-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Questions KJVOs Can't Answer.
- Thread starter skanwmatos
- Start date
skanwmatos
New Member
Please post the verses from the NKJV which denies the doctrine of God, the Lord, and the blood.
Askjo,
Either provide proof or drop your claim about the NKJV and doctrines. Please stop slandering the NKJV. How do you expect to prove anything with evidence?
You made the claim now support it. It's not up to use to deny anything. I don't recall any of us denying the doctrines found in the NKJV and KJV.It's up to your to prove your claim. If you can not prove it then it is a false claim, therefore you are following(note that I said "following") a lie.
I used to be a KJVO for 7 years. Now show me in context where the NKJV changes doctrines. I would like to have examples in FULL context. It was factless claims like this that made me get out of KJVOism.
Like most KJVO authors you rely on hear say and word counts. If forced to apply your same standards to the KJV then you find yourself in a mess simply because without double standards your logic crumbles under the facts. Why is the KJV not held to the same standards that you apply to the NKJV? If changing words matter then you might should drop that 1762/1769 KJV that your holding and pick up a AV1611 since it was the first KJV. You never know, Blayney and crew might have been modernist who changed a doctrine in the KJV! <--just applying a little KJVOism! LOL
David J.
Either provide proof or drop your claim about the NKJV and doctrines. Please stop slandering the NKJV. How do you expect to prove anything with evidence?
You made the claim now support it. It's not up to use to deny anything. I don't recall any of us denying the doctrines found in the NKJV and KJV.It's up to your to prove your claim. If you can not prove it then it is a false claim, therefore you are following(note that I said "following") a lie.
I used to be a KJVO for 7 years. Now show me in context where the NKJV changes doctrines. I would like to have examples in FULL context. It was factless claims like this that made me get out of KJVOism.
Like most KJVO authors you rely on hear say and word counts. If forced to apply your same standards to the KJV then you find yourself in a mess simply because without double standards your logic crumbles under the facts. Why is the KJV not held to the same standards that you apply to the NKJV? If changing words matter then you might should drop that 1762/1769 KJV that your holding and pick up a AV1611 since it was the first KJV. You never know, Blayney and crew might have been modernist who changed a doctrine in the KJV! <--just applying a little KJVOism! LOL
David J.
Trotter
<img src =/6412.jpg>
Askjo,
As far as word counts go, a WHOLE lot of the differences comes from the MVs dropping redundant words. True, one of those words is "blood" in a few places. It is replaced by "it", which refers back to the first occurance of the word in the pasage.
The same goes for "God". How does the pronoun "He" dillute any doctrine, since it refers back to the first occurance of "God" in the passage? Especially since the MVs (most, anyway) at least capitolize all pronouns that refer to any part of the Trinity (unlike the KJV, which does not honor the Lord in this way).
Most of the word count differences come from dropping "and", which is replaced by commas for the most part.
The rest of the differences comes from different word choices in the translation process. In the case of the NKJV, these changes are in using modern terminology or replacing out-dated words and phrases.
The whole question is this: What is the big deal? There are no doctrinal changes. Michelle claims that the divinity of Christ is weakened, but the capitolized pronouns (absent from the KJV) actually strengthen His divinity. And anyone with a lick of sense can understand what "it" is referring to when the entire passage is speaking of "the blood".
So, what is your damage?
In Christ,
Trotter
As far as word counts go, a WHOLE lot of the differences comes from the MVs dropping redundant words. True, one of those words is "blood" in a few places. It is replaced by "it", which refers back to the first occurance of the word in the pasage.
The same goes for "God". How does the pronoun "He" dillute any doctrine, since it refers back to the first occurance of "God" in the passage? Especially since the MVs (most, anyway) at least capitolize all pronouns that refer to any part of the Trinity (unlike the KJV, which does not honor the Lord in this way).
Most of the word count differences come from dropping "and", which is replaced by commas for the most part.
The rest of the differences comes from different word choices in the translation process. In the case of the NKJV, these changes are in using modern terminology or replacing out-dated words and phrases.
The whole question is this: What is the big deal? There are no doctrinal changes. Michelle claims that the divinity of Christ is weakened, but the capitolized pronouns (absent from the KJV) actually strengthen His divinity. And anyone with a lick of sense can understand what "it" is referring to when the entire passage is speaking of "the blood".
So, what is your damage?
In Christ,
Trotter
Skanwmatos:But the words "the image of" are in italics in the KJV indicating the translators added the words for clarification. The same is not true in the verses I posted. One of the complaints KJVOs often make against the NKJV is that the NKJV adds words without putting them in italics. I have demonstrated that the KJV does exactly the same thing.
But of course. The fact is, they were ALL ADDED with no basis for doing so. The KJVOs just cannot accept that fact.
But of course. The fact is, they were ALL ADDED with no basis for doing so. The KJVOs just cannot accept that fact.
ASKJO:Take away "God" -- you said no doctrine? Remove "Lord" -- you said no doctrine? Take away "Blood" -- you said no doctrine of Salvation? Change or add any doctrines -- You denied these doctrines, do you?
You sound like that "Daniel Wallace denied that doctrine is affected in modern versions."
How silly. In each of these cases, the CONTEXT clearly shows who the antecedent of each respective pronoun is, same as in everyday speech today.
You sound like that "Daniel Wallace denied that doctrine is affected in modern versions."
How silly. In each of these cases, the CONTEXT clearly shows who the antecedent of each respective pronoun is, same as in everyday speech today.
You have hit the nail on the head Trotter. I get so sick of these lists of changes (word lists).
When I first saw one of their lists, I was quite shocked too (many years ago). I actually thought they had something--until I started looking them up one at a time.
Someone dared me to go through the list and do at least ten of the words on one of their lists. I did and indicated how almost every instance was nothing more than a "term" or "word" change. Nothing was weakened, no doctrine effected.
Nobody would respond to my post when I actually responded by giving an answer for each one.
It is quite amusing to watch them get awfully quiet when faced with either questions or facts.
I have asked questions over and over and typically the answer is "its already been answered--but, they won't tell you where", or they ask another question or just ignore it.
I don't think KJVo's like to deal with facts. Its an emotion "heart" thing. . . But, so is the LDS proof for the book of Mormon. Hold the book, pray and ask God if it is real and feel a warm feeling in your insides. Nothing more than the power of suggestion at work.
Askjo,
I was a hard core KJVO. A little Ruckmanism mixed with mainstream KJVOism. I used to be very involved in spreading KJVOism. Refer to my website about why I came out of KJVOism.
Now since I have answered your question please answer my questions and provide what I asked for in earlier post. Not to be mean, but I know that you can not provide me with these answers. When I was a KJVO I used to repeat the stuff coming from the KJVO Camp. When asked to prove my position and claims with facts I simply could not. If you can not prove the NKJV changed doctrines then please stop slandering the Word of God as found in the NKJV.
It does not benefit you or anybody else to blindly follow the teachings of man. Please look beyond the writtings coming from the KJVO Camp and research the evidence for yourself. This is what I did and I found out the most KJVO materails have very little outside of lies and distortions.
As a Christian I believe in standing for what is right. I also do not agree with slander and lies. I would suggest that if you are following Ruckman, Gipp, Cloud, or Riplinger that you think about their methods and ask "is this what a Christain should do?".
Your brother in Christ,
Davud J. Horn
I was a hard core KJVO. A little Ruckmanism mixed with mainstream KJVOism. I used to be very involved in spreading KJVOism. Refer to my website about why I came out of KJVOism.
Now since I have answered your question please answer my questions and provide what I asked for in earlier post. Not to be mean, but I know that you can not provide me with these answers. When I was a KJVO I used to repeat the stuff coming from the KJVO Camp. When asked to prove my position and claims with facts I simply could not. If you can not prove the NKJV changed doctrines then please stop slandering the Word of God as found in the NKJV.
It does not benefit you or anybody else to blindly follow the teachings of man. Please look beyond the writtings coming from the KJVO Camp and research the evidence for yourself. This is what I did and I found out the most KJVO materails have very little outside of lies and distortions.
As a Christian I believe in standing for what is right. I also do not agree with slander and lies. I would suggest that if you are following Ruckman, Gipp, Cloud, or Riplinger that you think about their methods and ask "is this what a Christain should do?".
Your brother in Christ,
Davud J. Horn
You tell them. Our pastor was reading out of the KJV1769 today and I was following along in the NKJV. He read several different scriptures in different books, all but one in the NT. At first I thought he was reading from the NKJV, only to listen more carefully and he was simply changing some of the words like "shalt", "Thou", etc. He was simply changing them to the more modern words, and guess what, it was almost word for word the NKJV. I think it is funny the KJVo's can't even accept their own Textus Receptus--and primarily because of the foot-notes. Big deal, why don't they care about the KJV column references? I doubt they are all 100% correct.
The NKJV IS the Word of God, just as much as the KJV. . .
The whole KJVO myth is based upon guesswork, innuendo, fishing stories and fable. It has NO supporting evidence, empirical or implied. It has NO Scriptural support.
When we pin them down with simple little questions such as Skan and you have done here, they flop like a fish outta water.
Another classic example is their foolish argument that the NIV denies the Deity of Christ in Luke 2:43 by calling Joseph Jesus' father while totally ignoring the KJV's doing the same thing FIVE VERSES LATER! All of Will's excuses, nor anyone else's excuses cannot alter one peep of the verses as they appear in the KJV.(BTW, Luke 2:48 reads similarly in every valid English BV I can think of.)
Just face it, KJVOs-your myth took Chapter 7 long ago. Without any evidence, you're beating a dead horse.
When we pin them down with simple little questions such as Skan and you have done here, they flop like a fish outta water.
Another classic example is their foolish argument that the NIV denies the Deity of Christ in Luke 2:43 by calling Joseph Jesus' father while totally ignoring the KJV's doing the same thing FIVE VERSES LATER! All of Will's excuses, nor anyone else's excuses cannot alter one peep of the verses as they appear in the KJV.(BTW, Luke 2:48 reads similarly in every valid English BV I can think of.)
Just face it, KJVOs-your myth took Chapter 7 long ago. Without any evidence, you're beating a dead horse.
Absolutely!
Just the basic questions I would love to see a REAL answer.
1. What was the ONLY REAL BIBLE before 1611 all the way back to the first century?
2. Why do they call the KJV1769 or other version the AV1611, especially considering the AV1611 has printer's errors and the hard-core KJVo's say that it is word-to-word perfect? What was the word-for-word perfect text while the 1611 was being modified? How about the "Thou Shalt Commit Adultry"? Obviously, an error in translation or printing.
3. How do they explain added KJV words in italics if it is word-for-word accurate?
4. Why (besides footnotes) is the NKJV not accurate and specifically what doctrines are changed and where are they?
5. Same as above with NASB?
6. Why would we in English be so blessed to have the one and only? How do other languages get a 100% accurate Bible? Michelle said that all languages had their own perfect version, how? This was after she hit and ran when she couldn't convert us. She accused me of something and went away, I never did figure out what I did so bad besides disagree with her KJVo position. Or say there are OTHER translations that contain the Word of God.
7. What are we going to do when the language does become so archaic it is difficult to read, even worse than today? This may take many years, but as English evolves, it WILL happen.
8. Some claim it has been used a "long" time. How about the Vulgate, used for over 1000 years?
9. Where is it Biblical the KJV or English is "the preserved and only preserved" Word of God?
10. How can they prove the Alexndrian texts are not accurate? Anything is only a theory or belief. There may be evidence as Skan shows, but it is only a theory and I would imagine Skan would agree with that too. Even though in his mind the belief is the TR is best, which is fine. I do NOT have a problem with the belief the TR may be the closest to the originals. Since we don't have the originals, it has to be based on theoretical evidence.
These and other questions still go unanswered. Michelle did TRY to answer these in individual threads, but the answers always go back to the Psalms quote and the Holy Spirit. Not saying the Holy Spirit is capable of talking to a person, but He will NOT go against the Word of God.
Anti-Alexandrian
Member
And yet you continue to harumph that it's your "D-U-T-Y" to combat this "damnable doctrine" and expose them for the blah,blah blah;And yet the Bible believer still holds his ground,never yeilding to the Alexandrian "sect's" ranting and raving...People knew a snake then and still do today..Give it up!
You or any of your "sect's" bretheren have pinnned anybody down..Those questions were compiled by idiots to trip up the "babes" to the Bible version argument...All of those amaturish questions have been answered in times past...Give it a rest!!
In Luke 2:43 we have Luke(the author and narrator of the verse) saying "Joseph." In Luke 2:48 we have Mary calling Joseph His father;and in the next verse,Jesus QUICKLY corrects His mother as to who His father is....
The "sect's" so called "bibles"(whichever of the 200+ conflicting authorities) have Luke(the one who penned the Scripture) calling Joseph His Father!!!
Just exactly makes a Bible version valid?!
I gave scripture(KJB) supporting the FACT that God will bear witness to the things of God...But,we have some who will stoop to lying and say God will bear witness to the "sect's 200+ conflicting bibles." He hasn't yet and never will!! Your position is bankrupt!!
Any doctrines are affected in any modern versions including the NKJV. I read many naturalistic scholars saying "Doctrines are not affected in modern versions." I realized that they are fools because I researched and found some information that I saw something wrong with these scholars. Any doctrines in any modern versions including the New KJV are very obvious to prove.
The KJV is the Word of God. Any modern versions contain the Word of God.