Is the KJV weak on Sin and Salvation?

NO

If that were the case then why do the other versions omitt or deleate "What can wash away my SINS Nothing but the "BLOOD" of JESUS! seeing that it is still there!

 

William said:

Because that line is not in the Bible at all, you can find it in the hymn book though.

 

23 omissions of "blood" in the NKJV,22 omissions of "hell",44 omissions of "repent",

 

Nooo...they would be omissions if the NIV or NKJV were based on the KJV, but they're not. The NKJV is based on the TR, and the NIV is based on some other texts. But since they're not based on the KJV, they aren't omissions.

 

:laugh: :laugh:

Now, please remove your foot from your mouth, better yet, leave it there!:laugh: :laugh:

 

william s. correa said:

23 omissions of "blood" in the NKJV,22 omissions of "hell",44 omissions of "repent",

So?

Why should we assume that the KJV has the "correct" number of instances of these words?

That proves nothing, except that you assume what you must prove (i.e. the alleged "perfection" of the KJV).

 

The KJV does not once mention the "sovereignty" of God while the RSV uses it 3 times in the New Testament.

HankD

 

Going from the KJV1611 Edition Old Testament
to the KJV1769 Edition Old Testament the word 'blood'
is OMITTED 4 times in 3 verses :smilewinkgrin:

God Bless the KJVs!!

 

Well?

The NKJV removes 20,066 words from the authorized King James Bible and makes 100,000 word changes.

"It is clear that this revision required MORE than the dropping of 'eth' endings, removing 'thee's' and 'thou's,' and updating obsolete words."​

--New King James Version 1982e. p. 1235changed: "Lieutenant" in Ezra 8:36 of the KJV. What did they change it to? "Satraps". Which is obsolete Lieutenant or Satraps? They have Admitted that they Changed the Wording from the KJB!. It is estimated that the NKJV makes over 100,000 translation changes, which comes to about three changes per verse over eighty changes per page and ! A number of these changes bring the NKJV in line with the readings of such Alexandrian copies as the NIV and the RSV. Where changes are not made in the text, subtle footnotes often give :tongue3: a background check to the Westcott and Hort Greek Text.

 

With out the shedding of Blood there is "NO" remission of Sin! Unless you "REPENT" Ye shall All like wise Pesish
and does Hell mean more to you then the words cross and atonement? No it dosent cause If I went by it and slipped on a Bannana Peeling I still cuold not fall in! THanx for the BLOOD!

 

Kjv

I am a KJV man and will be till the Rapture. I think what many have forgotten about is that, as important as the history of the Bible translation is and what manuscripts have been used for which versions, there lies in the dark another manner of greater importance.
WE are facing in these last days an onslaught of the Diety of Jesus Christ. The question is, what Bible translations take away from the Diety of Christ, such as 1 John 5: 6-8. You can figure that one out on your own, can't you?

 

Well, DUhhhhh! Of course the NKJV is different from the KJV. or else it would still be the KJV!

Imagine someone trying to update language to win souls.... unimaginable!
What are Christians thinking?

 

What translation takes away the deity of Christ? I have seen it in all of them.

Just because the KJV translators chose to add a couple verses (1 john 5:6-8) that were not in the originals, does not mean that the versions that chose to stay faithful to the originals denys the deity of Christ.

Which is worse adding to God's word, or taking away from it?

 

How many changes did the KJV make over previous English versions?

That is no way to judge the varacity of a translation.

Besides william, show me the places where the NKJV omitts the word blood, and we will look at it in context and see if it really distorts orthodox theology.

By the way if you are getting your info from the a-typical KJVO sources it has been disproven again and again.

 

Sorry Brother, you figured out those numbers yourself
so you will be ignored.
But somebody who quotes the numbers somebody else
published - without checking them - those can have free reign
to demolish this Forum?

This sacred meeting place is being defamed by those
who can't even figure out when to cite a source and when
not to cite a source. This Forum should be a place where we can
reasonably follow the following commands of our Lord and
Savior: Messiah Iesus:

Ro 14:19 (nKJV):
Therefore let us pursue the things which make
for peace and the things by which one may edify
another.

1Co 10:23 (nKJV):
All things are lawful for me, but not all things
are helpful; all things are lawful for me,
but not all things edify.

1Th 5:11 (nKJV):
Therefore comfort each other and edify one another,
just as you also are doing.

Here is the basic Axiom that this Fourm should have:

Great Spiritual Value & Truth can be found about Bible matters
as we compare one English version with another
English version - we can increase
our understanding and mutual edification much thereby.

 

4His_glory: //Besides william, show me the places where the NKJV
omitts the word blood, and we will look at it in context
and see if it really distorts orthodox theology//

Most of these are in the Old Testament and is speaking of the
blood of sheep and cows, not the Blessed Blood of our Lord
and Savior, Messiah Yeshua ben Yoseph, which blood was
spilled on our behalf for the salvation of our souls.

 

Lieutenant or Satrap?

Speaking of the nKJV it is said:
// ... changed: "Lieutenant" in Ezra 8:36 of the KJV. What did they change it to? "Satraps". Which is obsolete Lieutenant or Satraps?//

Poor question. 'satraps' is obsolete.
The meaning of 'lieutenant' in the KJV is obsolete.
Both terms are obsolete in the usage found in the KJV.
However, 'lieutenant' is more prone to misunderstanding.

Eastons Bible Dictionary:
http://www.htmlbible.com/kjv30/easton/east2288.htm

Lieutenant - (only in A.V. Esther 3:12; 8:9; 9:3; Ezra 8:36),
a governor or viceroy of a Persian province having both military
and civil power. Correctly rendered in the Revised Version "satrap."

Compare to modern 'Lieutenant' a specific rank of lowest
officer in the US Military. Modern readers will think that the
'Lieutenant' has only minor military power and will miss the
real meaning of these verses. Chances are a dictionary will
not be used for 'Lieutenant' but would be used for 'satrap'.
People would think they know what a 'Lieutenant' is but would
be wrong here.

 

Omissions of "blood"

The KJV uses the word blood 101 times in the New Testament

The NKJV uses the word blood 100 times in the NT; the difference from the KJV is found in Hebrews 12:4, where the NKJV substitutes the word “bloodshed”.

The NAS uses the word blood 97 times in the NT ;
the difference from the KJV is found in Matthew 9:20; Mark 5:25; Luke 8:43,44 where the work “hemorrhage” is substituted for blood.

Will, It's clear to me that you rely upon others biased works and troll this board.
Look up your own sources data and study it out before spewing it out over this board.

Rob