HUH??? Are they not the same?????? And how can "to" myself be confusing??? YOU'RE confusing! :laugh:
     
  7. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Which website? Please give the URL. Thanks
     
  8. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which edition of the KJ Bible are you using as a reference point? Are you using the 1789 translation which is a revision of a revision of the 1611 KJ Bible or are you using the 1611 edition we are most familiar with?
     
  9. Lukasaurus

    Lukasaurus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2008
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's a straw man and you know it. The errors in the 1611 EDITION were printing press. Most of them were fixed in the next printing run. The other changes were mainly spelling and the change in typeface from gothic to roman. The spelling was standardised by 1769. Your tone to Brother Salamander is mocking, as I doubt you are familiar with a 1611 AV.

    You are propagating a myth in order to cause dissention.

    [Attack on the Bible deleted]

    Don't ask such a dumb question.
     
    #9 Lukasaurus, Sep 24, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2008
  10. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    POB,I think you meant the 1769 Benjamin Blayney Edition.That's the one most KJV'ers use;not the 1611.
     
  11. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    There are no such versions as NIP,TNIP,RSP,New RSP,ASP and NASP.

    However,I think you are trying to get around violating BB rules.You're trying to be indirect;but you're still dishonoring God's Word.
     
  12. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Sorry, Lukasaurus, but your above retort doesn't carry any weight since (to my knowledge) no one has asserted that the NIV, et al. versions: 1) have never been revised; or 2) divine perfection for their English texts.
     
  13. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Matthew 7:5; enough said?
     
  14. Lukasaurus

    Lukasaurus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2008
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Attack on the Bible deleted]
     
    #14 Lukasaurus, Sep 24, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2008
  15. Lukasaurus

    Lukasaurus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2008
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not attempting to hide my mockery with subtle comments about so called revisions which don't exist. I think anyone is foolish if they don't believe the King James Bible is God's word. I believe it is. Therefore, I can point out to others who are wrong on this issue. If you don't believe me, fine.

    Thankyou for reminding me of the truth of Matthew 7:5. The beam of modern versions is not in my eye, so I can remove the specks in yours, if only you would see them brethren.

    God bless
    Luke
     
  16. Lukasaurus

    Lukasaurus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2008
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought I was pretty direct...

    [Attack on the Bible deleted]

    I don't see how I am dishonoring God's word by saying that He has preserved it perfectly in one easy to read version that is available freely for anyone anywhere to access, quote, reprint, or reproduce. I think that's quite amazing that God did that for us, when He wasn't obliged to in any way, but He promised He would, so He did, because God is not a man, that he should lie.
     
    #16 Lukasaurus, Sep 24, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2008
  17. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    Rule #9 on this forum disallows that usage.
     
  18. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    In post #1 of this Topic in this Forum:

    http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=2393

    this rule is made:

    The NIV is a Bible which was made in the 20th century (1901-2000) so is a Modern Version (MV). He who has called the NIV a perversion should be removed from the board. The law has been broken.

    I say this with the NUCLEAR BIBLE in hand:
    TODAY'S PARALLEL BIBLE:

    1. The KJV1873 Edition, or something very close
    2. NASB
    3. NIV
    4. NLT

    Notice that three of these Bibles are MVs.
    In this board we must at least give lip service to respecting the Bible(s).
    But everybody is free to leave (or has to if forced).
     
    #18 Ed Edwards, Sep 24, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 24, 2008
  19. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    Which is against the posting rules of this forum and has been reported.
     
  20. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    No one here doubts that the KJ Version is the Word of God.No one has even hinted at that.It's all in your mind.But,you have come out from the bushes and have castigated other translations which are also the Word of God -- that will not stand here.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...