Language changing demands a new version?

Uh, no one actually changed the language per se, but they did clarify in a more understandable form of English that didn't detract from the original meaning by using confusing and somewhat delusive wording.

 

I think you are just playing the one who likes to pick up offenses by first manufactoring the offense then acting upon your own creation.

It also seems you are more likely to promote the very ignorance and illiteracy so you can feel the sense of being "higher-up" than those you minister to.

You ask my forgiveness for something you've accused me of being, that I am not?

I believe firmly in placing the cookies on the table for all to reach, not placing the best cookies on the higher shelves for only the "tall in the saddle" to comprehend on how to get up there to get some.

You act as if the very ones you judge as illiterate are incapable of being educated. may I say that you teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime, but you would rather give him a fish that only feeds him for a day?

To promote learning it is well established to confront the intellect with a challenge, not give the score sheet with the teachers edition to the student.raying:

 

Not exactly, they changed the contextual meanings of some passages by the use of their preference in the translating the NKJV.

It looks to me more like the spelling of the English words were more likened to the common verbage than to actually change the words into a more "current" verbage, which if one actually looks past their nose, they see many words NNE actually uses.

 

Uh, yes, the NKJV IS altering the understanding the verse. First the people fretted themselves to become enraged to then curse their king and God.

I love the wording of the KJB because in this very example, it is understood that first the people had an inner problem that brought on the raging which led to the cursing of their king.

Seems your [snip] version is lacking.:sleeping_2:

 

The elect become that way because they first believed and heard the preaching of the Gospel in their tongue what the Spirit gave them utterance.

The vernacular, in man's terminology, has nothing to do with the understanding, it is either the Spirit, or it is not.:type:

How is it I understand enough to know what the Spirit sayeth and can very easily give that understanding to most all who speak English unless the Spirit have given an ear of attendence: I cannot, neither could you.

You're demanding the letter, but omit the Spirit. That is certain death to the hearer.:tear:

 

Modern versions of words or speling?

I find no wording changed, only the spelling. "Modern versions" changed entire words and thereby alter the understanding. This has been proven countless times.

Your lame duck arguement against the KJB actually strengthens the stand for the KJB.:smilewinkgrin:

 

I suppose your "welsh" should consider a "draw" to be actaully a drawer. But that is your problem, not mine.

When I want to know what the new one is supposed to be like, I compare it to the fore-runner. When perfection is attained, why keep inventing new ways of making sealing wax?

 

I would agree except for two things: One, is that the words of the NKJV mislead and are not precise in context. Two, when I read the NKJV, I revert back to the KJB and I understand where the NKJV is misleading by learning what each differing word actually means by context, with NOTHING superimposed.

The context of the words fits rightly in the KJB, the words in the NKJV intermittently divert from the context and barely fit if they fit at all.