King James Bible Companion

Which KJV is the authentic one; Cambridge or Oxford? They do have some differences too?

Who authorized the men who formed the canon? Does this mean we should really be Roman Catholic and not Baptists?

Cheers,

Jim

 

We do not have a 100% inspired Bible unless you redefine the meaning of inspiration.

The Scriptural meaning of inspiration is found in 2 Peter 1:19-21.

The KJV translators would shudder at the thought of their work being considered inspired. I posted this earlier on another thread:

 

Then please tell me why the NKJV omits key words critical to salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ? Is that similar to the KJV? Or is it subtly deceptive?


Many of the word changes between the KJV and the NKJV are not just changing the archaisms. Instead, many are changes which clearly show the NKJV translators departed from the KJV and the Textus Receptus, in favor of the very same wording found in versions, (including the JW's NWT), translated from corrupted Greek texts.

The NKJV claims to have "preserved the authority and accuracy" of the original KJV, but in , actuality it is a hybrid text which has many changes identical with or similar to the modern Bible versions which emanate from the Alexandrian stream. The NKJV even matches the Jehovah Witnesses Version in quite a few instances.


Sorry David, but the King James Bible stands alone.

 

give us one example where the NKJV deviates from the TR please.

 

Please give some examples of where the NKJV has omitted "key words critical to salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ".

 

You are repeating the incorrect and unproven accusations of some KJV-only authors. You are using an improper guilt by association argument and bearing false witness against the NKJV and its translators. There is no proper basis for your attempt to associate the NKJV with the JW's NWT. You have been challenged in another thread to prove your accusation that the NKJV supposedly departs from the TR.

You ignore the fact that the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision and which KJV-only authors claim were based on the Textus Receptus have greater variations from the KJV's N. T. than the NKJV. Some differences in translating is not proper evidence of the use of a different text.

 

There are similarities in all the versions. So your point is?

 

You are wrong. No translation stands alone. A translation is dependent upon its underlying texts. By asserting that the KJV stands alone, are you in effect denying the preservation of the Scriptures in the original languages? The KJV translators themselves maintained that translations are to be tried by the standard of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

In addition, the KJV does not stand alone because the KJV is a revision of earlier English Bibles (Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Geneva, Bishops').

If what was copied from these pre-1611 English Bibles was removed from the KJV, there would not be much left of it except the renderings the KJV translators borrowed from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament and some new renderings that they made.

 

Excellent point Ann. I remember all my exposure to Mormons through the past decades. They usually were armed with the KJV. Not Joseph Smith's so-called "Inspired Version",but the good ole' KJV.

 

The question on the inspiration is:

Is the inspired KJV better than the original autographs of the OT and the NT that God perfectly inspired?

 

Yes, I have it on my bookshelf.

 

See red bold above. Please PM me where to get it. Thanks.

 

The actual question is:

Is the KJV "better than the original autographs of the OT and the NT that God perfectly inspired?"

And the correct answer is:

No.

 

Agreed. When I was not saved, I was aware of the KJV because I read it.

 

Well, I mean the KJV inspiration.

 

The answer is still no.

 

Are his misrepresentations and false accusations that he has made concerning the NKJV "good stuff?"