Perfect VS Accurate

Actually, no. it is someone trying to use the KJV as the be-all and end-all measuring stick. I always thought that God was to be the measure we use... but what do I know? I mean after all, I have not been "enlightened" to this "revelation" as some here have.

As long as inane comments like Askjo's comparison based on the number of word differences continue then the blasphemous man-made doctrine of KJV worship will continue as well.

 

What a bunch of nonsense. Paul said in Galatians 3:19, "Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come, to whom the promise was made." Now, who is Paul talking about? Who is the seed? Obviously in context he is talking about Christ. Christ is the ultimate fulfillment of that promise.

This is the reason why seed is the only proper way to translate those verses in Genesis. It can be used both pluraly and singularly, whereas descendants cannot.

 

You are of course welcome to your interpretation. But good men can argue it from both sides (and probably the middle also) yet it does not make them, nor the NKJV, heretical.

 

That isn't my interpretation, that is how Paul used the scripture. Paul said the seed is Christ.

 

They used the KJV over the Geneva because the crown had banned all translations save the King's own.

The KJV is 400 years old because it was translated 400 years ago. Its age has absolutely nothing to do with accuracy.

It would help if you checked the history behind things before you boast about them.

 

Different words from the KJV. Or do you think the KJV is the original?

um...they all say the exact same thing. Did you have a point, or did you just like this verse(as do I) and wanted to post it?

The KJV is almost 400 years old because it was translated almost 400 years ago. Did you fail Kindergarten? Trotter already answered the other statement that you made, so I don't need to do it. I repeated the 400 statement because...well.. that wouldn't be nice.

 

You're right, the Scripture doesn't have any contradictions. This doesn't mean that versions won't. I always find it comical when skeptics always seem to use the KJV to find their contradictions instead of reading the other versions to see such a contradiction doesn't exists. Like when the KJV calls a bat a bird, but a bat isn't a bird. The Bible has no contradiction. Even the KJV translators said they were not sure of some of the animals in Hebrew, so they made their best guess as to what it meant.

 

Woosh! :laugh:

 

While all of the translations of Jn 1:1 that you have given are all precise and in agreement, but all of them are inaccurate. Jesus was and is. The verb is in the imperfect tense. It is an incomplete action.

 

The things that makes a translation heretical is when men and women are not living for Jesus Christ because of their life. While they may have conservative theology they may also be living like a practical atheist.

 

If all of these translations are inaccurate, what then is your proposed accurate translation of the verse?

 

The KJB calls a bat a fowl. This is not an error whatsoever, there was no such classification as "mammal" until Linnaeus defined this classification in the 1700's. Until that time a bat was called a fowl, and a whale was called a fish.

 

Exactly what the Greek text teaches and not just a past tense action. Jesus is much more than that. He is past and present while continuing on in Jn 1:1. Anything less than that falls short of who Jesus is and was.

 

Wow, so oldest means best?

Surprised you don't use the Vulgate then. It's older.

 

So please post your accurate translation of the verse, or are you perhaps confusing translation with exposition?

Jonathan C. Borland

 

Good point. An excellent reason to update translations as the language grows and develops in order to maintain accuracy of translation.

 

An accurate translation can never occur without explanation.