OK...I'm going back to the KJV

When the Greek text did NOT say, "God," where did the NKJV get "God"?

 

I have seen that same symbol in a KJV edition that was printed before 1979. This KJV edition had a page of historic Christian symbols that included this same symbol for the Trinity. Thus, an earlier KJV edition could be the source for the symbol used in the NKJV.

In the initial letter for Matthew 1 and Revelation 1, the original 1611 edition of the KJV has an illustration with the Roman god Neptune with sea horses. At Psalm 141 and 1 Peter 3, the 1611’s initial letter has a figure of the Greek god Pan. At Romans 1, the 1611’s initial letter has a naked, sprouting nymph Daphne. These can be seen in the large 1611 digital reproduction by Greyden Press, but the 1611 reprints in Roman type published by Thomas Nelson or Hendrickson Publishers do not have them. David Norton has a page of illustrations that includes the above three initials from the 1611 in his book, and he noted that it is unlikely that the KJV translators approved of their use (Textual History, pp. 51-52).

 

Are you saying that if the Hebrew and Greek texts do not have the name
"God" at certain verses that is wrong for any English translation to add
the name of God? Does your statement also apply to the KJV?

 

William,

I will consider that you really dont remember. You did it here in the NIV thread about Daniel----

"Worship" has been altered to "Kneeling down" or "knelt" or "did obeisance" by NIV (Matthew 9:18, 20:20, Mark 5:6), NKJV (Matthew 20:20), RSV (Matthew 9:18, 20:20), GN (Matthew 9:18, 20:20, Mark 5:6), LB (Matthew 14:33, 20:20, Mark 5:6), AMP (Mark 5:6), NASV (Matthew 9:18, 20:20, Mark 5:6), NEB (all five verses), NWT (all five verses), JB (all five verses).

Ruckman (2) p 152, states that the word for "worship" (i.e. "proskun") is in ALL Greek manuscripts. Note its use in Matthew 4:10, Luke 4:8, John 4:21, 23, 24, Hebrews 1:6, Revelation 4:10, 5:14, 7:11, 11:16, 14:7, 19:4, 10, 22:9. This is the word found in Berry's Greek text in all five places, although he only translates it as "worship" in Matthew 14:33.
Taken from appendix 2, III: "O Biblios The Book," by Allan O'Reilly

You have quoted O'Reilly who apparently uses Ruckman as a source. You have in affect quoted from Ruckman, look at your post.

Bro Tony

 

1 Corinthians 6:15 KJVR (15) Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of a harlot? God forbid.

1 Corinthians 6:15 GNT-TR (15) ουκ οιδατε οτι τα σωματα υμων μελη χριστου εστιν αρας ουν τα μελη του χριστου ποιησω πορνης μελη μη γενοιτο

Please show us where theos is in this text...

1 Corinthians 6:15 NASB (15) Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be!

 

This is true Doc, but most understand that the MVs paritcularly the NIV are all about dynamic equivalence. I am concerned that this becomes a reason to attack them by some rabid KJVOist, while they are perfectly willing to allow it when it comes to the KJV.

Bro Tony

 

Please look up the Oxford dictionary and find a word, "forbid" there. It will answer your question. Nothing wrong with the KJV.

 

No there is nothing wrong with the KJV. Just simply wanted to show that it too uses dynamic equivalence at times. The Greek word for God is not in the text.

Thanks for the reference to the Oxford dictionary on forbid.:thumbs:

 

Ok....

Oxford English Dictionary
Forbid
1. To command (a person or persons) not to do, have, use or indulge in (something), or not to enter (a place); to prohibit. In many diverse constructions. [SNIP]
[First use O.E. Chron. an. 1048] …forboden…]

2. In various modified uses. [SNIP]

b. In deprecatory phr. God, the Heavens, the Lord forbid, usually with a clause of sentence as direct object; also absol. as an exclamation.
[SNIP]

1611 BIBLE 1 Chron. xi. 19 My God forbid it mee that I should doe this thing. ---Gal ii. 7 God forbid


Uhhhh, that certainly clears things up.... :tongue3:

Rob

 

Thanx Lord for your "WORD"

2 Timothy 3:16
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God." The RSV, GN, NASV have an alternative wording in the margin which reads "Every scripture inspired by God" or similar, thus casting doubt on the basic doctrine of inspiration of ALL scripture. The DR, RV and NEB have similar wordings in the text.

Burgon (14) p 208-9, attributes this alternative (stemming from the 1881 Revision), to sheer unbelief. He cites Tertullian (2nd cent.), Clement, Origen (each 3rd cent.), Basil, Chrysostom, the "Dialogus" and Gregory of Nyssa (all 4th cent.), Cyril and Theodoret (each 5th cent.) in favour of this passage. Berry's Greek text supports this passage. Taken from appendix 2, III: "O Biblios The Book," by Allan O'Reilly
Why dont we Just read Gods Word And Not rewrite it!raise:

 

Did you find "forbid" in the Oxford dictionary, but it has definition of "God forbid" there?

 

william s. correa2 Timothy 3:16
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God." The RSV, GN, NASV have an alternative wording in the margin which reads "Every scripture inspired by God" or similar, thus casting doubt on the basic doctrine of inspiration of ALL scripture. The DR, RV and NEB have similar wordings in the text.

What part of "all Scripture" does "every Scripture" leave out?

Burgon (14) p 208-9, attributes this alternative (stemming from the 1881 Revision), to sheer unbelief. He cites Tertullian (2nd cent.), Clement, Origen (each 3rd cent.), Basil, Chrysostom, the "Dialogus" and Gregory of Nyssa (all 4th cent.), Cyril and Theodoret (each 5th cent.) in favour of this passage. Berry's Greek text supports this passage. Taken from appendix 2, III: "O Biblios The Book," by Allan O'Reilly

William, I have read Burgon's books, though it's been awhile. And I seem to recall there's much more than what your "Author Of The Week" has quoted here. Seems as if he's quoted only the statements by Burgon that seem to support the KJVO myth. I know Burgon did not speak fondly of the textus Receptus, but O'Reilly doesn't mention THAT.

O'reilly has no credibility because he quotes Ruckman, Wilkinson, Ray, & Fuller. He may be right in places, but his book is too-laced with crud to be taken seriously. Better find someone else's book to quote. I doubt is even other KJVOs here will take O'Reilly's stuff seriously.


Why dont we Just read Gods Word And Not rewrite it!

If that's whatcha want, please donate every English Bible translation you have to some worthy org & keep only the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text & a copy of the Stephanus revision of the Textus Receptus in your home. The KJV is a re-write of those Scriptures, not only using different words, but an entirely-different LANGUAGE. But if you stick with the Hebrew & the Greek, ya can practice whatcha preached & ya won't be using a re-write such as the KJV .

 

Hi, PL...

The KJV is copyrighted in England. In fact, England REQUIRED that every book published within her bounds to be copyrighted, many years before 1611. King James gave exclusive printing/publishing rights for the AV 1611 to Robt. Barker & Co. Before that, Erasmus' first edition of the Textus Receptus was copyrighted in England; the proof is that the title page bears the Latin words "cum privilegio"(with privilege), a phrase used to denote that a work was copyrighted.

There are four British orgs that hold the copyrights for the KJV...the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, & the printers/publishers William Collins Sons & Co., Ltd, and Eyre & Spottiswoode.

To me, having a copyrighted version is an assurance I have a genuine product & not a counterfeit. In fact, if I saw a version w/o some sorta copyright, I'd be highly-skeptical, to put it mildly. Now while the TEXT of the KJV is public domain in the USA, every copy of the KJV I have has something in it copyrighted, such as a concordance, a "study help", or maps.

And the plain truth is that publishers print Bibles to MAKE MONEY, regardless of the version.

 

O'really?

Better than the Bible of the month club!:thumbs:

 

I agree on the 'new' format. I tried to remove a double post for some ten times without success.

Ed

 

Just amazing

Hi PurpleLady. I dont know much about you at all....and in fact, I havent read most of this thread. I have read the last page, and found a contradiciton.

Keith said that if your decision was based on a lie, then run away. You said that it was not, but was based at least in part on the fact that the newer versions are copyrighted. Your words imply that the KJV is not copyrighted.

It is clear that you have been lied to, and you are basing your decision on those lies. This is a very simple fact that anyone who has studied this issue can see, and I really hope you find the courage to at least admit it. Just say "I want to use the KJV, and I have not researched the claims made in favor of KJVO which have convinced me". The facts already bear this out!

 

One of my KJVs, printed in New York for Oxford Press, has a complete copyright, forbidding reproduction of any portion of the publication, including the text.

 

Howdya KNOW?

Looks like GUESSWORK to me.