NKJV - 'splain somethin' to me

[Terry_Herrington]

Originally posted by Terry_Herrington:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jim Ward:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Sorry, the nKJV is the inerrant
preserved Written Word of God.

You can claim it, but can you prove it? </font>[/QUOTE]You cannot prove your assumption either.

</font>[/QUOTE]Sorry Ed, what I said was not meant as a response to your posting. I agree that the NKJV is a fantastic translation and, on doubt, better suited for today's Christian that the KJV is. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I was responding to Mr. Ward's post.

 

[tinytim]

I love the NKVJ!!!

 

[jshurley04]

IF it were not for the fact that so many have made this a secondary sepraration issue, I would just allow them to dwindle and become more irrelevant to our post-modern society than they already are. But when they attack me and my fellow ministers because of their blind ignorance, that is simply too much.

The fact remains that not a single solid answer has been forth coming from their camp to address this question, only more attacks. The fact is, very few of them have even seen a real AV1611 let alone even hold one in their hands. If they did, they could not read it any how. They defend a translation that no-longer exists and do so blindly and in ignorance while waving a retranslation assumeing it to be the real thing.

We do not know what manuscripits were used because we do not hold them in our hand. The same with the NKJV, we don't know because we don't hold them in our hand and were not part of the translation committee. We accept both by the word of those who did the work and by faith, the same way we accept that what we read is really the Word of God, By Faith.

 

[Trotter]

jshurley04,

Amen, amen, amen.

 

[Phillip]

Ed, I'm not sure what you are actually getting at. Maybe a little slow down here in the Southeast.

I have a NKJV and I do enjoy it, but it rates third on my list of new Bibles. ESV first, New Holman Second, and NKJV, NASB, NIV. etc.

I did not list the KJV because I still love its beautiful, but archaic language, especially for Psalms and prayers, but for study ESV is my favorite and when compared to the Hebrew and Greek, maintains good faithfulness.

The NKJV has a few very minor issues in the Epistles in regards to "tenses"; or so I have been told by certain professors. I cannot confirm or deny this because I do not know the books or chapters; however, it is my understanding they are very minor and all other translations, especially including the KJV have their issues too. After all, They were God breathed to the author, but they are translated by men. I honestly feel that God provided the complete inspiration, but he also allowed the writer, in many cases, to maintain his own style of writing. This does NOT have a negative effect on my belief of total inspiration of the originals.

 

[robycop3]

Jim Ward:Let's see, we have mv "defenders' being exposed for the myth lovers that they are... this should mean that their knight in no armour (Dr. Bob) should be about to lock this thread as he done several times before when his fellow myth worshippers were being exposed.

Actually, he locks the threads when they get off-subject as this one is doing. Any reader here can see he often comments that someone may open up a new thread about some subject matter in a now-locked thread that he/she feels needs more discussion.

Now, please name some of the supposed myths that we anti-KJVonlyismists follow.

Another question, and maybe this should be in a different thread, why is it that mv "defenders" can not use their own standards to prove their claims about the perversions they love being the inspired and preserved word of God? Why do they all tuck tail unless forced out?

For example?
There's nothing for us to prove. If a BV follows its sources, it's valid. If you have a prob with the sources, that's another story.


Oh yeah, because they are following a man made fairy tale that has no basis in truth at all.

Please give us a name or a title for the man-made fairy tales you see us following. We've named YOURS KJVO, and PROVEN it's a myth. Can YOU do the same for US?

What's the matter mv "defenders"? Does the truth hurt you that bad?

Yes, it DOES, when we see a fellow Christian and Baptist so engrossed in an outright fantasy such as KJVO.

Why not just get right then so that you no longer have this problem?

Get WHAT right?

Oh yeah, that's tight, you don't want an authority other then your own selves.

That would be the KJVO, who tries to LIMIT GOD.


Shame. Such a shame.

Yes, KJVOism is.


And the lies... oh the lies that spew forth from you as lies that have come straight out of the very pits of hell.

Please spell out what you perceive as lies here.

I know you hypocrites and liars hate me. It's more then obvious. Doesn't matter, I still love ya and pray for ya.

Evidently you have your message boards confused. There are presently no hypocrites or liars here, and I don't know of anyone here hating you. That may be true on the JW boards we sometimes post in, but not here on a BAPTIST board. No one here HATES you that i know of, but we DO find you comical at times.


I just think it's comical how the mv "defenders" tend to cry against the truth about them being exposed while they engage in name calling. Usually it's done while they complain about "name calling" coming from the Bible beleivers.

We too are bible believers. But you KJVOs have no ammo for your gun, so you're reduced to using it as a club.

Oh well, what can you expect from Bible and bibles doubters who have their own selves as their sole authority?

That would be the KJVOs, who seek to tell God how He may or may not provide His word.


It's the mv "defenders" who rest on their own selves who are the self righteous ones here and who seek to bind others to their fables, and are all too blind to see the obvious.

Oh well.

Where are OUR fables? Who is self-righteous? Those who BELIEVE GOD and use all He provides for us, or those who scorn some of His things as the KJVOs do? And please point out our fables to us.


I'd ask ya all again to actually provide facts for your claims, but your track record of .000% tells us that youo are all unable to provide anything other then selfish opinion.

We've documented the origins of the current KJVO myth from Wilkinson to the current purveyors of bunk such as Riplinger or Ruckman. We've documented the history of the Bible in English & pointed out that no two English BVs are alike. We've asked the KJVOs to respond to this & they have always taken one of three actions; bailed out, tried to change the subject, or launched into ad-hominem mode. All these actions are KJVOese for, "I am clueless, but I'll keep my myth anyway". And YOU'RE no different, Jim! You have NO DEFENSE for the KJVO myth, but you pretend to advocate it anyway. I don't think you really believe it, but that you simply like to argue under the guise of "discussion".

The evidence is quite clear that it's the KJVOs who've pulled all the "Caseys At The Bat" here.


I'll keep praying for ya though.

And we, for you. I pray your ministry leads many to Christ.

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

Now, please name some of the supposed myths that we anti-KJVonlyismists follow.

OK,how about:"all Bibles are the word of God,no matter the textual basis"

What are you going to do about the Arian heresey in the nasb,that is just like the JW's nwt?????


What are you going to do with the so called "bibles" that knock the Lord Jesus Christ out of His incarnation in 1 Timothy 3:16??? Defending them tooth and nail,even though 1 John 4:3 warns us that ANYspirit that denies that fact is not of God?????!!!!!


And just exactly WHO'S on the throne in such "bibles" as the niv or say the nlt in Revelation 4:2?????


Now "splain" those away hot-shot...

 

[robycop3]

A_A:OK,how about:"all Bibles are the word of God,no matter the textual basis"

I, nor no one else here, says that. This is just another KJVO LIE to state we say that.

What are you going to do about the Arian heresey in the nasb,that is just like the JW's nwt?????

First, the NWT is a JW makeover of the RV, replacing correct translations with JW doctrine where Franz & friends decided. The unrevised portions are a correct translation. Many of its verses match those in the KJV.

Now, please explain what your "Arian heresey"(sic)is. Do you know who the REAL Aryans are? The answer would've grossed out Hitler!


What are you going to do with the so called "bibles" that knock the Lord Jesus Christ out of His incarnation in 1 Timothy 3:16??? Defending them tooth and nail,even though 1 John 4:3 warns us that ANYspirit that denies that fact is not of God?????!!!!!

Only an idiot, or someone who's never read any other verse of Scripture wouldn't know that the "He" mentioned in many MV renderings of 1 Tim. 3:16 is GOD. All one need do to see who "He" is, is to read V. 13. No rocket science required!


And just exactly WHO'S on the throne in such "bibles" as the niv or say the nlt in Revelation 4:2?????

What a goofy question! Even the KJV says, "And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.". At least the newer versions capitalize "One". But unlike you KJVO spin docs, I ANSWER questions. The answer to your above question is, GOD, who is the antecedent of "one" in Rev. 4:2, same as He is for "He" in 1 Tim.3:16.


Now "splain" those away hot-shot...

That's exactly what I've done, cold-shot. And I'll explain your Arian thing when you tell me what you mean. Unlike the KJVOs, I and the others who don't subscribe to a man-made myth that's devoid of evidence for its veracity, aren't afraid nor ashamed to answer questions about our beliefs.

Meanwhile, care to answer a few queries yourself? You might start by answering by whose authority you proclaim KJVO and provide proof for that authority.

 

[Phillip]

Good job Robycop3, you always do such a good job there is not much to add. I am also interested in the Arian (sic) belief in the NASB. Why ONLY the NASB?

I read 1 Timothy 3:16 before I saw your answer in my Holman. There was no doubt in MY mind who it was referring to. Duuuuuuuh, only a real idiot couldn't understand that (I'm not calling anybody an idiot, only someone who couldn't understand wh0 (1 Timothy 3:16) is referring too. Iliterate people excluded from the above statement. If I read it to them, they would know too!

 

[HankD]

OK,how about:"all Bibles are the word of God, no matter the textual basis"

So said the AV 1611 KJV translators, putting their stamp of approval on the LXX :

it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek Prince (Greek for descent and language) even of Ptolemy Philadelph King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek. This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal.

As well as the Latin Vulgate

There were also within a few hundred years after Christ, translations many into the Latin tongue: for this tongue also was very fit to convey the Law and the Gospel by, because in those times very many Countries of the West, yea of the South, East and North, spake or understood Latin, being made Provinces to the Romans. But now the Latin Translations were too many to be all good, for they were infinite (Latini Interpretes nullo modo numerari possunt, saith S. Augustine). Again they were not out of the Hebrew fountain (we speak of the Latin Translations of the Old Testament) but out of the Greek stream, therefore the Greek being not altogether clear, the Latin derived from it must needs be muddy.This moved S. Jerome a most learned father, and the best linguist without controversy, of his age, or of any that went before him, to undertake the translating of the Old Testament, out of the very fountains themselves, which he performed with that evidence of great learning, judgment, industry, and faithfulness, that he hath forever bound the Church unto him, in a debt of special remembrance and thankfulness.

Note how they Praise Saint Jerome to heaven itself.

Also they said the following concerning these :

Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.

After praising the LXX and Saints Augustine and Jerome of the Church of Rome for the Vulgate who could even say that they considered the LXX and the Vulgate among the “meanest”?

In fact (apart from allegience to the Pope), the KJV translators seemed quite enamoured and attached to all things Romish including the Apocrypha

What are you going to do about the Arian heresey in the nasb,that is just like the JW's nwt?????

The NWT has John 1:1 as “the word was a god” while the NASB has “the Word was God”.

What are you going to do with the so called "bibles" that knock the Lord Jesus Christ out of His incarnation in 1 Timothy 3:16??? Defending them tooth and nail, even though 1 John 4:3 warns us that ANY spirit that denies that fact is not of God?????!!!!!

The NASB has “He who was revealed in the flesh” using upper case for “He”.

And just exactly WHO'S on the throne in such "bibles" as the niv or say the nlt in Revelation 4:2?????

The NASB has “and One sitting on the throne” again “One” being capitalized.

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

A_A:OK,how about:"all Bibles are the word of God,no matter the textual basis"

I, nor no one else here, says that. This is just another KJVO LIE to state we say that.

I suggest you do a search of this board..I think you will find different...

First, the NWT is a JW makeover of the RV, replacing correct translations with JW doctrine where Franz & friends decided. The unrevised portions are a correct translation. Many of its verses match those in the KJV

Then "splain" why they both have the same rendering??? For some reason,Matt 7:20 comes to mind...

Many of its verses match those in the KJV.

That much of it is the word of God then..

Now, please explain what your "Arian heresey"(sic)is. Do you know who the REAL Aryans are? The answer would've grossed out Hitler!

Yes I do know what Aryans are...I said Arian.....Here is the correct meaning of that word:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=+arian&x=4&y=16


Boo Ya!!!

Only an idiot, or someone who's never read any other verse of Scripture wouldn't know that the "He" mentioned in many MV renderings of 1 Tim. 3:16 is GOD. All one need do to see who "He" is, is to read V. 13. No rocket science required!

A lot of "he's" apeared in a body....Thre Holy Bible(KJB)says God!!! And so does Bibles from the same MSS. Again,Matt 7:20 seems to keep poping up...

What a goofy question! Even the KJV says, "And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.". At least the newer versions capitalize "One".

Revelation 4:2 niv:At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone[!?!?!?!?] sitting on it.





Not just any "someone" sits on the throne...Only ONE sits on the throne,the Lord God almighty!!!

And I'll explain your Arian thing when you tell me what you mean. Unlike the KJVOs, I and the others who don't subscribe to a man-made myth that's devoid of evidence for its veracity, aren't afraid nor ashamed to answer questions about our beliefs.

Let er rip man..Let's hear it...

Meanwhile, care to answer a few queries yourself? You might start by answering by whose authority you proclaim KJVO and provide proof for that authority.

I did........Do a search..

 

[TC]

Originally posted by A.A.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, the NWT is a JW makeover of the RV, replacing correct translations with JW doctrine where Franz & friends decided. The unrevised portions are a correct translation. Many of its verses match those in the KJV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then "splain" why they both have the same rendering??? For some reason,Matt 7:20 comes to mind...

They both do not have the same renderings. Examples:

John 1:1
NWT - In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

RSV - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

KJV - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:12
NWT - However, as many as did receive him, to them he gave authority to become God’s children, because they were exercising faith in his name;

RSV - But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God;

KJV - But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

John 1:18
NWT - No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.

RSV - No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known

KJV - No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

 

[robycop3]

First, A_A, as to your"Arian" stuff, there's no such critter 'cept in someone's fevered imagination.

As to your"all Bibles" thing, please paste an existing post which says that all Bibles are valid.

As for the NWT, I 'splained it once. If it went over your head, I suggest ya stack some bricks on your head to make yerself taller. I said, the NWT appears to be a makeover of the RV, with passages changed to conform to JW doctrine. However, some passages are not changed, and many of them match those of the KJV or other valid Bibles. Bottom line.

A_A:A lot of "he's" apeared in a body....Thre Holy Bible(KJB)says God!!! And so does Bibles from the same MSS. Again,Matt 7:20 seems to keep poping up...

A desperate attempt by a KJVO seeking any credibility for his myth. A silly complaint about semantics, nothing more than hot air. You're REALLY getting hard-up now!


Revelation 4:2 niv:At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone[!?!?!?!?] sitting on it.

Not just any "someone" sits on the throne...Only ONE sits on the throne,the Lord God almighty!!!

Now, I'm not gonna call YOU stupid, but this HAS to rank high in the Absurdity Hall Of fame!!!!

God IS Someone, and One! YOU are one, and someone! I am one, and someone! This is so stupid that I won't dignify it with a further reply.

No, you haven't told us by whose authority you proclaim the KJVO myth-you made an excuse, which was quickly refuted. Just admit it-you have NO authority except from some man or men to proclaim this myth. You have NO Scriptural authority. Your myth is totally man-made. It's a loser.

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

First, A_A, as to your"Arian" stuff, there's no such critter 'cept in someone's fevered imagination.

Yes there is!!! Get your head out of the sand and do a study into it;you will see that the NASb lines up with the Arian doctrine of the JW's NWT in John 1:18...Observe:

John 1:18 NASb.No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father,He has explained Him.

John 1:18 NWT. No man has ever seen God at any time;the only-begotten god who is oin the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him.


There it is in black & white...A un-begotten God explaining a beggoten god...blatant Arianism.

Getting folks to see that is like trying to push a chain...

As for the NWT, I 'splained it once. If it went over your head, I suggest ya stack some bricks on your head to make yerself taller. I said, the NWT appears to be a makeover of the RV, with passages changed to conform to JW doctrine. However, some passages are not changed, and many of them match those of the KJV or other valid Bibles. Bottom line

No you didn't 'splain' nothing....You just skirted the issue of Arianism.

A_A:A lot of "he's" apeared in a body....Thre Holy Bible(KJB)says God!!! And so does Bibles from the same MSS. Again,Matt 7:20 seems to keep poping up...

A desperate attempt by a KJVO seeking any credibility for his myth. A silly complaint about semantics, nothing more than hot air. You're REALLY getting hard-up now!

Translation:"I'm clueless,so I will just brush it off..."

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
Yes there is!!! Get your head out of the sand and do a study into it;you will see that the NASb lines up with the Arian doctrine of the JW's NWT in John 1:18...Observe:

John 1:18 NASb.No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father,He has explained Him.

John 1:18 NWT. No man has ever seen God at any time;the only-begotten god who is oin the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him.

There it is in black & white...A un-begotten God explaining a beggoten god...blatant Arianism.

Getting folks to see that is like trying to push a chain...

Let us examine more closely and we will see that the KJV is just as guilty of Arianism as the NASB (which is none at all.)

Some simple questions:

1. In the KJV, what Person does the term "Son" refer to in John 1:18?

2. In the NASB, what Person does the term "God" refer to in John 1:18?

3. Is it true that the answer to #1 and #2 are the same?

4. Was Jesus begotten? Why or why not?

5. John 3:16 is the clearest passage that states that Jesus was begotten. Do you agree with that?

6. Does the term "Son" refer to the same person as "God" in the two translations of the NASB and KJV?

If you have have answered "yes" to #6, then there are NO differences in the two as far as the statement that Jesus Christ was begotten. Both say that Christ was, and any other argument is in the realm of semantics. Either Jesus was begotten or he wasn't - it's not a matter of an Arian doctrine. I would hope that all of us on the board believe that Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, was begotten by God the father to come and save the sins of the world.

As for the NWT, I 'splained it once. If it went over your head, I suggest ya stack some bricks on your head to make yerself taller. I said, the NWT appears to be a makeover of the RV, with passages changed to conform to JW doctrine. However, some passages are not changed, and many of them match those of the KJV or other valid Bibles. Bottom line

No you didn't 'splain' nothing....You just skirted the issue of Arianism.

A_A:A lot of "he's" apeared in a body....Thre Holy Bible(KJB)says God!!! And so does Bibles from the same MSS. Again,Matt 7:20 seems to keep poping up...

A desperate attempt by a KJVO seeking any credibility for his myth. A silly complaint about semantics, nothing more than hot air. You're REALLY getting hard-up now!

Translation:"I'm clueless,so I will just brush it off..." [/QB][/QUOTE]

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:

Get your head out of the sand and do a study into it;you will see that the NASb lines up with the Arian doctrine of the JW's NWT in John 1:18...Observe:

John 1:18 NASb.No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father,He has explained Him.

John 1:18 NWT. No man has ever seen God at any time;the only-begotten god who is oin the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him.


There it is in black & white...A un-begotten God explaining a beggoten god...blatant Arianism.

Remember that the original Greek manuscripts were continuous text uncials with no spacing and no punctuation. A properly punctuated English translation would be:

John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the Only Begotten, God, who is in the bosom of the Father,He has explained Him.

There it is in black and white -- a perfectly orthodox verse which clearly calls Jesus "the Only Begotten" as well as "God," asserting His divine Sonship as well as His divinity.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

Yes there is!!! Get your head out of the sand and do a study into it;you will see that the NASb lines up with the Arian doctrine of the JW's NWT in John 1:18...Observe:

John 1:18 NASb.No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father,He has explained Him.

John 1:18 NWT. No man has ever seen God at any time;the only-begotten god who is oin the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him.


There it is in black & white...A un-begotten God explaining a beggoten god...blatant Arianism.

Getting folks to see that is like trying to push a chain...

</font>[/QUOTE]Uh, maybe I'm missing something, but Is NOT the Son of God, also God? If he is not, we have a real doctrinal problem in believing in his sacrifice for us!

 

[robycop3]

A_A:Yes there is!!! Get your head out of the sand and do a study into it;you will see that the NASb lines up with the Arian doctrine of the JW's NWT in John 1:18...Observe:

John 1:18 NASb.No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father,He has explained Him.

John 1:18 NWT. No man has ever seen God at any time;the only-begotten god who is oin the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him.


There it is in black & white...A un-begotten God explaining a beggoten god...blatant Arianism.

Getting folks to see that is like trying to push a chain...

Jesus is God. Jesus was begotten; He said so Himself several times. Therefore Jesus is the only begotten God. Just because He didn't go into great detail when He called Himself begotten doesn't mean it isn't so; instead of simply believing what Jesus said, some men make an issue out of it.

No you didn't 'splain' nothing....You just skirted the issue of Arianism.

There's nothing to skirt; Jesus said more than once that He was begotten. Either you believe Him or you don't.

Jesus was begotten twice. One was literal, through Mary. The other was symbolic; He was the first to rise from the dead in His full power & glory, and His Father called it being "begotten" in Psalm 2:7, Acts 13:33, & in Hebrews 1:5. These are the words of GOD, not the words of robycop or any other man. Therefore this Arian thing is just another man-made myth, now being used to attempt to justify another myth, KJVO. Garbage in, garbage out.