question about God's "preserved" Word

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by 2Timothy4:1-5, Oct 24, 2002.

  1. 2Timothy4:1-5

    2Timothy4:1-5
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have been following the debate between KJVO vs other version with interest for quite a while, and while I can see the validity of both arguements, there is something I don't understand.

    There are those who say that any version made from manuscripts other than what the KJV came from are corrupt. You know, if that's the case, then why doesn't someone come up with a contemporary version using those manuscripts?

    Wouldn't that make both sides happy??

    2Timothy
     
  2. eric_b

    eric_b
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://home.nc.rr.com/robotplot/tiny_eri

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    0
    Someone did, it's called the NKJV... and no, it didn't make both sides happy.

    Eric
     
  3. Joe Turner

    Joe Turner
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2002
    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    0
    Eric B is right. The New King James Version was supposedly an attempt to modernize the KJV using the Majority Text. But it failed to do so. The NKJV IGNORES the Textus Receptus over 1,200 times. For example, there are 22 omissions of "hell", 23 omissions of "blood", 44 omissions of "repent", 50 omissions of "heaven", 51 omissions of "God", and 66 omissions of "Lord",. The terms "devils", "damnation", "Jehovah", and "new testament" are completely omitted. To understand the differences between the KJV and the NKJV, compare the following verses:
    </font>Also notice that the attempt to update the language of the KJV is inconsistent: </font>The NKJV is just another attempt to destroy the true word of God (the :rolleyes: KJV 1611).

    [ October 24, 2002, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: Joe Turner ]
     
  4. Japheth

    Japheth
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    JT,I agree with you; the NKJV has RSV & NASV readings in it..
     
  5. eric_b

    eric_b
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://home.nc.rr.com/robotplot/tiny_eri

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do I understand you correctly? You are honestly accusing the NKJV translators of trying to "destroy the true word of God"? If I understand you correctly, that's a pretty ridiculous accusation...

    Eric
     
  6. Joe Turner

    Joe Turner
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2002
    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not accusing the NKJV translators of trying to destroy the word of God. I am accusing Satan of that. I am not in a position to question the sincerity of anyone, including a new version translator. Their intentions may very well have been good. But the end result of their work speaks for itself. I know many people (friends and family) who don't believe as I do and they are absolutely sincere in their walk with God. But being sincere doesn't make anyone right. The problem of the new version translators is simply that they believe they can correct the Bible. I don't believe that they have an evil agenda in mind (by seeing the scholarship of their work, I assume they don't have that much brain power), but they are being used by Satan to attack the word of God. [​IMG]
     
  7. eric_b

    eric_b
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://home.nc.rr.com/robotplot/tiny_eri

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay, thanks for clearing that up, Joe. I agree with you about Satan, but not about the NKJV...

    Eric

    [ October 24, 2002, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: eric_b ]
     
  8. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you know how many times the KJV "ignores" the TR?

    This is borderline blasphemy in my opinion.
    :(
     
  9. Joe Turner

    Joe Turner
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2002
    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you know how many times the KJV "ignores" the TR?

    This is borderline blasphemy in my opinion.
    :(
    </font>[/QUOTE]Why don't you list the instances the KJV ignores the TR and we'll deal with them (Acts 12:4--Easter for example). Then I am a borderline blasphemer (in your opinion [​IMG] )
     
  10. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    http://www.bible-researcher.com/received.html

    Let me know when you've dealt with them. Talk to you in a few years. [​IMG]
     
  11. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    The NKJV is just another attempt to destroy the true word of God (the KJV 1611).

    In addressing the omission of the word "Jehovah", it doesn't belong in the KJV either.

    The KJV is not the true word of God. The most accurate scriptures are those in their original languages, of which King's english is not one.

    [ October 24, 2002, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]
     
  12. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hmmm, so your stand on God NOT being able to preserve his word (any where on earth) dosen't fall into this catagory??? Right?? Besides, the NKJV HAS RSV&NASV verses in with it..

    [ October 24, 2002, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: KJVONLY ]
     
  13. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    BrianT, it isn't about truth, it is about controlling ignorant people that have been forcefed bad logic and misguided interpretation. Thankfully, not all KJV people are like that.
     
  14. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hmmm, so your stand on God NOT being able to preserve his word (any where on earth) dosen't fall into this catagory??? Right??</font>[/QUOTE]That is not my stand.
     
  15. 2Timothy4:1-5

    2Timothy4:1-5
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    0
    I guess I learned nothing from all my months of lurking here.

    There can be no civil discussion when it comes to peoples opinions of the various translations.

    How sad :(

    2Timothy
     
  16. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joe Turner said:

    The NKJV IGNORES the Textus Receptus over 1,200 times.

    You misspelled: "The NKJV does not translate the Textus Receptus using exactly the same words as the KJV."

    Don't you people ever get dizzy from wandering around in circles like that?
     
  17. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ransom, that is so funny. I had to read it twice before I realized what you said. Between you and Optional, I find this site so humorous. I love you guys.

    Btw, I use the NKJV exclusively in preaching and most of the time in studying. I also use the NASB and ESV. Translated into Old English, that means: Hath God said?
     
  18. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    2 Timothy,

    When we use the word "corrupt" we do not mean that the MV's are "crooked," "dishonest," or "fraudulent" in their objectives. Of course, some of the versions coming out in recent years may indeed fall into those catagories.

    The word "corrupt" is meant to say that the MV's are "different," and have been "altered" by the use of "older" and presumed "better" manuscripts that do not agree with the majority of those extant at that time.

    IMO, there is no way we could assemble a group of scholars today that could produce a contemporary version from the same text as the KJV that would exceed the quality of the KJV.

    It has been proven that the ease of reading has not been increased by the MV's, which incidently was one of the major selling points of the new translations.

    There are those who will attribute to us the belief that God has not preserved His Word until 1611. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Only one that is grossly unapprised of the KJVO position would even suggest that.

    I realize that others will want to argue these points. I'm not interested in that. I just wanted to answer your question.

    God Bless You,

    Pastor Bob
     
  19. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    You sure said that right!! the NKJV DON'T translate like the KJV; it HAS RSV & NASV readings IN IT..I don't have to walk in circles, I HAVE the word of GOD THE KJV!!!
     
  20. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Bob, I realize that YOU personally do not fall into that category, but most KJV-O folk do. I am not "grossly unapprised of the KJVO position", I have been actively involved in it for many years. I have asked "where was the word of God in 1605?" to dozens and dozens and dozens of KJV-only supporters, and have *never* received a reasonable answer that didn't contradict KJV-onlyism in the first place.

    Don't believe me? Just watch Joe Turner, KJVONLY, Japeth, Will Kinney and others dance around this *simple* question.

    Now, some folk like yourself obviously aren't stumped by such an easy question, but that's because you are not nearly extreme as most KJV-only supporters, and I would even go as far as to say you are technically not KJV-only.

    [ October 24, 2002, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]
     

Share This Page

Loading...