Why AKJV only?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Alexandra Spears, Jul 14, 2003.

  1. Alexandra Spears

    Alexandra Spears
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2003
    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,137
    Likes Received:
    320
    Not so, you just attacked the NKJV and the NIV.

    The KJVO attack ALL the Modern Versions.

    HankD
     
  3. Alexandra Spears

    Alexandra Spears
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2003
    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    0
    All modern versions attack the KJV. They're all corruptions.

    My husband has an old NKJV lying around...I can easily see the tone is REALLY different from the KJV. I also noticed some verses were missing--IMPORTANT ones at that!
     
  4. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Really? Which verses are "missing" from the NKJV? I am aware of a few verses that the KJV has *added* when compared to the NIV/NASB, but I did not know any verses were missing from the NKJV.

    BTW, not that I agree about the "attacks" against the KJV, but "attacks" does nothing to prove perfection. If they did, we all should become Catholic for no other reason than they are attacked more than any other Christian group. [​IMG]
     
  5. MissAbbyIFBaptist

    MissAbbyIFBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/3374.jpg>

    Joined:
    May 3, 2002
    Messages:
    2,567
    Likes Received:
    0
    The KJB added verses that wern't in the MV's?! WOW! And to think.....they were translated AFTER the KJB!!! Wonder how THAT happened!? ;) I'd always heard that the new "versions" took away verses!
    Oh about Catholics, look back in history....they wern't always so persecuted! It was the other way around, only Christians today don't put Catholics to death like the Catholics did to Christians back then!
    AMEN SISTER!
    But I'm not saying anything else in this thread. I can get pretty riled up when people start talking bout my precious KJB, and I hate losing my temper!
    ~Miss Abby [​IMG]
     
  6. Jesus is Lord

    Jesus is Lord
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Messages:
    260
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which verses do you mean? Could you be more specific :confused:
     
  7. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Quite easily actually, because the KJV was translated from *younger* texts than were used for modern versions. In otherwords, there are really really old manuscripts without the verses (which were considered in modern versions), and much younger manuscripts that have the verses in them (which were used for the KJV) - thus it is very likely the verses were added to the manuscripts somewhere along the line, but *before* the KJV was translated. Since the KJV did *not* use the oldest manuscripts, while the modern versions did, the KJV has verses in it that were *added*.

    In other words, you look at an "old" KJV and a "new" NIV, and conclude there are verses "missing", because the KJV is "older". Yet if you apply the exact same approach to the manuscripts from which they were translated, comparing the "old" manuscripts to the "new" manuscripts, you have to say "Hey, these 'new' manuscripts have *added* verses."

    You heard wrong. That belief is based on the assumption that the KJV is the starting point, and/or that the KJV was translated with the exact same manuscript information that the other versions were. Both assumptions are wrong.

    Yes, there is some truth to that. But my point is when something is "attacked", that has absolutely no releveance in determining that thing's perfection, or even superiority.

    Brian

    [ July 14, 2003, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]
     
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    To be truthful, the KJV has not been attacked by anybody. It is the modern versions that have been attacked. You contradicted your own statement by attacking versions other than the KJV. :rolleyes: This shows the (lack of) thought that is going into many of the comments made by the KJVOs. They repeat a few things they have heard and never bother to check to see if they were lied to ... Think people ... you can't say the the KJV is the only version being attacked when you are attacking other versions. That is a contradiction and thus an untruth!!!
     
  9. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,137
    Likes Received:
    320
    Not only that Pastor Larry, but these so-called “attacks” upon the KJV are not attacks at all but simply statements of truth such as the KJV is (1) not the “koine” English of the 21st century believer (2) There are several versions and revisions of the KJV from 1611 through 1769 (things different are not the same). (3) It is the product of the 1611 Church of England which persecuted and imprisoned Baptists. (4) The original KJV contained the Apocrypha and Anglican ritual/liturgy (and many others).

    These are all historical facts which are easily proven.

    There is not attack such as the KJVO make against the MV (i.e. They are satanic).

    The KJV translators themselves said that a proliferation of translations was a good thing in order to see the “sense” of the Scriptures.

    HankD
     
  10. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    NOT true......
     
  11. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Corruptions of what? Generally, they don't use the KJV as a translational source (although the NKJV references the KJV, but in matters of language use, not in matters of translation.

    The KJV is a translation. Nothing more.
     
  12. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Modern versions try to kill the KJV. However they still fail! The KJV is still alive. PTL! :D
     
  13. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Absolutely, that is why the Bible warns us as read 2 Cor. 2:17.
     
  14. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Really? Which verses are "missing" from the NKJV? I am aware of a few verses that the KJV has *added* when compared to the NIV/NASB, but I did not know any verses were missing from the NKJV. </font>[/QUOTE]The Old KJV and the New KJV disagree each others 2,000 times! The New KJV is modern version.
     
  15. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    NOT true...... </font>[/QUOTE]They are corrupted because they twisted any doctrines of the Bible.
     
  16. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh Sweet Jesus, please place Your protective arm
    around Sister Alexandria Spears.
    She has done gone and jumped into the middle of a
    pit of writhing Baptists. Slithering Baptists
    who love to eat KJVOs for breakfast.
    And they don't spit no bones out. [​IMG]
     
  17. dianetavegia

    dianetavegia
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    HankD said:
    Exactly! I've not seen any angry NKJV users jumping down the throats of those who choose to only use the William Tyndale version.
     
  18. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yet another baseless charge. No one has yet to show these twisted doctrines. It is untrue to say that MVs distort doctrine.

    And 2 Cor 2:17 has nothing to do with the Bible version issue. That is just another place where KJVOs twist Scripture to fit their own conclusions.
     
  19. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    Ed said:

    ROTFL.

    I wouldn't want to repeat my first post, thank you.

    I went to the site she suggested and found the usual suspects. I did see something that I hadn't seen before, which was an attack on the NIV for not using "Jehovah" as a name for God. Well, that's interesting, since that name is not even biblical and the Jews wouldn't dare try to pronounce the Holy Name. Still don't.
     
  20. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, Brother Pastor Larry -- Preach it [​IMG]

    In fact, another perfidy of the KJBOs
    is shown in this case. They don't even bother to read
    the book they worship: the Authorized
    King James Version of 1611!

    Let us read from it [​IMG]
    II.Corinthians II:17 (KJV1611):

    For wee are not as many with
    ||corrupt the word of God: but as of
    sinceritie, but as of God, in the sight of
    God speake we in Christ.


    Translators Sidenote:
    ||Or, deale deceitfully with

    II.Corinthians II:17 (KJV1611-alternate):

    For wee are not as many with
    deale deceitfully with the word of God: but as of
    sinceritie, but as of God, in the sight of
    God speake we in Christ.


    Thus it is the KJVOs that deal
    deceitfully with the word of God,
    not the modern versions which corrupt
    the word of God.
     

Share This Page

Loading...