Why are Proponents of Modern Versions so Anti KJV?

Brothers this is a huge part of this ongoing schism.

First : unsubstantiated and nebulous claims, "40% non-TR" What does this mean? 40% of what? 40% compared to what? Can you give an example to help clarify this?

Second:The words of paranoia and suspicion such as "adulterated its words".

I am going to assume these words mean that you believe the NKJV translators purposely and intentionally translated the TR to misrepresent what the original language text means.
I am sorry beforehand if this is not true but to what other conclusion can I come?

But and even at that, what would it hurt if you changed this into "IMO, the NKJV misrepresents the TR koine words" and then give some examples so that we can discuss the supposed misrepresentation.

It is one thing to call something an error. It is quite another to assign motive to that error.

Although, overall, things have gotten better.

HankD

 

Ulsterman wrote:

Response: Article: Why Do Modern Version Users Criticize the KJV?

 

Response: Article: Why Do Modern Version Users Criticize the KJV? [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Amen, Brother Gromit -- Preach it!


Three thumbs up for Gromit's article

 

I have never heard this of Barker. Will you please provide some source information to support it?

Probably the NKJV, which contrary to some people's statement, does not depart from the TR. That is a false charge. However, there are other translations of the TR such as the MKJV, and the KJ21 I believe. I am not all that familiar with them.

But the TR is not the best text to use for translation in any case. In too many places it follows faulty readings, even on occasion including readings that have virtually no Greek manuscript support. The TR is a witness of the word of God, but is not the best one to use for translation.

I really wish that someone would do a mainstream translation of the Majority Text. That is the one thing that is missing, IMO.

The most accurate translation is probably then NASB95, although some would argue the ESV. I have not done a lot of work with the ESV so I really cannot comment on it. The NASB95 is a very literal translation, bordering on being too literal, almost obscurantist at times. But the question of "most accurate" depends on a number of factors, such as purpose for the translation. It cannot always be answered the same way.

 

From the Textus Receptus I would have to say that I think that the LITV is quite accurate.

http://www.litvonline.com

 

http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv-translators.html

He is third on the list. </font>[/QUOTE]That doesn't say anything about this account that you gave of him proving the KJV was the most accurate. That was the comment I was questioning, and the comment that you were supposed to be giving support for.

Perhaps in your haste you misread what I said. I did not say I never heard of this Barker. I said, I never this of Barker. Ken Barker is a very good scholar who has written a number of useful works. He is well known to the faithful student of Scripture.

You cited this account that I have never heard before and I would like you to substantiate. You also cite a source that the NKJV ignores the TR over 1200 times. That is certainly not true. Please be careful with your facts, and if you cite a quotation or an account of something, substantiate it for us by giving us evidence for it.

 

The NKJV omitted the Textus Receptus - 40%! The New KJV compared to the KJV.

 

Magic numbers, pulled out of thin air. Do you even try to verify *anything* for yourself before spouting it off?

 

Magic numbers, pulled out of thin air. Do you even try to verify *anything* for yourself before spouting it off? </font>[/QUOTE]The underlying Hebrew texts & Greek texts/KJV and the New KJV disagree each other 2,000+ times! The TR and the New KJV on the New Testament only disagree each other - 40%!

 

KJV-onlyists are wrong, 96.7% of the time.

 

My understanding is that the original KJV of 1611 had the apocrypha in it. Why do so many KJVO's leave it out today? After all it was part of the original KJV of 1611.

 

I'm sorry askjo but I just dont understand what you intend to say here.

First of all the underlying Greek and Hebrew (except for transliteration) disagree 100 percent with the English because the words are in a different language. If you mean that the TR disagrees with the NKJV as to the corresponding MEANING of the underlying words then I totally disagree. That is an absurd number.

Check your source(s).

HankD

 

I don't mean to be offensive and I hope you won't take it that way. I find this nearly impossible to believe. I have read Barker's works and have never seen anything remotely resembling this comment. Surely, it would be in other places if this was an accurate representation of his beliefs. I wish I could see it for myself.

 

2,000 times? That would surprise me do you have a list, or is this just another number pulled out of thin air perhaps? Last week you said the NASB and the KJV disagree 4,000 times, and I showed you how that equalled less than 1%. 4,000 is *double* 2,000. So if 4,000 equals less than 1%, how does 2,000 equal 40%? Is this "new math" or something?

Come on, askjo. Let us reason together. Let us prove all things.