KJV only??

I was sensing some sarcasm in his post.

 

I wouldn't know the statistics on what percentage of Baptist churches use which version, but not all Baptist churches use the KJB.

That said, being a superior or inferior "translation" is not the issue, the source text is. The KJB is based on the Received Text, while the other modern versions (since 1881) are based on the Critical Text. These two texts are very different, the CT has nearly 3000 less words in the original Greek than the RT. The CT omits many verses found in the RT.

But the issue is not translation, the NASB is known to be an excellent translation, but it is a translation of the CT and therefore is not acceptable to those who believe the RT the correct text.

 

The NKJV is also based on the same body of texts as the KJV, so that would also make it acceptable?

 

For that matter so is the Geneva Bible.

 

As already pointed out, the NKJV is based on the same original language texts as the KJV. In addition, there are also other translations such as the Modern KJV by Jay Greek, the 1994 21st Century King James Version, the 1998 Third Millennium Bible, the King James 2000 Version, and the Literal Translation by Jay Green based on those same texts. There are at least two English translations of the New Testament in print today that are based on the Majority Text. There is also the 1933 English translation of the Syriac Peshitta Version by George Lamsa, and KJV-only authors put the Syriac Peshitta Version on their good or pure line of Bibles.
Therefore, the claim that suggests that all the other modern versions are based on the Critical Text is inaccurate.

 

I found that things like that happen on the BB. A thread is started about favourite hymns, and it ends up as a slanging match about eschatology - that sort of thing! Don't worry about it.

 

What can I say- we're a normal dysfunctional family here on the BB.:smilewinkgrin:

 

This could easily be rewritten as:

These two texts are very different, the RT has nearly 3000 more words in the original Greek than the CT. The RT has many more verses than those found in the CT.

 

3,000 additional words that may/may not have been included in the orinal manuscripts!

 

It's not the 3,000 additional (or less...depending upon your side) words that bother me as much as it is the words used and their meanings.
For instance:

KJV...Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ

NIV...Gal 2:16 know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ.

ESV Gal 2:16 yet we know that a person is not justified [fn] by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ

NKJV Gal 2:16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ,

Those little words, like of and in, are very important and can change a doctrine in a heartbeat. This one for instance.....are we justified by Christ's faith that the Father would do what He said when Christ died on the cross or are we justified by our own faith in what Christ did on the cross?

 

Or- are we justified by Christ's faithfulness?

From the NET Bible:

Or “faith in Jesus Christ.” A decision is difficult here. Though traditionally translated “faith in Jesus Christ,” an increasing number of NT scholars are arguing that πίστις Χριστοῦ (pisti" Cristou) and similar phrases in Paul (here and in v. 20; Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 3:22; Eph 3:12; Phil 3:9) involve a subjective genitive and mean “Christ’s faith” or “Christ’s faithfulness” (cf., e.g., G. Howard, “The ‘Faith of Christ’,” ExpTim 85 [1974]: 212-15; R. B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ [SBLDS]; Morna D. Hooker, “Πίστις Χριστοῦ,” NTS 35 [1989]: 321-42). Noteworthy among the arguments for the subjective genitive view is that when πίστις takes a personal genitive it is almost never an objective genitive (cf. Matt 9:2, 22, 29; Mark 2:5; 5:34; 10:52; Luke 5:20; 7:50; 8:25, 48; 17:19; 18:42; 22:32; Rom 1:8; 12; 3:3; 4:5, 12, 16; 1 Cor 2:5; 15:14, 17; 2 Cor 10:15; Phil 2:17; Col 1:4; 2:5; 1 Thess 1:8; 3:2, 5, 10; 2 Thess 1:3; Titus 1:1; Phlm 6; 1 Pet 1:9, 21; 2 Pet 1:5). On the other hand, the objective genitive view has its adherents: A. Hultgren, “The Pistis Christou Formulations in Paul,” NovT 22 (1980): 248-63; J. D. G. Dunn, “Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” SBL Seminar Papers, 1991, 730-44. Most commentaries on Romans and Galatians usually side with the objective view.sn On the phrase translated the faithfulness of Christ, ExSyn 116, which notes that the grammar is not decisive, nevertheless suggests that “the faith/faithfulness of Christ is not a denial of faith in Christ as a Pauline concept (for the idea is expressed in many of the same contexts, only with the verb πιστεύω rather than the noun), but implies that the object of faith is a worthy object, for he himself is faithful.” Though Paul elsewhere teaches justification by faith, this presupposes that the object of our faith is reliable and worthy of such faith.

 

This seems like is it "Faith in jesus/or OF jesus?"

We know that faith by itself does not save us, its object of it, Christ, so would think that the "faithfulness" of Christ makes more sense here!

 

Yes it could. But what cannot be said is that they are the same. Either the RT added to God's word, or the CT diminished God's word.

Take your pick.

 

For me personally, no. I have issues with the NKJV, compare Hebrews 2:16 for example.

But for many, the NKJV would be acceptable.

 

The differences are merely translational choices. Not textual ones. Depending on the interpreter's view of the verb 'to take' in the context it could read either way.

 

The RT added to God's Word.

 

Welcome to the BaptistBoard. My pastor used the NIV 1984 and the pew Bibles are the same. The members carry a variety of translations - some the KJV or NKJV, some the NIV, some the NLT, one young man really likes the HCSB, and since I am simultaneously using the ASV 1901 and NASB, I will carry one or the other.

 

And both of these are opinions, as neither has any real substantial proof.

 

No, if God indeed preserved his word, then one statement is false, the other is truth.