KJV Was Not So Easy To Read Before 1900

Using the CT as your source please present one example
Where the NKJV chose it over the TR.

 

"Pot please be introduced to Kettle."
--------------------------------------------

Now, is a "kettle" the same as a "pot"? I can boil water in either, and have been known to brew tea in either. I have had a kettle of fish, but never a pot of fish! Language can be very confusing, indeed. I suppose context is the key, rather than a single word.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I'll ask the same question I have dozens of times before. Both the 1611KJV and the 1769KJV cannot be right in 1 John 5v12. Which one is right and which version is flawed?

 

This has already been discussed.

The problem in the first issue of the KJB in 1611, was a typographical error, that was corrected in the next printing.

That is all.

 

Not necessarily. Translators have different styles, especially translators separated by 470 years.

Where are these verses?

What omissions? Please list some of them.

I have a couple of copies of the NKJV. I've read the KJV for over 40 years. I've compared the NKJV to the KJV. I don't see these things you allege. Do you actually have a NKJV?

Not necessarily. It's possible that both translations are correct for the intended audience. The real question is: Which translation is correct for our era?

 

Ah yes, imperfect perfection where God was too weak to protect His word from a printer.

 

A typographical error is a misspelling or missing punctuation marks. In this instance we are talking about the addition of words in the 1769 edition to the text from 1611.

This is similar to Daniel 3:15
1611: a fiery furnace
1769: a burning fiery furnace

Or 2 Kings 11:10
1611: in the Temple.
1769: in the temple of the Lord.

 

Also, why did the KJV insert 'God forbid' in Romans 6v2 when those words are not in the TR?

 

I know the facts. Do you?

You are shifting from the NT Received Text to the OT Hebrew masoretic Text. I am talking about the New Testament and the textual basis is the same for the NKJV as it is for the KJV.

Just so, but they are translation differences not textual differences. Do you understand what I'm talking about when I say that?

Steve

 

I have asked you (and others) to please show me my error(s). You have not done so. Merely telling someone that they are wrong amounts to a hill of beans without providing any evidence to the contrary.

You and others can never convince me that the KJV is not the word of God. Nor can you convince me that KJV Onlyism is wrong. When we do the research we see where most of the modern versions came from. We see who Westcott-Hort were, what they believed and what texts they used which these many modern versions followed suit. We see that the 2 codexes, Vaticanus and Sinatticus were indeed corrupted by so many many alterations that one was hidden away and the other was thrown in a wastebasket. When we see the origin of the Alexandrian text as opposed to the Antiochian text. When we see that these modern versions all come from this generation, all are copyrighted and money makers. None of them completely agree with the others.

I do serve God with all my heart. Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior and by His blood I am saved. I do not tear the Scriptures apart, dissecting the passages and lying that there is no preserved text. God promised His word would endure forever. I believe Him and not you or anyone else.

I am very sorry that your God is not big enough to keep His promise. You all claim to be Baptists. To be believers and yet so many on here lie and say there is no infallible word of God. That only the originals were inspired. You guys give man too much credit when it comes to bible translation and versions. Where is the hand of God in all of this? Can you prove to me that God was not behind the scenes very much involved in making sure these 2 codexes were put out of circulation?

If you guys believe there is no 100% inspired, inerrant word of God, then why do you even read the Holy Bible? How do you even know what parts are inspired and what isn't? As a fellow Baptist and believer in Jesus Christ, I came on here today and got jumped on by such hostile people. You all should be ashamed!

 

:applause:Amen!

 

Hostile? You come on here and denigrate our Bibles, are confronted with FACTS rather than opinions and WE are hostile?

Yes, I do get perhaps a little hostile when LIES are told about the Bible.

I get more than a little upset when people believe lies and blindly repeat them, without taking the time to verify their sources. Especially when it is the same lies over and over and over again.

Stop worshiping your Bible translation and start worshiping the Lord. We'll all be able to get along fine then.

 

Amen and amen! :thumbs:

Colossians 4:6 Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.

 

This is where you err. Well, it's not the only place but it is the one I will take issue with.

I am sorry to inform you but, in truth, God is a lot bigger than you give Him credit of being. He is not limited by man's finite "wisdom, nor is He limited to only being capable of transmitting His perfect word only once in 1611. God has given His word to man throughout the centuries: first through the original authors, and now through the translations of those original works.

So where is God's perfect word? Yes, it is in the originals that no longer exist, but it is alsi in the copies handed down, and in the collections of these that have been put together, and the translations made from these. God is not limited to any one single solitary means, contrary to what you and your ilk spout. He has used the hands of men to further His word by means of copying, translating, and distributing it through the ages... before, during, AND after 1611.

One cannot point to a single translation and claim it to be perfect for one simple reason... it is a translation. If you have ever tried to learn a second language you would know that things do not come out exactly the same from one language to another. Even if you could line up exact word meanings you would still have a foreign mind on both sides of the communication. God knows this and He has allowed us to continue to translate His word even though today because of it.

Even if one could produce a perfect translation it would only remain perfect for a while due to the way languages change. these changes happen a lot more rapidly now than they used to because of the increase in the means of communication as well as the changes of society. What used to mean one thing now means several other things or something else entirely different. "Gay" and "queer" are but two examples of just how much some words have changed in meaning in a few short years, much less 400.

Now, as to your comments about hidden manuscripts. Ever heard of archeology? You know, digging up hidden things? This is how most manuscripts and fragments have been found. Sure, there were a lot of copies handed down, but with many hands comes the higher probability of man-made error or good intentioned editing (ever play the telephone game?). Archeology looks for that which is hidden because it gives archaeologists insight into what came before, allowing them to see things as they truly are and not how things have continued on until now.

I wholly believe in the inerrant, 100% inspired word of God. i have several copies of it even though many bear different lettings on the spines... ESV, NASB, KJV, ASV, NET, WEB, NKJV, and several others. No, I do not point my finger at just one as I am not God, nor am I about to try and limit God or tell Him which one it should be. All of them are translations, man's attempts at giving the English speaking world God's word in the very best manner they could. Even so all are not the perfect image of the original languages. Even if I learned to read, write, and speak Koine Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic I would still be unable to perfectly give the words in English as my mindset is foreign to that of the authors. But God is not limited by my, or any other man's, limitations.

Use the bible you have in your hand but do not attempt to tell me that God is hamstrung and unable to give His word in anything akin to the language(s) spoken today. God allowed His word to be translated for the sole purpose of letting man hear and know His word in their own languages. I speak modern English, not Jacobean English. I am also well educated and able to understand the words and prose of the KJV, but most today are not. Gos is big enough to take care of getting His word into a form that can be readily understood without being re-translated.

 

Please give an example or two from the Old Testament where the NKJV is actually different from the KJV because of the underlying Hebrew text. Thanks!

 

I second that.

 

Absolutely yes. I learned what James Price answered to another person.

 

I would LOVE to see some of the places where the NKJV translators departed from the Textus Receptus! Do you have any examples?

And yes, the NKJV is a revision. If it was the same thing, it wouldn't be a revision.

Same Greek word παῖς can be translated as "son" or "servant."(most of the time as servant in the KJV)

Same Greek word δεισιδαιμονία, can be translated either way.

Same Greek word σώζω, translation has to do with tense....people are being saved still today. We are not all saved at the same time.

Well, you had 3, but none of them examples of departing from the TR. do you or anyone have any examples?