New KJV

There's just no satisfying those KJVOs with rational answers. I believe the NKJV was made with the TR lovers in mind, but its makers know the TR isn't the be-all, end-all NT text. Their own hero, Dean Burgon, was highly critical of it. And there are almost as many TR editions as there are English Bible versions.

One of the FIRST things they hollered about was the triquetra symbol on the cover. Without bothering to look up its history, some dunderhead said he saw it on the cover of a Led Zep album. All this time, NOT ONE KJVO has made a halfway-believable excuse for the big, bold illustration of MR. SUN on the cover of the AV 1611.

Once again, KJVOs...WHAT'S THE BIG CRIME WHEN THE NKJV DOESN'T ALWAYS FOLLOW THE TR???????????

 

Keep saying it and just maybe it will become true

Bro Tony

 

So, Askjo, are you saying the translators are lying? Why don't you show us some verses that are NOT TR? I have a TR interlinear and we can compare. Give us some specifics.

 

If you did not really say this, or imply it, then I appologize.

I frankly don't care what you are getting tired of! If you have something to say to me along these lines, send me a PM, otherwise keep it to yourself! </font>[/QUOTE]If you are attacking the Word of God, even in a modern version, then I have a right to be getting tired of it. And you may not care how I feel, but I don't think the moderators will put up with it either.

If you are not, then I have no right.

 

You accused me of saying that the MVs are not the Word of God, now show me where I did this?

 

I SAID that if you truly did not say this, then I appologize. Read my lips.

 

Since this is the case, wouldn't the money spent for all the hundreds of new English Bibles be better spent if it was used to get a Bible in these unreached groups? </font>[/QUOTE]I took this to imply that you did not recognize the Bible translated from the NIV to the unreached Bible groups as a legitimate Word of God. If I am wrong, I am sorry.

 

A_A:WRONG!!! What about Pietsch? He had a Receptus based Bible in Japan..

What part of "JUST about" don't you understand?


And besides,the Alexandrian misfits have enough of the word of God in em' for a person to get saved;read II Tim 3:15.

So ya recognize the Alex texts as Scripture? You're making progress...

 

quote:
Originally posted by robycop3:
Once again, KJVOs...WHAT'S THE BIG CRIME WHEN THE NKJV DOESN'T ALWAYS FOLLOW THE TR???????????


Askjo:40% non-TR that the NKJV included.

Once again...WHAT'S THE CRIME?

 

And again...Why do the KJVOs place such stock in the TR when one of their heroes, Dean John Burgon, levied some scathing criticism against it? And WHICH VERSION of the TR is the "official" one? Did the KJV and NKJV use the same version?

 

So Askjo since you are so worried about the TR then what do you do when the KJV does not follow the TR?

I think the TR is a smoke screen that you use. If you truly looked upon the TR as special then the NKJV is the way to go.

 

I asked another KJVO if the manuscripts varied from the KJV which would he follow and he said the KJV because it is the Word of God.

I don't think it was Askjo, I would like to see his answer.

 

Some of us haven't read Edward F. Hills book; unless your willing to loan yours, why don't you tell us what it says.</font>[/QUOTE]

False! That is misleading and mis-information! [/QUOTE]
So which is accurate the TR or the KJV where variances occur?

Since this thread keeps dropping away, I bring it back to NKJV. Don't quote a book or someone else, if you know a difference between the TR and the NKJV, QUOTE IT. Like I said, I have a copy of an accepted TR. Let us see what the differences are.

There isn't even 40% difference from a Bible using the Alexandrian manuscripts and the TR.

 

No, that is not what I meant. If I failed to make myself clear, I too apologize.