KJVO Lies

According to this statement they can:

</font>[/QUOTE]there you go again, A-A w/ that scawling face again

 

NKJV

 

KJV1769, KJV1873,
Third Millennium Bible(TMB), 21st Century
King James (21KJ)


Praise the Logos described in the Rhema
Praise the Word described in the Word
Praise Jesus described in the Bible

 

The Critical Text is pretty much unused now a'days, anyway. Most scholars lean toward the Majority Text , unless they are TR men .

I really like the Majority text, in that it derives from all the different manuscript families, not just one.

And it isn't worshipped like the TR...

In Christ,
Trotter

 

NKJV </font>[/QUOTE]Orvie I'm not doubting you but how do you respond to these apparant instances where the NKJV departs from the KJV and lines up with the MVs.

http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/resource/nkjv01.htm

I realize that I may be off subject as to my W/H question, so bear with me. Do you think the W/H text had no influence here?

Lacy

 

The NKJV "lines up" with the MV's only because the MV's use a better word (in today's vernacular) than that of our beloved KJV and in fact and most likely a universal word such as replacing "charity" with "love" as in 1 Corinthians 13 or "bowels" with "heart" in 2 Corinthians.

The acid test: Go to 1 John 5:7, if it is there with no explanation you can be assured that you are reading a TR based Bible.

There are several other belwether tests but this is the one that I use.

This is not meant to be an argument as to the authority of 1 John 5:7 (although, I believe it is apostolic) but as I said, a reliable TR test.

HankD

 

"how do you respond to these apparant instances where the NKJV departs from the KJV and lines up with the MVs. "
''
In addition to what Hank said.
Within what we call the TR there are a number of variant readings. The AV 1611 often included those as footnotes.
The translators of the Geneva Bible also a TR translation at times chose to use those readings that ended up on the sidelines of the AV.
The same happened with the translation of the NKJV.

 

It appears to be a composite or an eclectic text (eek!) taken from more than one source, namely the big three TR's at the time of the translation plus some unique Vulgate readings.

Scrivener published a Greek text (TR) in 1884/5 which puts it all together in one Greek Text (for the most part).

Where is Skan when we need him?

HankD

 

What's the point? No one has actually proven the Alex mss, etc. wrong, but only different from the Byz mss.

 

I don't know what his point is. I was trying to answer his question.

HankD

 

Thanks Hank and Orvie. I'm still not sure I'm buying it but I appreciate your answers. I'll try to study the issue more myself. Roby, I didn't have a point this time (other than on the top of my head), I was just curious. But I probably will (have a point)again before it is over.

lacy

 

Modern versions are Westcott/Hort translations.

JW Bible is also Westcott/Hort translation. This is a CULT!

That's how they derived from the W/H text.

 

Which one of the 35 TR texts do the KJVO's trace their KJV back to? </font>[/QUOTE]Which one of 35 TR texts did the KJV trace back to? Do you know which one of them?

 

Yes, the New Testament text primarily used by the translators of the King James Version was the third edition of Robert Estienne’s Greek text published in 1550 (Robert Estienne is also known at Robert Stephens or Stephanus, a 16th century printer in Paris). It is commonly called the Textus Receptus although the true Textus Receptus was not published until 1633.

 

Modern versions are Westcott/Hort translations.
</font>[/QUOTE]Then give a name for versions
made since 1611 which were NOT made from
the Westcott/Hort sources.
I am quite willing to use the term
"Modern Version" for versions made
from the Westcott/Hort source after the
17th century (1601-1700).

Here are some Bibles we need to describe:

KJV1769
KJV1873
Third Millennium Bible (New Authorized Version)
The 21st Century King James

For your statement: Modern versions are Westcott/Hort translations." to be true,
these Bibles must NOT be construed as
"Modern Versions". My list may not
be complete, it is only suggestive.

BTW, the New King James Version, while
referencing the so called Westcott/Hort
source, generally in the text uses what
we think may be the received text
(and comments in footnotes the W/H Source).

But I love to praise Jesus in 17th Century talk:
Praise Iesus, Sonne of God

 

Modern versions are Westcott/Hort translations.

JW Bible is also Westcott/Hort translation. This is a CULT!

That's how they derived from the W/H text. </font>[/QUOTE]OK, the Mormons use the KJV. Should we throw it out just because a cult uses it?
Sorry, you are setting a dangerous precedent by your logic.

 

Howdy brotinytim! Long time no see! We raised our children on the kjbible and that is the very thing satan used to seduce our youngest son into another cult called oneness.

Yup, if they had used anything else, he'd never have gone there, but because they read from the one bible he was assured of, he decided to take 'em up on their "bible study" also known as "scripture twisting". The devil knows exactly what he is doing!

 

You know it is strange how certain parties who favor
the KJV1769 err in misunderstanding the resolution
of the "they" in Psalm 12:7 to be the words of
God in Psalms 12:6 when in fact it refers to the
people in Psalm 12;5.

Here is what is said above:

Granny Gumbo: "We raised our children on the kjbible and that is the very thing satan used to seduce our youngest son into another cult called oneness."

When i first read it i misunderstood that the
"the very thing" referred to the kjbible

In fact, "the very thing" refers to the post before,
not to the "kjbible".

But I love to praise Jesus in 17th Century talk:
Praise Iesus, Sonne of God