Questions for KJVOs

1. The KJB is the inspired Word of God translated into English

2. The MSS that agrees mostly used in translating the KJB and the context being in perfect harmony

3. The nkjv only claims to be the same, it is not and neither does it come from the same MSS.

4. It was only included in the first printing as a historical reference and the multiple doctrinal fallacies are easily seen by comparison. The allegations still persist in that we hold to a "book" and not the Words. Saying the inclusion of the apocrypha is somehow equated as God's Word in this manner is just like saying the maps, table of contents, study guides, Letter to the Reader, The Preface, etc. are all inspired, we do NOT hold to that either.

5. None completely.

6. AV 1611 KJB,including the updated punctuation, printers mistakes corrected, and word spelling updates and w/o any thought being contradicted. Please learn the difference between what an Edition is and a revision. There is only one version of the KJB, that is The Holy Bible.

Sorry no one else has answered your questions, hope it helped.

I will say that the "leveL' of KJVO already introduces your opinion, sorry you are already forming a bias opposed to the KJB.

 

I, ed, am not a KJVO.

Dear Bro. Precepts.
Please make up your mind.
You have said you are not KJVO.
You have answered this thread
like you are KJVO.
I hear continued fence sitting
is hard on the crouch.

 

Sorry Precepts At dictionary.com the word "version" can be defined as thus:

"A particular form or variation of an earlier or original type"

Changing "he" to "she" in Ruth is a variation.
Changing "faith" from the 1611 and 1769 to "hope" in the 1873 is a variation.

The original type of the KJV was 1611
Any editions that contain a variant, either printing or translating, are differing versions.

Oh, BTW i'm not KJVO. Maybe preferred, but not only.

All versions are the word of God.
How?

1 God = 3 persons
1 Bible = many versions

 

Phillip, I am staunchly anti-Onlyosm, as I KNOW it's a false doctrine.

As for Precepts' answers:

1. The KJV is the inspired word of God in English, same as are several other versions. The KJV isn't specially inspired to the exclusion of all others.

2. The Textus Receptus, from which the AV's NT was made, was revised many times before the AV was made, and a few times afterwards.

3. When the NKJV was made, its translators would,ve been quite dishonest to have ignored all the mss found since 1604. Therefore it was made from the mss used for the AV, PLUS some more.

4. The AV translators didn't regard the Apocrypha as Scripture, but included them as a study guide.We've all seen BVs with various study guides included, which may be included or excluded by the publishers' choice.

5. That's merely Precepts's opinion. They were as accurate as God chose. To say otherwise is to deny God has preserved His word, or that He did something imperfectly.

6. Precepts is now switching horses in midstream. First, the WORDS were important; now it's the THOUGHTS.

 

Do you mean that God has 3 separated persons?
Which version is MOST ACCURATE?

 

Just pacifying the label machine. Don't be confused, or concerned about my "crouch"

 

I only wish you knew what you were talking about.

 

And there we have the thoughts from "Osm"; the 'anti-Onlyosm'-onlyist.

Notice Oscranston admits the nkjv translators are in violation of Revelation 22:18 in answer #3.

I haven't changed horses Brother, the words give the same thought no matter how they are spelled, it's when the wrong words are substituted that detracts from the original thought to the context that we object to, you're also adding "thoughts" of your own to my statement. like you've nEVER done that before!

 

No problem.
But remember, i usually show out
to be more "liberal" than most of the
posters here.

 

Here is a very simple answer to your questions."By their fruits ye shall know them" If you want a very short discussion on version debates, try hitting a "bible scholar" with a debate on the fruits of "versions" since 1884 compared to the fruits of Gods word The King James Bible, which has never been revised by the way, The corrupt RV was from the corrupt Wescott & Hort Greek text, also the King James bible NEVER included the Roman Catholic Appoc as part of the text, it was between the Old and New Testaments and was NEVER held to be a part of holy writ. I for one dont seperate the "book" from the "words" in THE book. The word "bible" is the word "book" I have found without exception that the reason a sinner (saved or lost)despise Gods word is because " Hebrews 4:12  For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." and a sinner will not tolerate a "book" that is "a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Also, If you will really compare the nkjv with the rv and The King James Bible you will find that the nkjv is an rv in drag.
Charlie

 

KJB "John 1:18  No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him"

nasb "No man has seen God at any time; the only BEGOTTEN GOD,who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained him."

Do you really believe that the above is "the same gospel"?
Charlie

 

If your application is valid then you have disproven your own point. There is a greater percentage of self-professing, born again Christians today than there was in 1900. Millions have been won to Christ in the last 10-20 years using MV's.

Not necessarily a scholar but I don't think my facts come up short on this point. BTW, before you had off into some long proclaimation of the apostasy associated with MV's... please remember that the KJV translators were not fundamental Baptists. They were CoE clergymen/scholars who owed their positions and power to not only the church but to the civil government... in direct violation of the Baptist principle of the separation of church and state.

These scholars ascribed to the "39 Articles of Religion". Among these tenets is infant baptism and baptismal regeneration. To make matters worse, this same Church of England while producing and distributing the KJV was persecuting Baptists and other dissenters.

The last martyr in England was a Baptist, Edward Wightman. He was put to death after being tried on trumped up charges by the Church of England. He was put to death on King James I order in... 1611. His family said that the real reason he was killed was his opposition to infant baptism and other CoE false doctrines. These are all verifiable facts of history.

Denial of history doesn't make for a strong argument.

Just to play along in this silly game of oneupsmanship with you... the NASB, NIV, NKJV, ESV, LITV, and WEB have never contained the apocrypha in the text or between the testaments.

Then do you actually have a Bible? God inspired the words in the originals. There is no scripture nor even a hint of historical evidence to suggest that He inspired later copies or translations.

You would do well to not separate the "meaning" of a book from the "word"... the Bible.

I don't despise God's Word, KJV or NASB or NKJV or any other. It is KJVO's who seem to despise God's Word and attempt to defame honest, faithful translations of it.

Don't really care about the RV since it isn't in widespread use. However, I have compared the KJV and NKJV. They both communicate God's Word powerfully.

 

Christ is God.

Christ is "begotten" (unique) by His eternal relationship (as the Son)with the Father.

Which of these facts of Christ's person do you have a problem with? Was Jesus not God? Was Jesus not the only begotten of the Father?

 

Well, Scott, then by your reasoning, "God, God. God, God." should suffice.

The distinction in "the only begotten Son" is that Jesus was born a man, the Incarnate Christ,the "Only" begotten of the Father.

We know Jesus is God, we know God the Father is God, but when you read "the only begotten God" You are left with the indication "God" was "born" or that Christ is some how another God separate from the Father God, then having two Gods. You know this and are just nit-picking. At least I hope you do!

 

Precepts, I hate to tell you this but GOD WAS BORN. His name is Jesus. John puts it like this "The word became flesh" How did he become flesh without being born?
This is what i meant by 1 God = 3 persons
KJVO like to say, " Things that are different are not the same." This is not true, especially when dealing with the trinity. They are all the same. The same way we have many versions, and translations, but we only have one Bible.
They may be different, but they transmit the same message.

Sorry, Dr Bob, I'll back out of here now. I just couldn't keep my fingers from responding to Precepts.

 

Thanks for acknowledging that this is a matter of reasoning (ie. interpretation) and not a matter of texts.

Not unless one is predisposed to accepting such an indication. The only two groups I know of that have this problem are anti-trinitarians and KJVO's.

However the issue you raise is much larger than this one text. How can Jesus be "the Son" and also be God? One answer is the idea of the "eternal generation of the Son". Interpretting this verse from this predisposition, the problem you think is there disappears.

No. Actually what I know is that this text properly interpretted is one of the strongest, most direct declarations of Christ's deity in all of scripture.

 

Numbers 3:4  And Nadab and Abihu died before the LORD, when they offered strange fire before the LORD, in the wilderness of Sinai, and they had no children: and Eleazar and Ithamar ministered in the priest's office in the sight of Aaron their father." These fellows tried a mv I mean fire is fire --Right???
Charlie