KJV Was Not So Easy To Read Before 1900

I agree. I keep asking that question and can never get an answer. And while you have your TR out doing your research, could you show us where the KJV translators found the words 'God forbid' in Romans 6v2 (and a few other places)? The NKJV choice of 'certainly not' is much truer to the text of the TR.

Those who claim that the NKJV deviated from the TR in any place where the KJV did not at either purposefully misleading or are ignorant of the truth in this matter. I prefer to think the best and assume the latter.

 

Could you cite your source for this little tidbit please? Especially the last line about the introduction of the textual changes.

I find these constant unjustified attacks on Dr Price more than a little troubling.

 

John 1:

3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. (NKJV)

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made . (KJV)

BIG difference there.....two different words used.

This only took me less than 5 min to find. I know there are countless others....

 

No one questions the fact that there are translation differences. That is obvious. Did you check to see if the NKJV chose a Critical Text variant over the TR here? That is the debate.

And, on a side note, what is the 'BIG' difference? The Greek word refers to the channel by which (or through which) which something is accomplished. All things were made by and through the agency of Jesus Christ. He is the Creator God. How is that changed by this translation choice?

 

Why is it you will not answer my questions? If I am lying or in error, why haven't you given me any evidence? What lies have I told about the bible and which bible are you referring to? We have many and they all disagree. We have gender neutral bibles, pro-homosexual bible, paraphrased bibles. Which one of all of these are God's inspired preserved Word? Since they disagree with each other, which one is correct?

You guys are silent about this tampering with God's Holy word. No one has any right to paraphrase what God' said and yet you guys are silent about these modern versions that have altered and omitted verses or changed words with ones that mean something completely different. When I showed you that divisive is very different form heretic or that peddling God's word is different from corruption of God's word, no one wanted to admit the truth but instead wanted to defend and make excuses for those who translate new bibles in this generation. And yet they keep coming out with new and "improved" bibles which means they give themselves the liberty to keep changing God's word.. You guys are silent all because you just want everyone to "get along?"

You know Mexdeaf, I used to be like you. I thought all bibles are fine and that the easy to read condensed version is fine. I had no problem believing that the original texts were the only ones that were inspired. Then I read what the Holy Scriptures says about the last days. It says there will be an apostasy. A famine of the word of God. That men will no longer listen to sound doctrine. That pastors will give the people what their itchy ears want to hear. Having grown up attending Baptist churches where only the KJV was used, I now see pastors making compromises and using these water downed modern versions, preaching water downed sermons. I see churches and preachers getting more liberal along with these modern bibles. . We've got the pro homosexual green bible which changed 1 Cor. 6:9-11.( and other passages) The KJV says: Neither “effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind”has been changed to the meaningless, “those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex.” These changes in modern versions are so subtle that many don't even notice.


Paul said in Rom, 1:25:: “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen

There is none so blind than those who will not see what is happening to God's Word.

 

Obviously you are either not reading the replies that have already been written or you are glossing over them and missing the evidence you so greatly desire. Or perhaps you are the one so blinded by false teaching that you cannot see the truth. Martin Marprelate provided you with evidence in posts #25, 30 and 31.

Spare me- I know all of the KJVO arguments inside out and upside down- I used to be like YOU.

Back in the 1970's KJVO was all the rage and the only reason it hasn't died off is that it is such a great tool for the Devil to use to get believer's eyes off of the Lord and focused on minor issues, split churches, and hurt missionaries.

 

Mexdeaf, I am speaking to you and my questions were directed to you as well. You have not answered a single one and have offered nothing in substantiation. Either you are just here to argue, or you really don't have any answers.

The aim of the devil has always been to destroy God's word. He is doing so through these modern, condensed, water downed versions that have done nothing but cause confusion and dissension.

 

On the contrary, nothing has happened, is happening or ever will happen to God's word.

Psalm 119:89 LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.​

Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.​

1 Peter 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.​

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.​

HankD​

 

I agree. God has His preserved word, but its not in these versions that come out of the corrupted Alexandrian steam. Yet we got some members on here that claim only the original manuscripts is inspired. Is God so small and defenseless that he couldn't keep it from being lost?? Is God unable to keep 100% inspired Scriptures on the earth?

 

What is the big difference? Are omissions a minor issue? Another poster brought up some very good examples of differences. When you change the wording with something that means something else entirely, are you still going to say, what's the big difference? The point is, there should be no difference, big or small. if the NKJV had stuck with their original claim and just cut out all the thee's and thou's and other archaic words, then great. But that went way beyond that.

Someone once said about the NKJV that it tries to closely associate itself with the KJV while at the same time being bosom buddies with the modern Alexandrian Bibles. And all these bibles keep getting revised. The KJV has just celebrated its 400 anniversary. The text of the Authorized Version of 1611 has endured many years.

 

God does not need our logic, reasonings or help to defend His word.

HankD

 

That would be...gasp...a dynamic equivalence...aka paraphrase.

 

Well, only the original writers of Scriptures were carried along by the Spirit and kept from error.

I believe it is on earth, just like the KJV translators believed it was on earth way before the KJV came out.

If you believe that the TR reflects the original readings better, then that's fine.

 

Looks like we now have had 4 passages given of differences between the NKJV and KJV, yet none where the NKJV ignored/changed the TR.

 

Anyone can make a foolish claim - substantiating is a different story, as evidenced that no one yet has shown one instance where KJV chose a CT rendering over a TR one.

Except, of course, passages like 1 John 5v12.

 

That will be tough to do since there aren't any.

 

Oh, I thought there were like 800 - 1200 times that the KJVO's usually same. You mean that isn't true.

So Johathan01, do you have any examples when you made the claim that the "NKJV translators departed from the original KJV and its Greek text, the Textus Receptus"? I'm specifically asking about the differences with the TR.

 

I could ask you the same thing. You haven't answered my questions.

See this post:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1693351&postcount=45

You also haven't answered these:

So Johathan01, do you have any examples when you made the claim that the "NKJV translators departed from the original KJV and its Greek text, the Textus Receptus"?

OR

Please present one example where the NKJV chose (the CT) over the TR?

OR

Also, why did the KJV insert 'God forbid' in Romans 6v2 when those words are not in the TR?

 

You are the one that is posting incorrect and unsupported accusations against the NKJV. You make the serious accusation that "the NKJV ignores the Receptus over 1,200 times" and yet provide no proper evidence that supports your accusation. Your opinions or assertions do not become facts because you make those bold claims.

Can you provide any documented evidence from words of all the KJV translators themselves that quotes them as being committed to the Received Text? Are you unaware of the fact that a leading KJV translator took the text of his sermons from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome along with an English translation, usually that of the Geneva Bible? Are you unaware of the fact that another KJV translator wrote a book defending the text of the Latin Vulgate? Are you unaware that your guilt by association arguments if applied consistently would harm the KJV since the KJV translators followed or borrowed a number of renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament? Are you advocating double standards?

I have done a great deal of comparing the KJV and the NKJV and the 1560 Geneva Bible. Have you ever compared the KJV and the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision? I have found that a good number of places where the NKJV differs from the KJV it is exactly the same or very similar to the 1560 Geneva Bible. I have checked out many accusations made against the NKJV by KJV-only advocates and have found them to be misleading and often to be completely false. I have read over 200 books by KJV-only authors and have examined the evidence concerning their claims. Have you compared the NKJV to the same original language texts from which the KJV and the NKJV was translated?

You should know what you are talking about before you accuse others of not doing their research.

 

Johathan01, this was the second time my question was ignored. If you don't know the answer, just say so. But if you cannot personally support your assertion with evidence that there is a translational issue with the NKJV's Hebrew base text then you ought not repeat it as fact.