New KJV

I guess I overlooked it, sorry! </font>[/QUOTE]No problem, askjo. No offense taken.

 

In the God And Riplinger book: "IN AWE OF THY WORD
she continually condemns the NKJV for selecting
the TR term for the text and documenting
the "NU-Text" (Nestle-Aland/United Bible
Societies text of the Greek New Testament)
in the footnotes.

By contrast, I call this being truthful.

For additional documentation of KJVO double standards
see the thread at:
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/1411.html

 

I happen to like the ESV. Also, it is freely availiable on the WWW (e-sword and others likely to follow) and will be for a very long time to come.

Back at the farm, the NKJV proved that many KJVO's who claimed that they are so because the KJV is based on the TR were lying. If that were so, they would accept other Bible translations that are also based on the TR. Yet, they do not because Bibles such as the NKJV do not read exactly like the old KJV.

 

TC,

Your statement again shows the fallacy of the thinking of the KJVOist, because even all the KJVersions do not read exactly the same. But to the KJVOist different is only different if it is a MV.

Bro Tony

 

Actually the ESV was very popular until the Holman bumped it down a few notches. The Holman is easier to read, the reason I like the ESV is that it may not be quite as easy to read, but is a more literal translation than the Holman (which tends to swing more towards the NIV--thought-for-thought translation method.)

This is not the subject of this thread; however, I was simply comparing the ESV to the NKJV. I personally like the NKJV and use it with several other Bibles for study (which include KJV Oxford, NKJV, ESV, NASB and NIV) probably in that order. When I am not trying to struggle with the Greek. I have several Greeks including the TR (or at least what was accepted as the TR in the late 1800's). The NKJV is relatively faithful to it.

But then again, I don't think it is a surprise to non-KJVO members that the KJV is not strictly TR either, it was a mixture which included the English versions; Geneva, Bishops and Latin Vulgate. There is simply too many scriptures in the 1611 version that have identical wording-- for the translators not to have relied heavily on the Geneva and the Bishops versions.

 

I live in Houston, Texas, the forth largest city in the U.S. My wife works as a good size bookstore here in Houston and has for the past six years. During this time not one person has ever even ask about the ESV, and the store has never sold a single copy of this translation. I don't say this to foster an argument, just to present some facts concerning this translation.

Now, as far as the NKJV is concerned, I will not use it and will stick ONLY with the KJV. I don't care who translates what Bible, if it is not the KJV it is not for me. Of course, as I have posted many times before, this is because I believe that the KJV is uniquely blessed by God and will continue to be. This is my preference, others are free to use whatever version they desire.

 

That's perfectly acceptible, and I (and I think most folks on this board) applaud that, encourage that, and will defend you from anyone trying to take awy the KJV from you. This position is not a KJVO position, and is fine for Christians to adhere to.

But this is completely contrary to what you've said before. You believe that the only Bible the rest of us should use is the KJV, and you also believe that only the KJV has scriptural authority over all God's people and all God's church. This is a KJVO position. So, either you no longer believe this (and you are therefore no longer KJVO), you're backpeddling, or you're being deceptive.

 

Since I hold to the position that the KJV is the Bible for the English-speaking people, I also believe that all English-speaking people should use it exclusively. These two positions go together like cake and frosting; however, I have never said that a Christian who chooses to believe otherwise is not a Christian, or that I would treat them as an unbeliever because of this difference. I have however said that this is a decision I have made, and that I don't care what they do personally.

As far as the KJV having authority over the church, in believing that the KJV is the Bible, this would naturally lead to the conclusion that the KJV does have this authority. I would not attend a church that does not use the KJV exclusively; however, I do not advocate declaring war on a church that does not agree with this stance.

 

Terry, every bookstore in Tulsa was sold out of the ESV within one day of it hitting the shelves. They could not keep the shelves stocked. But that is not the issue here.

Do you believe that the KJV is actually inspired? or is it just the best translation that you know of in English?

Again, not to debate, just to find out your true belief on the subject. This will tell us how you view the NKJV.

 

Yes, I will lend witness to the fact that I don't think you've ever questioned a person's salvation if they're not KJVO. That is my personal observation.

However, the stance that the KJV is the only translation for English speaking people is not a scripturally supportable doctrine. So, if it's a matter of personal preference, that's fine, but if it's a matter of all-church doctrine, then it is a false doctrine, and must be condemned by all Christians.

Again, the stance that the KJV is the sole scriptural authority for English speaking people is not a scripturally supportable doctrine. So, if it's a matter of personal preference, that's fine, but if it's a matter of all-church doctrine, then it is a false doctrine, and must be condemned by all Christians.

However, if a church chooses by liberty to use only a specific translation, and if a person chooses to attend only a church that uses the same translation as they, this is perfectly acceptible. So long as one does not proport that scripture requires all churches to do this, then this is perfectly acceptible.

 

I don't know if the KJV translation was inspired or not, but I believe that God has put His blessing on this version in a way which He has not done with any other English translation.

 

Again, the stance that the KJV is the sole scriptural authority for English speaking people is not a scripturally supportable doctrine. So, if it's a matter of personal preference, that's fine, but if it's a matter of all-church doctrine, then it is a false doctrine, and must be condemned by all Christians. </font>[/QUOTE]Well I guess we will just disagree on this, among other things.

You can say and do anything you want to, it will not have any bearing on what I and the church I attend do.

 

He has put His blessing on His word since its initial writing. Some of it since about 1300 to 1500 B.C.

 

What makes you think there will be another generation?

 

Terry, you're sometimes a study in contradiction. After giving us a reason, albeit not a very good one, for being KJVO, you say: This is my preference, others are free to use whatever version they desire.

You then say: I would not attend a church that does not use the KJV exclusively; however, I do not advocate declaring war on a church that does not agree with this stance.

AFTER you said: Since I hold to the position that the KJV is the Bible for the English-speaking people, I also believe that all English-speaking people should use it exclusively.

Either you use the KJV from personal preference or you incorrectly believe the KJV is the ONLY valid English BV. It cannot be both ways.

The NKJV is a perfectly valid version; it was even made with KJVOs in mind, but written in TODAY'S English. The AV is in the English of ITS day; what's wrong with having God's word in OUR language?

And I see no one's bothered to respond to what I asked..."What's the big crime if a BV doesn't follow the TR exactly, but sometimes follows other texts?" Nowhere have I ever seen where GOD chose the TR, one or many of its umpteen revisions, for His exclusive Greek text.

I use the NKJV quite a bit in my DTD work, but I remain ready to use any valid version(s) my audience may request if I have it.

 

James Newman:What makes you think there will be another generation?

What makes YOU think there WON'T be?

Jesus said, "Watch, be ready." But at the time, even HE didn't know the exact time of His own return. So I heed His word and stay ready, but otherwise living as if I'll live a normal lifespan, planning for retirement, helping my kids to careers, etc.

 

So you are saying the Greek, Hebrew and Aramiac texts of the OT and NT are not good enough for you?

 

What makes you think there will be another generation? [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]You may very well be right. I think we all agree that it appears that the return of the Lord is just around the corner.

Of course, Dr. Bob's statement regarding 10,000 years is also possible, we do not know God's timetable. Paul expected the return in Jesus during his lifetime. ...didn't happen.

It is my understanding that Africa and some other countries are having revivals where thousands are being saved. If this is true, this may be the end---but, just for America. We just don't know. But, I do agree with you, from what we see here, the end is near.

If it isn't; however, our language will change to the point that new translations WILL be required. 17th century grammar will eventually become unreadable, even to English speakers. When (not if) that happens, then here we go again.