Is the KJV weak on Sin and Salvation?

So why do you contend that God changed in 1611, 1762, 1769,... or whatever other year you claim the "right" KJV came along? You say God doesn't change His words... then why doesn't it bother you that the KJV contains words with no basis in the original language text?

No. But you sure seem to be slippery as an eel. You want to apply two different balances. One that favors the KJV and another that disfavors any other version. This is patently dishonest and a violation of scriptural principle.

Prove it. Where is the blood of Jesus omitted from the NKJV? You've made your claim. It is easy enough to prove. Show us that you have the integrity and fairness characteristic of a Spirit controlled Christian.

 

Sometimes it is fun to. I like to see how slippery they can get.

 

:smilewinkgrin: :tongue3:

 

Proof

NKJV include through his blood, BUT footnote it with a totally false statement that it only appears in later texts.Colossians 1:14King James Bible In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.NIV, NAS,
RSV"In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." II Cor. 2:17

KJV: For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

NKJV: For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ.

 

OK, since this is a true statment, why do you have a problem with it? Can you find an older manuscript that contains it?

In this instance, both are correct to a degree. The word has to do with corrupting or adulterating as hucksters do for peddling. Hucksters were suspecting of corrupting by putting the best fruit on the top of the basket, and that's the way this word is used.

 

The following scriptures are quoted above:

KJV: For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God:
but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God
speak we in Christ.

NKJV: For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God;
but as of sincerity, but as from God,
we speak in the sight of God in Christ.

Don't you know all God's best children CHECK SCRIPTURES?
Here is the actual King James Bible (KJB reading:

2 Co 2:17 (KJV1611 Edition):
For wee are not as many which corrupt the word of God:
but as of sinceritie, but as of God, in the sight of God
speake we in Christ.

In 1611 'corrupt' means what 'peddling' means in 1769.
So the KJV1611 Edition is RIGHT,
the KJV1769 Edition is WRONG,
the nKJV1984 is RIGHT.

'Corrupt' in the KJV is translated with TODAY'S meaning instead
of with the 1611 meaning. This causes some to misunderstand the
Bible and buy into FALSE DOCTRINE.

There is more FALSE DOCTRINE that comes from misreading of
the KJV than from all the readings of all the Modern Versions.

 

quoted above: //NKJV include through his blood, BUT footnote
it with a totally false statement that it only appears in later texts.
Colossians 1:14King James Bible In whom we have
redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.//

Your blind guides practice a double standard:

The translator footnotes cannot be used to claim
the KJV in error; the translator footnotes in the nKJV
are damned for telling the truth.

Please don't put any more 'trip along with the blind guides' type
double standards on this Forum. Thank you.

BTW, the nKJV does have 'blood' here and it is the precious
blood of Jesus, shed abundently for our sins, including the
sin of using blind guides and double standards

 

That seems to be one thing that I will whole heartedly agree with you on. Probably the only thing, but I will agree with this instance.

It amazes me that the KJVO cowerds see a different word in place of what the KJV has and leap into the dark abyss of illogic and wild accusations by saying that the new translation does what ever their illogic leads them to believe. Yet they never bother to study out the context and verse and word to find out for themselves that the changed word is actually in most cases the better choice and carries the exact same meaning in today's language.

Study things for yourself as so many others have said and let the wolf criers continue their march towards irrelevance!

 

It's funny to me that the argument has shifted in most KJVO camps from the removal or changing of words (which is the process of updated translations, to change words), to that of another argument such as the new translations degrading the Deity of Christ. It is really the same argument refocused in another area. Why worry about it. If God does not give you freedom to use another translation than the KJV then you should never use another translation. But QUIT beating me up because God has given me peace about using the NKJV or the Holman translation or whatever HIS Spirit allows. GROW UP and start eating meat!

 

So in other words you just admitted that you weren't telling the truth before, right?

Since you contend that it is totally false... show your proof. If you know of mss that contain it that the NKJV translators were unaware of then I am sure they would appreciate your assistance by telling them about it.

Now if you are just making another completely unfounded, unreasonable assumption based on nothing but a absence of evidence + your bias then please excuse the rest of us if we don't accept that as proof that their statement is "totally false".

If you are not ignorant of this issue then you know that this is a legitimate discrepancy in the mss evidence. It is a variant- and one of the very few make any difference at all. Of course there is a parallel passage that you are also probably aware of where the CT versions have "blood" as well. So if they were "trying" to eliminate the blood, they failed terribly.

The truth is that they were just trying to be honest about the evidence set before them.

Both are acceptable translations.

If you are actually interested in studying this out, this might help: http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/RobertsonsWordPictures/rwp.cgi?book=2co&chapter=2&verse=17

or this:

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2585&version=kjv

This last reference to Strong's would indicate that the NKJV is actually more literal and accurate than the KJV.

Go figure. You've brought up an instance where only the completely biased, intellectually dishonest mind would argue that the NKJV was inaccurate to attempt to make your case.

 

More proof!

The KJB quotes from the writings of early Church fathers; such as Tertullian, Hippolytus, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr, dating back to the 1st century and the early church at Antioch. And The NKJV is not TR So then it is not a reliable copy."The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever." Isaiah 40:8 The Mv's can be easily twisted and misinterpreted where the King James cannot!The NKJV Which Generally follows thr TR But on the other hand has footnotes most deviations from the Westcott-Hort text, it causes great confusion and casts doubt on the authority and reliability of Scripture. KJV: "Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost."
NKJ,–change 'THE LORD' to 'Lord.' This little deletion of a tiny little word subtly denies the deity of Christ . The change leave room for interpretation that fit the agenda of the antichrist!It just does not hold water!:Fish:

 

After this was said:
-----------------------
Deacon:
//The KJV uses the word blood 101 times in the New Testament
...
//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.//

And after this was said:
-----------------------
Phillip:
//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.//

This was said:
-----------------------
// ... it doesn't matter what or whose blood is added
or ommited: The thing of the matter is that
the blood of Jesus was ommited and where or why
is very Important to me cause it's personal!//

But it was shown before this statement that the changes
from the KJV to the NAS were about a woman with
an 'issue of blood' (modern: hemorrhage) NOT about Jesus.

Jarthur001: //And with this post..i end my debate..giving
you the last word.//

Which word is unclear as a Jello reading lamp.
Facts are given (about 'blood' in the NAS compared to
the KJV) showing that the 'changes from the KJV to the NAS'
about 'blood' refer NOT to Jesus.
Then the false summary is shown:
// ... it doesn't matter what or whose blood is added
or ommited: The thing of the matter is that
the blood of Jesus was ommited and where or why
is very Important to me cause it's personal!//

Sorry, a wrong summary doesn't lesson the facts nor
effectively argue against them. A wrong summary on
the board is the equivalent of sticking ones foot in ones mouth
and biting it OFF
One way to avoid such a problem is to READ THE VERSION
FORUM. We have had this same discussion about 4 times
since I joined in 2004. The results every time: the blood
is not diluted in the Modern Versions.

Reading the version forum would prevent exchanges like:

william s. correa:
// ... 23 omissions of "blood" in the NKJV,22 omissions
of "hell",44 omissions of "repent", ... //

Scott J:
//I looked this lie up one time. Whoever started this non-sense
counted it against the NKJV when the KJV used "blood"
while the NKJV used "bloody" and various things
like that. If I am not mistaken when the various
forms of "blood" were considered, the NKJV actually
uses blood 2 more times in the NT than the KJV.//

Amen, Brother Scott J -- Preach it! :thumbs:

 

William S. Correa: //And The NKJV is not TR So then it is not a reliable copy.//

Excuse me? Your statement is NOT true.
The New King James Versions (nKJV) was written to
KJVO specifications: it would be alright if a new translation was
made that used the TRs as a basis.
Come on, the planning, the translation, the result of the nKJV was
NEWS to me (not history). Your blind guides have lead you
over another cliff.

Like the KJV translators who documented variations found in
their witnesses, the nKJV translators documented variations found in
their witnesses. The nKJV translators tell the truth about
the ancient Bible witnesses.

william S. Correa: //KJV: "Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost."
NKJ,–change 'THE LORD' to 'Lord.' This little deletion of a tiny little word subtly denies the deity of Christ . The change leave room for interpretation that fit the agenda of the antichrist!It just does not hold water!//

Again, give us Bereans a few clues what you are talking about. Thank you.
Here is what the real KJV says:

1Co 12:3 (KJV1611 Edition):
Wherefore I giue you to vnderstand, that no man speaking
by the spirit of God, calleth Iesus accursed:
and that no man can say that Iesus is the Lord,
but by the holy Ghost.

The New King James Version
1 Corinthians 12:3 (nKJV = The New King James Version,
or nKJV = New King James Version):

Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking
by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed,
and no one can say that Jesus is Lord
except by the Holy Spirit.

//This little deletion of a tiny little word subtly denies the deity of Christ .//

This statement just isn't true. This word change does NOT
deny the diety of Christ. People who want to deny the diety of
Christ can do so (and historically did) right from the KJV.

I will start a poll about this.

 

You're say so is not sufficient. Doc Cassidy if he is still around may be able to help with this but I doubt that even he would suggest that citations of early church fathers who might have already been making their citations from a translation are nearly as authoritative as actual mss.

Yes it is. Others here have demonstrated that at times it is more faithful to the TR than the KJV.

Right. It is a reliable translation just like the KJV. However if I get the gist of what you are trying to say, you can't just assume your conclusion then draw authority from it.

The TR is reliable. It is not perfect in every technical detail. Your protests noted, it simply has readings that are without good support. Further, Erasmus as fine a scholar as he was didn't receive divine inspiration... nor did any of the revisers of his text.

The problem with your use and interpretation of that statement is that the TR and KJV have a known, proven beginning. They have not stood forever. They were not in existence when Isaiah 40:8 was inspired... in fact, they came about 2500 years later.

So if a specific text or even text form was the object of that declaration then it could not have been either of the things you assign technical perfection to since they weren't in existence.

You can't be serious. The Mormons still use, twist, and misinterpret the KJV. The SDA's started out with it. The JW's started out with it. Even David Koresh used the KJV. In fact, many if not most of the established US Christian cults either started using it or else use it now.

That is called "honesty". When there is a discrepancy or variant then the reader should know about it. Both the KJV translators and the creator/editors of the TR agreed. The KJV originally contained marginal notes with alternate translations and variants.

Only to the very, very, very, very weak minded or poorly educated Bible student. Very few people I know have difficulty understanding the concept that you don't have to say the same thing with the same words in order for it to be authoritative.

If one state's law says "the speed limit shall be 55 miles per hour" and another says "the state speed limit is established as 55 miles per hour according to the state legislature"... I don't think many people would stumble over the notion that a) the laws are consistent and b) it is the law.

Ummm. Nope.

That is ludicrous. So what you are saying is if I find a place where the NKJV better affirms the deity of Christ than the KJV then you will accept that the KJV fits the agenda of the antichrist and doesn't hold water? Or are you a double minded man?

OK... I just can't wait to see if you actually have the courage to take up this challenge.

Titus 2:13
NKJV- looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ

KJV- 13Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

2 Peter 1:1-
NKJV- Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

KJV- Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

Did you notice the tiny little difference? The KJV "subtly denies" the deity of Christ by making out that God and "our Saviour Jesus Christ" are two distinct and separate entities while the NKJV could not possibly be clearer that they are one in the same.

Are you a double minded man or are you now willing to admit that just as the KJV may be stronger technically at one point or another than various other versions, the MV's and in particular the NKJV are decidedly better in these two verses?

 

Amen, Brother Scott J -- Preach it! :thumbs:

 

William, whoever is telling you that the NKJV is not based on the TR, is telling you a lie. You should confront them.

 

Wrong! 40% of 2,000+ words in the NKJV is not TR.

Quote:

You quoted:

They used and twisted the KJV - yes! But the KJV did not twist God's Word itself. Look at MVs -- modern versions twisted God's Words.

That is true! You quoted:

Why did the KJV and the NKJV disagree each other reflecting to the TR where they were derived?

You quoted:

The question: What is the difference between the LORD and the Lord?

The KJV is correct over the NKJV because the NKJV shows this verse referring to two persons. Do you know what "and" means in the Greek? Sorry, the NKJV is wrong.

No better than the KJV!