Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Salty, Sep 20, 2010.
Interesting web page.
BTW, they contend Peter Ruckman is an extremest.
They may not be Ruckmanites, but they spread the same sort of twisting of the truth to bolster their position.
They argue against false rumors spread about King James, yet they spread false rumors about Westcott and Hort at the same time. They may not be as bad as Ruckman, but thats not saying a whole lot by itself.
At least they admit:
That the KJV is not strictly and TR translation
That the NKJV was not translated from the Alexandrian texts (though I have to chuckle at their reasons to reject the NKJV)
I do find it interesting that they do not address the 1 John 5v12 issue in their description of the differences between the 1611 and 1769 editions of the KIng James.
I missed that. It is chuckle worthy.
Same ole KJVO blarney, consisting of little fact, mostly opinion and guesswork. Avoids the cardinal fact that makes the KJVO doctrine false: its man-made origin and total lacka Scriptural support.
I love how it says that 99% of the texts support the TR. That number is way to high. Some readings are in the minority (Acts 8:37) or the vast minority (Comma Johanneum). This statement shows their complete ignorance. Or that the TR and the Byzantine Text type are synonymous. So many fallacies, so little time.
I carefully read the entire document and it made a lot of sense.
Therefore I agree with it’s conclusion..........
I just love it when confused folks call me confused. They forgot the third option:
3. Pastor Sexton and his minions are wrong.
Why I use the KJV?
1. I like it.
2. Most of the congregation uses it.
3. I like it.
4.. Our pew bibles are KJV.
5. I like it.
Did I mention I like it?
Those are good enough reasons for me!
What do you think of the NKJV?
Liberals and apostates favor the Critical text.
Guilt by association
JW's liked the KJV. Mormons still like the KJV. therefore the KJV is bad. - see what happens when we use kjvo logic.
Without a doubt Satan is behind the confusion.
What confusion? the KJV Only stuff? Sure.
But there are also Christians who believe this position as well. Now there is one of two reasons why:
1. They have never been taught
2. Willingly ignorant
Never been taught what? The lies that were in this article? Ignorant of what? That the information presented wasn't true?
We have a few kjvo churches in our association that are not King James Only.
Like me, used the KJV since 1945, made my corrections, and used it all my life. I have privately read many other translations, including Greek and Hebrew.
I wonder how many other churches are accused of being KJVO simply because they use the KJV,,,,,,,,,,only?
That is fine by me.
However if I were to put my opinion on it it would be:
1. I don't like it as well..to awkward and archaic.
2. Basically none of our congregation uses it.
3. I don't like it as well as the NKJV, the NASB and the ESV because it is written in a form of english no longer spoken.
4. We do not have pew bibles but the pastors use the NIV and the ESV
5. See 1 and 3
Ah, I get it. Primitive Baptists in this area are generally like that; the KJV is used and preached from, but most of them are not KJVO. (some are though) I suppose they're like me, I love the KJV but I know it's not the only one.
Great reasons :thumbsup::thumbsup:
Now those reasons are honest. You didn't even have to make up stuff against other versions, either.
I like it. I have some concerns about how it translates certain Greek verb tenses that might give a neophyte the false impression that salvation is not punctilliar, but with the proper explanation from the teacher/pastor it can be corrected.
Ok. I got the part about you liking it, but you lost me after that. Translation please. You're speaking Greek. :laugh:
Okay, but remember, you asked!
1 Cor 1:18 is an example.
KJV: For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
NKJV: For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
The Present Passive Participle in Greek functions much like a "state of being" verb in English. It has no temporal significance, but merely indicates a state of being. The way the NKJV and many other of the more modern versions, translates it seems to indicate a continuing action rather than a state of being. It obfuscates the nature of salvation being an instantaneous event in time and makes it appear as if it is a process.
Did that help?