What is the problem?

The NKJV is a more accurate translation of the TR (it has its errors, but so does the AV).

 

According to whom? Who told you the AV has errors in it,God? If you are able to sit in judgment of the AV, then why dont you provide us with a error free Bible?

 

According to whom? Who told you the AV has errors in it,God? If you are able to sit in judgment of the AV, then why dont you provide us with a error free Bible? </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, God did tell me. Years ago, I was KJVO. However, since the kingdom of Christ is one of truth, the Lord delivered me out of that lie.

Btw, I would not say the NKJV has errors. There are certainly different options that could have been used, but that does not equate it to being an error.

 

Sorry, pastor, but I disagree. The real problems are:
1. MVers only affirm the biblical doctrine of inspiration with respect to the original manuscripts. Although you think these were without error, it is a totally useless because you believe they have been irreversibly corrupted, and you can never know for sure which bits aren't errors. You might as well say that the bible was slightly IMperfectly inspired to begin with. It gives the same result.
2. You seem to work from a logical inconsistency. You say, "God inspired; God is perfect; therefore the Bible was perfectly inspired." However, you REFUSE to even contemplate, "God preserves; God is perfect; therefore the Bible is prefectly preserved."
3. MVers tell countless people they have "the word of God". The problem is that you also tell them, "whichever one you have, they've all got errors in them". It may be the TRADITIONAL view, but that doesn't make it right.

 

Who told you the AV has errors in it,God?

Grab a hebrew/greek dictionary, a copy of the TR, and a KJV translation. You'll find several errors in it.

I've listed several of those errors on the board, so I can tell you for a fact that there are errors in the KJV.

To be fair, no translation is error free, and I think the KJV is a reasonably good translation. I think that there are other good, and a few better, translations out there.

But to say that the KJV is a perfect translation is a false statement. Worse, to say that the KJV is the perfect Bible is heretical.

 

That is a serious charge. Please explain what about the KJVO movement that makes it "heretical."

Anybody else feel free to jump in if they think the KJVO position is heretical, particularly as to why.

Jason

 

{Inappropriate comment deleted}

I would and do! The NKJV is nothing but a [slander deleted]. It is not 100% from the TR as some would have you to believe.

[ May 09, 2003, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

Why?? Most folks who say that the KJB has errors in it obviously cannot read plain English,much less a dead language God shelved 1800 years ago.A typical hobby horse argument.

All of which have never been proven! If some notable scholars( some with 25 years of formal education) cannot prove them,what makes one think that you can??

According to who's standards? Yours?
If you are able to judge the AV,then when are you going to provide us with a perfect Bible??

 

The conversation is starting to degrade quickly. Knock off the ad hominem stuff, MV-Neverist and Johnv.

24 hour notice...let's wrap this up.

 

Because the Bible does not say that a translation is of greater inspirational value than the texts from which it was translated. Additionally, there are numerous errors in the KJV, so the KJV cannot be a perfect bible.

If you place a version, any version, higher than the texts from which it was translated, you're guilty of versionolatry. The KJV is a translation of the Bible, nothing more.

 

All [the errors which you pointed out]have never been proven! If some notable scholars( some with 25 years of formal education) cannot prove them,what makes one think that you can??

You're kidding. The errors I pointed out are clear. Such as the fact that the OT uses the word "brass". Brass was not invented yet. Another example is the heading "The Gospel According to Saint Luke" the kione Greek merely says "The Gospel According to Luke".
These are clear errors. There's nothing to "prove". It's perfectly clear.

Now, which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture — "whom ye" [Cambridge KJV's] or, "whom he" [Oxford KJV's] at Jeremiah 34:16?
Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture — "sin" [Cambridge KJV's] or "sins" [Oxford KJV's] at 2 Chronicles 33:19?


Why [grab a hebrew/greek dictionary, a copy of the TR, and a KJV translation] Most folks who say that the KJB has errors in it obviously cannot read plain English, much less a dead language God shelved 1800 years ago. A typical hobby horse argument.

That statement makes no sense at all. If looking up the greek supported the KJVO position, all the KJVO's would be doing it. But it doesn't, so the arguement is "why should I bother"? It's simply denying the facts. But the best reason to do this is because the Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew, so it would be wise for all Christians to have access to Greek and Hebrew sources.

FOr example, did Jesus teach a way for men to be "worshiped" according to Luke 14:10 in the KJV, contradicting the first commandment and what He said in Luke 4: 8? [Remember — you may not go the Greek for any "light" if you are KJVO!]

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the KJV is a bad translation. I'm saying it's a good, but imperfect translation. There are others, some better, some worse.

[ May 09, 2003, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

The NKJV is nothing but a [slander deleted]. It is not 100% from the TR as some would have you to believe.

Acts 9:6 is found only in the Latin Vulgate but not in the TR? Why in Rev 22:19 the phrase "book of life" is used in the KJV when absolutely ALL known Greek manuscripts read "tree of life"?

Why is the second half of 1 Jn 5:8 found only in the Latin Vulgate?

But some questions seem to always go unanswered. WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" — 1611, or any of the KJV major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850? Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words — would you say the KJV was "verbally inerrant" in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?


In summary, must we possess a perfectly flawless bible translation in order to call it "the word of God"? If so, how do we know "it" is perfect? If not, why do some "limit" "the word of God" to only ONE "17th Century English" translation? Where was "the word of God" prior to 1611? Did our Pilgrim Fathers have "the word of God" when they brought the GENEVA BIBLE translation with them to North America?

 

But the KJV still is an accurate translation. The KJV perfection is incorrect.

 

The NKJV is a more accurate translation of the TR (it has its errors, but so does the AV). </font>[/QUOTE]No, the KJV is more accurate than the NKJV because they disagreed each other 2,000 times.

 

...the KJV is more accurate than the NKJV because they disagreed each other 2,000 times.


Disagreeing with the KJV is not a barometer of accuracy. Disagreeing with, for example, the TR, is a better barometer (assuming for the sake of arguement that the TR is the best source).

 

But the KJV still is an accurate translation.

Yes, I agree. I dispute KJV percetion, but I very much agree that the KJV is a reasonably accurate translation.

 

And the reason? Because GOD SAID his Word was inspired and that it was perfect and kept -- BUT NOT ANY ENGLISH TRANSLATION of His Word. That is the Kirkegaardian "leap of faith" that "onlies" make.</font>[/QUOTE]Not so, Dr. Bob. If it is "perfect and kept", then where is it??? I can see no better candidate than the AV; and the only people who seem to believe it is perfect and kept are those who hold to the AV being that book! If you can show me another candidate for the perfect, preserved word of God, I shall consider it. However, saying "the Hebrew and Greek" will not wash. Which Hebrew and Greek? If you are contending there are some manuscripts of the Bible (in whatever language) that are perfect, I will honestly consider them; but I have yet to encounter a non-KJVO who actually believes this.

But why make such a fuss over whether you call something, "the word of God", when you belive they ALL have errors in them? And why such hostility to the idea that God might actually have worked to perfectly preserve his word???

 

For the record, I know of tons of people who believe this. They may not fit your definition of believe, however, and that may be the problem.