KJV and the modern versions

The Gospel of Ed 14:32 (EOV = Ed's Own Bible)
Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall get creamed on BB.

Rom 14:19 (KJV1611 Edition):
Let vs therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edifie an other.

1Co 10:23 (KJV1611 Edition):
All things are lawfull for me, but all things are not expedient: All things are lawfull for mee, but all things edifie not.

1Th 5:11-13 (KJV1611 Edition):
Wherefore, comfort your selues together, and edifie one another, euen as also ye doe.
12 And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are ouer you in the Lord, and admonish you:
13 And to esteeme them very highly in loue for their workes sake, and be at peace among your selues.


Yet we cannot agree together to study diligently the Word of God determined to agree about it.

 

I am really only interested in using copies of the scriptures that are somewhat "traditional", for lack of a better word.

All of the *extremely* different sounding versions that seek to radically update it into "modern" ways of talking leave me completely cold. Thats not to say they dont have Gods annointing on them, because they do, but they just dont work for me.

I personally prefer either the New King James or the New American Standard versions, with the NKJ being my favorite.

I NEVER use the old King James. ("Thus sayeth", "thus speaketh", etc)

And if I am ever in a situation where the old "King Jameseth" is all that is available, and I need to read from it, I actually automatically...without even thinking about it...translate it into the New King James while reading. :laugh:


Mike

 

Sometimes the NKJ needs translating too.In that case I simply filter it through the lens of Today's New International Version.

I'll give some examples of phrases found in the "N"= NKJ and then "T" = TNIV below.

Jeremiah 2:25

N : For I have loved aliens

T : I love foreign gods

Jeremiah 2:36

N : Why do you gad about

T : Why do you go about

Luke 16:9

N : make friends for yourselves by unrighteous mammon

T : use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves

Romans 15:1

N : the scruples of the weak

T : the failings of the weak

1 Thessalonians 1:9

N : what manner of entry we had to you

T : what happened when we visited you

2 Peter 1:11

N : for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly

T : and you will receive a rich welcome

2 Peter 2:10

N : they are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries

T : they are not afraid to heap abuse on celestial beings

1 John 4:9

N : His only begotten Son

T : his one and only Son

[ Of course many more references could be cited where the word "begotten" is used in the NKJ yet the meaning is obscure to many who recite it dutifully.]

So certainly the NKJ is an improvement over the KJV.But the former is in dire need of an update even with TR as the base text for the New Testament.( I realize I gave some Old Testament examples in this post.)

The NKJ is too dated in its awkward English.It's really similiar to the ESV in that respect.

 

But that's different than a translation question, which was the original question, if I recall correctly.

No, just not repeating myself.

I don't think you make pies with leaven.

It doesn't. There is no proof (as I said). It is probability, and the probability is that fewer copies means less chance of error in copying. It is the same principle you practice when you hear something from someone, and try to go to the source to find out if it is true or not.

But that has never been proven. It is well known that some manuscripts that don't exist never existed. To argue that they don't exist because they were used so much is, quite frankly, a nonsensical argument in terms of proof. That's like saying I can prove I have a $100 bill in my pocket by showing you that it's not there now. The evidence for the prior existence of something cannot be its non-existence now.

Of course they do.

To some degree, yes.

In my ministry, by far the greatest confusion about the Bible is the result of the KJVO crowd who constantly attack the word of God and put doubt in people's minds about whether or not they have the word of God. That is, in some cases, destroying the faith of God's little ones.

Absolutely.

The KJV is not really a Bible for the common man anymore, since no one I know (common or uncommon) speaks that language. YOu don't have to ask permission to use or distribute any Bible. You simply have to buy one and read it and give it away. Copying is different matter, but one that hardly testifies to which is a better translation. You can use, copy, and distribute the ASV without permission as well.

No.

No.

 

HP: Tell me Ed how 'serious study of the Word of God' can take place when we cannot even decide what is and what is not the Word of God, whether or not it is inspired of God or the mere additions by men? Take this important verse for instance. Ro 8:1 ¶ There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Now I would like for you to give me a definitive answer as to whether or not there is no condemnation to those who are said to be in Christ Jesus, or whether or not it only applies to those that walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit? I do not desire to know the opinions of men, I want the Word of God on the matter. If you are in doubt, don't take me down any rabbit trails. Give me a straight answer.

I will tell you on the authority of God''s Word, without a shadow of a doubt, that only those that walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit are devoid of condemnation in their lives. That is the Word of God in spite of all the naysayers and those that foment confusion in the minds of the listener with their modern translations that infuse doubt.

Pastor Larry, give us God's final Word on this passage. If you don't have enough faith to do it, just say so.

 

I wasn't aware there was any confusion. Are you confused about this verse?

 

HP: I believe from my response the listener can tell that I have no confusion as to what saith the Word of God. Why do you avoid the straight forward question? I have a hard time believing that you are that uninformed or naïve.

 

I don't think I am uninformed or naive on this topic for the most part (though there is much I do not know I am sure). But having said that, I didn't avoid the question. I am not even sure what the question is in terms of translation or text. There is no real debate about that verse or its meaning so far as I can tell. The only debate is about whether or not we should interpolate two phrases from v. 4. The general consensus is that we should not since there is no explanation for their subtraction if original, but there is an explanation for their existence as addition. Again, this is something that you would need to be familiar with the arguments to understand.

Generally speaking, the reading is most likely to be accurate that gives rise to the other readings. So in this case, if the longer reading were original would it likely have been deleted by a scribe? No. Conversely, would it likely have been added? Yes. So the probability is that the shorter reading is more likely to be accurate. In either case, the teaching of the passage is the same. It does not affect doctrine.

 

Rippon:
"Sometimes the NKJ needs translating too.In that case I simply filter it through the lens of Today's New International Version.

I'll give some examples of phrases found in the "N"= NKJ and then "T" = TNIV below."


GE:
I phoned my wife to help me with the spelling; but she was in a meeting -- couldn't speak to me. So please, correct my spelling, but here's what I wanted to say:

'Sometimes the NKJ needs translating too.In that case I simply filter it through the lens of Today's New International Version.

I'll give some examples of phrases found in the "N"= NKJ --- Mr Jyckal; and then "T" = TNIV below. --- Mr Hyde.' --- See post 151.

 

HP:
"
Quote:
ED: Yet we cannot agree together to study diligently the Word of God determined to agree about it.


HP: Tell me Ed how 'serious study of the Word of God' can take place when we cannot even decide what is and what is not the Word of God, whether or not it is inspired of God or the mere additions by men? Take this important verse for instance. Ro 8:1 ¶ There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Now I would like for you to give me a definitive answer as to whether or not there is no condemnation to those who are said to be in Christ Jesus, or whether or not it only applies to those that walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit? I do not desire to know the opinions of men, I want the Word of God on the matter. If you are in doubt, don't take me down any rabbit trails. Give me a straight answer."

GE:
I think it was Alfonso (Merchant of Venice??) who said: "Much ado about nothing!"
Alfonso, you take the laurels!

 

Got it! That best of all dictionaries, Collins 1979, Jekyll and Hyde ....

 

HP: An amazing anwer I would say! You certainly have a way with words when it comes to the avoidance of giving a straight forward answer. For you to say that either way the doctrine is not affected is about as naïve as one could imagine. It does in fact, clearly and without question, have an affect on the doctrine one derives from that verse.

 

Heavenly Pilgrim: // Take this important verse for instance. Ro 8:1 ¶ There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. //

I humbly request that you help me find that verse among my copies of the Word of God. Here are some copies of Roman 8:1 that I have:

Here is a parallel electronic Bible I got from e-sword.com

Rom 8:1 (GB)
Now then there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus, which walke not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Rom 8:1 (KJV-1611)
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Iesus, who walke not after the flesh, but after the spirit.

Rom 8:1 (KJV+Strong's numbers)
There is therefore686 now3568 no3762 condemnation2631 to them3588 which are in1722 Christ5547 Jesus,2424 who walk4043 not3361 after2596 the flesh,4561 but235 after2596 the Spirit.4151

These three Bibles are somewhat unclear about which 'Spirit' or 'spirit' to walk after. What is your (the one who desires to respond) opinion? It is my opinion that the KJV1611 Edition is WRONG to put 'spirit' when the Word of God said 'Spirit'. Somebody caught that mistaken error by the KJV1769 time and put 'Spirit' back in. I an many other others say that the KJV1611 had the wrong word there in Romans 8:1. What is your (the one who desires to respond) opinion?


1. Do you (the one who desires to respond) believe that one can be 'in Christ' 'after the flesh' EXCLUSIVE OR 'in Christ' 'after the Spirit'?

2. Do you believe that one can be 'in Christ' 'after the flesh' INCLUSIVE OR 'in Christ' 'after the Spirit'?

3. Do you believe that one can be 'in Christ' 'after the flesh' AND 'in Christ' 'after the Spirit'?

Depending on which one one believes this means, one will get their doctrine here. (Some say: Depending on your doctrine, you can figure out what this means.) I personally believe that #3 is the only correct answer. I believe that this verse is to the one 'in Christ'. So the only debatable part is if the one who follows Jesus is 'after the Spirit' or not 'after the Spirit'. I believe that if I (a Messanic) can do things 'after the Spirit' or NOT 'after the Spirit'. The individual saint cannot be condemned for doing that which is 'after the Spirit'; can be condemned on this earthly 'hitch' for that which is 'after the flesh'. For example, I smoked for 40 years as a Christian and have dehabilating COPD (look it up in Google) - I now am 'after the Spirit' regarding smoking tobacco. I was condemned for my 'after the flesh' and suffer the consequences of it. I was never condemned for what I did 'after the Spirit'.

By contrast some will say this which contradicts half the Bible:
THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS IN ERROR:
if you do 'after the flesh' then you can loose your salvation.
THE PRECEEDING STATEMENT IS FALSE.

THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS TRUE:

 

Ed, being a peacemaker is not simply declaring peace at all cost. At times it involves coming to grips with the reality of stark contradictions and contending fro truth. Failure to address glaring contradictions will never lead to lasting peace. It will always lead to confusion and uncertainty in the end.

 

I gave a straightforward answer. I believe the shorter reading is better, based on the evidence. And doctrine is not affected. The doctrine if clearly in vv. 1-16. To say the doctrine is affected is to ignore the fact that Paul didn't write in verses but in paragraphs. It would be like separating my first sentence from the rest of this post, and pretending that my meaning was affected because I didn't say it all in the first verse.

Can't you see the nonsense of that? That belies a fundamental misunderstanding of bibliology. No one in the first century would have come up with your view of this verse because they didn't have verses. We need to learn to ignore the numbers except for finding our place and look at the doctrine as a whole.

 

I wish you would take this to heart. Your failure to address the glaring contradictions between your view and the Bible is creating confusion and uncertainty not only for yourself but also for those who hear you. And that is very dangerous not only for them, but for those who are affected by your comments here. You are leading others astray and creating doubt and unbelief in them as well. You should take that more seriously.

 

Ed Edwards:
"These three Bibles are somewhat unclear about which 'Spirit' or 'spirit' to walk after. What is your (the one who desires to respond) opinion? It is my opinion that the KJV1611 Edition is WRONG to put 'spirit' when the Word of God said 'Spirit'. Somebody caught that mistaken error by the KJV1769 time and put 'Spirit' back in. I an many other others say that the KJV1611 had the wrong word there in Romans 8:1. What is your (the one who desires to respond) opinion?"

GE:
There is nothing wrong with 'spirit', for it is assumed the 'spirit' of the regenerate or reborn man --- who was born of the Spirit, with a capital letter, the 'Holy Spirit'. NOW, that man thus born again by the Spirit, 'walks' or 'acts' or 'lives' according to that new principle of divine life within him, and he "walks after the spirit". Note, I wrote 'divine', not 'Divine' --- same thing.

 

Follow Steaver's new thread, 'Born of God'.

 

HP: Your personal attack is clearly noted. Try honoring the rules of this forum by setting aside such unkind and unsupported personal attacks, and instead take a specific issue you feel that I am in error and are misleading others on, verify that it is true concerning my beliefs, and then set forth clear evidence to the contrary as one should do in any reasonable debate.