inconsistent later editing of KJV

Are you tellin me that the KJV is a TRANSLATION done well but not absolutely perfect? Are you saying there have been corrections and updates?Are you tellin me that the KJV used parts of the Geneva,Tyndale,And latin Vulgate Bibles as well as the Textus Receptus? Are you tellin me that the TRANSLATORS said that thier work was not perfect?
I am truly amazed!This shocks me to my very core.I think I will have to ge get some psychological counseling to make the adjustment.Whoops I don't beleive those psychologists know what they are talking about. What am I to do.

 

The footnote is not the Word of God.

“The oldest is best” argument won’t hold up in light of any scripture. Attempts at its corruption are found from the Garden to Paul’s time.
Gen. 3:1
Jer. 23:36
II Cor. 2:17
,and many more. You'll need facts for the "added or deleted" argument.

The context of Matt. 5:21-26 is “Thou shalt not kill.” With the exclusion of “without a cause” one would be guilty of breaking the commandment for being angry for whatever reason.

If “the oldest is best” is true, you can have my socks.

 

God must be a sinner too in the KJV, because "without a cause" is not in verse 21 or 22c.

Ah, consistent arguments. The bane of KJV-onlyism.

 

I feel I need to address you question out of a courtesy, but I cannot answer that at this time. My issue on this thread is against the smoke and mirror attack on the KJB be cause of the purported changes. It is my contention that the KJB was never re-translated.


Phillip, you believe you hold the Word of God in your hand in your NKJV, right? And I do in my KJB. So defend it with the facts at hand with all of your heart. Are you willing to answer honest questions concerning the NKJV without drawing a line in the sand, without making an assumption that the questions are an attack? Can we dialog without becoming angry or sarcastic? Oops! I’ve already proven I can’t! Then we should agree to take time out and regroup to a Christ honoring attitude. Your predictions on the future KJB to NKJB may come to pass, but then what? NKJV Onlyism? </font>[/QUOTE]I'm game, just don't take a disagreement personally and I won't either.

NKJV onlyism, I don't know, I think it may just become another KJV version with "new" as the version name like "oxford". Now, I may be wrong, this may not happen, but many KJV "PREFERRED" in our church have already adopted the NKJV and because our church has so many older people and being a country church, the pastor chose the NKJV so that people could still follow along. We chose KJV Oxford as our Pew Bibles just in case their were complaints, but the members usually carry a version of their own, many NKJV and quite a few NASB. (I'm just stating what is happening in our church, just the facts here.)

How, do I say I have God's Word in my hand? I have read the majority of the NKJV and have found it is so close to the KJV which I have never had any doubt IS the Word of GOd.

Now, don't get me wrong. From a non-scholarly viewpoint (which I am) I have to compare to some standard and that standard was at one time the KJV. After reading more translations and determining that doctrines have not been changed, and many discussions with scholars and pastors who I trust. I believe it to be so.

At the risk of sounding like Michelle, I feel the Holy Spirit is guiding me that I do have God's Word in my hand, but I am NOT going to use that to convince you that I am right, otherwise, I would be putting myself on a pedastal and saying that I had a better contact with the Holy Spirit than you do.

I do know the NKJV is based on the TR. I have a copy of the TR as an interlinear and although I have several college hours in Hebrew and Greek (of course the TR is Greek), I am NOT by any shot proficient with either language; but I can, with references follow the Greek enough to confirm the basics of the translation.

Are there minor glitches in the NKJV? Probably, I have heard complaints based I think on the tenses in one or two of the epistles. These are related to "salvation as an ongoing process" rather than a single instant process. This has been noted and this is the reason I feel a version II will come out. If this is truly the case. I personally, have not checked this out with the Greek.

But, I do feel the KJV has had and still has a few glitches in translation perfection, otherwise different versions would not have been required. And not all of these glitches were caused just by printer's errors and spelling changes. Besides, my AV1611 copy actually contains the apocrypha with NO differentiation from other scripture, located as a testament between the Old and the New.

I have also read every book that I can get my hands on both pro and con with the KJVonly stance and have weighed them in the balance, prayed about it and come to my own conclusion that the KJV is a GREAT English translation, but there are others.

Those are my thoughts in brief summary.

 

For half a second there I thought you were POR again. Before I realized what you were doing. I thought that even he had gone off the deep end. Howdy, BILL.

 

Sorry about my mispelling and poor grammer. I actually type quite fast and often get ahead of my thought pattern.

 

POB,

Ya all just ain't gona separate the translation work from the print shop, are ya?

"Vell Mr. Bill. Pleaze lay down on da couch and tell de goot Dockor all aboutz zit."

 

I only duz that cuz I can't spell fee sea shus.Gotta have a little fun on occassion.

 

No, verse 21 and 22 are one sentence in English. To repeat “without a cause” would be redundant, which we know God is not.

 

Phillip,

Thank you for helping make my point. In spite of your mispelling and poor grammer you still said what you ment to say, right? God transcends our human errors and preserves his word in spite of us.

And thank you for your responses . I'm working, typing so I cannot be long winded(or would that be typeded) to the benefit of all.

Poor Old Bill, What you said! Insanity keeps me sane.

 

Since KJVOists claim that the NIV isn't the Word of God anyway, whether the phrase is in the NIV text proper, or in the NIV footnote, is of no concequence to the KJVOist.

Your contention does not support the "youngest is best" arguement. Neither does it support single-translation-onlyism. Even if we presume that "younger is better" that view in no way supports single-translation-onlyism.

 

Dogsbody said "To repeat “without a cause” would be redundant, which we know God is not."

Ah, I see. So then you agree with removing Mark 9:44 and 9:46?

"God is not redundant" is one of the strangest things I've heard in a while. The Bible is OFTEN redundant. Many verses are found word-for-word in multiple places. There's even four gospels instead of just one. Have you ever compared 2 Chron 33 to 2 Kings 21, or 2 Chron 10 with 1 King 12, or Isa 37 with 2 Kings 19?

 

Once upon a time about 9 months ago we had a fellow who would cut and paste a lot backing up his KJVO stance. None of the information in the cut and pasted articles ever addressed anything to prove his point.After watching him apply the cut and paste tactic for months and using his circular reasoning and refusing to really back himself up I knew what I had to do.I cut and pasted a 31 page article which had 40 questions to ask a KJVO person plus many short articles by well known theologins and preachers rfuting the KJVO stance. Never heard back from that fellow.
I personally don't mind a person being KJVO or OKJV as I am KJV preferred.However I do read from other versions (ESV,NASB,NIV)which are all the valid Holy Word of God and am not willing to have someone attack God's Word.

 

Bill,
I'm trying what Dr. Bob did. I bought a 1611 replica from Hendrickson on Amazon and I'm reading through it. Thank goodness it is printed in Times New Roman instead of the original fonts.

Even with the Jacobean English spelling, it is quite easy to read and is quite an experience.

I just thought I would do it for a change.

 

Plain Old Bill:

Something must be wrong that they have not been able to prove their point. The problem is people like us. We are not so gullible to believe everything in writing. All we ask for is prrof of their point. So far I have seen the same amount as you--zero.

 

Johnv,
Please don’t categorize me. You don’t even know me. I not defending KJVO. I’m against ANY argument not supported by fact. Many arguments on both sides are embarrassing. Some so bad I won't even address them. And no, my contention does not support “youngest is best” (which I never heard of till now) which is as completely indefensible as “oldest is best”. Both smoke and mirrors. Now, ehem! Be Happy!

 

Verse 44 is one sentence, verse 45-46 is another sentence. I do not believe the Word of God to be redundant. You may believe that, but I do not believe the word of God to be redundant.

Or let me put it another way so it may be understood.
I do not believe the Word of God to be redundant even though you say it is I do not believe the Word of God to be redundant, because the Word of God is not redundant.

 

Um, right...

 

Wha, wha, whaaat? Where did you learn what you learned then? Surely you don't believe everthing you here?

 

Oh boy, are you in trouble! This ain't Plain old Ralph.