Rock of Ages Study Bible

Maybe you should go back and check the thread of this discussion. You have contributed five (5) posts and non of them contain any facts. The only people that has contributed any facts on the other side of this issue is LOGOS1560 and Ed Sutton. If you go back and check I addressed LOGOS1560's facts. Your contributions have been criticisms and accusations. I do not plan to reply to anymore of your diatribes. Thus you may keep your opinions to yourself as far as I am concerned.

 

Are you saying that "fell down before him" is the same as "worshipped him?" I'm not convinced there is an equivalence of the two phrases. Falling down before a person does not necessarily constitute worship. Maybe the NKJV is more akin to the NIV, NASB and RSV than the KJV and than admitted by some.

 

Bayou I'm not going to debate your opinion. And, I'm not asking you to debate mine. Plus, I have not posted any diatribes. I've just posted some very brief obsevations. Now about your diatribes. That's a different story.

 

I cannot agree. The KJV has been proven time and time again to have its words to relate very accurately the things of God and without conjecture.

The why do so many refer back to the original autographs as the "ONLY" inspired word. This stance leaves us all in want of the word of God and definitely supposes we only have man's words about what the word of God "should" be.

As far as i know i have never seen anyone say or even hint that the KJV is a "new work of inspiration". We maintain and stand on the fact the KJV is the inspired word of God translated into Englsih and NOWHERE has it lost its inspiration.

You and others claim no translation is inspired by conjecture and leave man without an inspired Bible. That is truly a sad position to have and very pessimistic to say the least. Actually believing what you said is even more subjective than waht you cry out against as thosewho claim the KJV to be the only Bible.

If that were true then everyone who stands on the KJV would be Anglican and we are not.

I'm sorry and don't want to be condescending, but your suspicion is not exactly true and doesn't fit us all.

I have yet to see where King james is forcing me to accept the KJV. I picked it as the choice over other translations as I have found each one I have had the chance to read as wanting.

 

That's not your contention. Your contention is that it is impossible to improve upon the KJV translation, based on your belief that it is impossible to improve upon the KJV translation. That is the definition of circular reasoning. And if anyone demonstrates where the language of the KJV can be approved upon, you cite that as an attack upon the KJV.

 

Nope, ed, the KJV stands alone as far as translations go or there wouldn't be a "5 point" system set up to slander anyone who gets awarded the title of being KJVO.

The two are interconnected and every thread in here eventually winds up about the KJV, therefore in those two instances alone, the KJV stands, alone.:smilewinkgrin:

 

It is a variant of translation making textual choices based upon clarity and a concise rendering of the language to prevent error.

 

Mt staements are proven to be true while all you've done is add your conjecture, again.

I have yet to see where any improvement has been made that doesn't lie under the opinion of others which eventually turns against the KJV rendering. All the while making the reader subject to that opinion, and leaving out a definite part of the definition of a word, which DOES NOT provide a concise reading as found in the KJV.

Most objections to the rendering found in the KJV is due to a definition being incomplete and relying on words which have changed in meaning as if they are some sort of proof for validating new versions.:sleeping_2:

 

The Textus Receptus conveys the meaning better than the KJV. Why have you not abandoned the KJv in favor of the TR?

 

Harold, I hope you have more luck getting these guys to answer the issue about the believing the Bible is inspired in the "original autographs" and how that indicates there is no inspired Bible in captivity because the original autographs do not exist anywhere on this earth.

 

The matter of worship is in the verse and any attempt to take it away would diminish from the force of the verse. The context is talking about a King and a kingdom (Matt. 18:23). The application is that it is about God. To bow down is still not the same as worship. I'm still not sure what the Geneva Bible, Adam Clark, and Green have to do with the meaning of the verse. You can translate it any way you want to and the word translated is still "worship" in the Greek. All of these attempts to diminish the meaning given by the KJV and that the NKJV is better baffles me.

 

I've got a copy in front of me right now. It's the exact same same text verbatim used by the KJV translators.

 

Do you preach in Greek then? Or if you don't preach, does your pastor preach in Greek? Maybe we should get everyone to learn Greek since you have the "original autographs." Then we could all come to your place and read from it so we could read from the "original autographs." Of course you know I am just kidding.

 

Since I'm not a preacher, the answer is no. I read it in Greek and Hebrew, though.

 

Brother, if only they would stop long enough to consider that position. It will take the Lord.:godisgood:

 

Here it is in all three:

The NKJV leaves out a very important aspect of the next action which is found here:

I love the KJV! the action was an attempt to receive mercy and not only to reverence this master, but to play upon his compassions as well by the worship.

The KJV has it very clear and in full context, the NKJV is lacking, again.

If I fall down before my wife asking her forgiveness is one thing, but to begin to play upon her compassion by telling her just how beautiful she is gets me a whole lot further!:love2:

 

Neither the KJV nor contemporary versions are incorrect. The question is one of what the words in the native language mean. In contemporary context, "pipto proskuneo" doesn't mean to bow down and worship. It means to fall before someone in humility, as one would a monarch or master.

The KJV renders it "... fell down, and worshipped ..." because the word "worship" in 17th century English meant simply "to honor" or "to venerate". In contemporary English, however, it means to "to give reverence to a deity". My old Dutch and Spanish bibles render the phrase "... got down on his knees and began begging...".

It's a simple matter of the English language having evolved over the last 400 years. To use this verse as a pretext for single-translation-onlyism is a fallacy.