Will the NKJV become the Next Version of the KJV?

--------------------------------------------------
That is pretty much my experience. A second cousin who was an IFB pastor sent us a newsletter blasting Good News for Modern Man back in the '70s; other than that, KJVO was totally beyond my experience.
--------------------------------------------------


Praise God! This only shows there are still others that know the problems and are warning others of them. Good for him, and may God richly bless him.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

The KJV is a unique version, as is the NKJV, NIV, Geneva Bible, etc. That's the chief prob with the mainline KJVOs; they think the KJV is the ONLY valid version.

I myself will continue to use the KJV along with other versions long as I live in the present state, & I've taught many a younger person the value and beauty of the KJV, while encouraging them to not confine their Bible study to just any one version, and to always ask the HOLY SPIRIT'S guidance in choice of BVs.

I beieve the KJV will continue to be used until "the end". True, it won't have as large a readership as it now does, but it won't shrink overnight. The NKJV is taking its place BESIDE(not replacing the KJV in the English readers' choices of BVs. The trend now is for the use of more than one version, and I'm not saying this because it's MY choice. Just ask around.

Also notice the increasing sales of replica AV 1611s and Genevas. Yes, we're becoming an increasingly multi-version society as God wants us to learn more and more about His word.

 

Michelle:Praise God! This only shows there are still others that know the problems and are warning others of them. Good for him, and may God richly bless him.

Actually, the problem is from certain people trying to limit their fellow Christian to just one version, and seeking to thus LIMIT GOD by declaring all but one version of His word bogus.

 

Not at all, the problem is people who seek to limit God and His power by saying that He does not have the power to preserve His Word perfectly and without error. People who claim that because they went to some fancy school or that because they are so spiritual they have the gift of divine knowledge and interpretation. People who "professing themselves to be wise they became fools".

 

The only thing I have to say on this is that the KJV IS the only version for the English speaking people. All other versions are [attack against God's Word snipped]

[ October 18, 2004, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]

 

KJVBibleThumper said "Not at all, the problem is people who seek to limit God and His power by saying that He does not have the power to preserve His Word perfectly and without error."

Nobody here believes that. The ones who are limiting God are the ones that say he can/did only do it in one translation, instead of several.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Nobody here believes that. The ones who are limiting God are the ones that say he can/did only do it in one translation, instead of several.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


How can you honestly and sincerely say, or believe that the modern versions are without error at the same time saying the KJB is without error, when it is obvious that the modern versions have OMITTED what the scriptures in the KJB include as based upon the underlying texts? Is it error to omitt? Is it error to change meanings of words contrary to the context and the rest of scriptural truth? Indeed it is, and therefore it is obvious that both cannot be innerrant and infallible - in other words without error. Many believe that because the mv's are their own separate translation, based upon other preserved manuscripts, that this JUSTIFIES them. This couldn't be further from the truth, as those manuscripts contradict what the churches have ALWAYS BELIEVED, and have given testimony or witness to them. This attempt at justification stems from erroneous assumptions that oldest means best. So even though you claim you believe they are all inerrant and infallible, does not make it true, as the evidence and truth in what you believe shows otherwise. You are in denial.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

michelle said "How can you honestly and sincerely say, or believe that the modern versions are without error at the same time saying the KJB is without error"

Because the Holy Spirit will lead people into all truth. One can arrive at the correct interpretation even without a textually perfect translation, just as one can arrive at a faulty interpretation despite having a textually perfect translation.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Because the Holy Spirit will lead people into all truth. One can arrive at the correct interpretation even without a textually perfect translation, just as one can arrive at a faulty interpretation despite having a textually perfect translation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So what has the Lord revealed to you about those verses that are omitted in the modern versions? Does he lead you to understand they are HIS TRUTH? Or not? If so, then HOW then, KNOWING they are the scriptures, and the words of God, can you condone it being omitted in the versions? How? When God has clearly and plainly warned not to do such a thing. And can you not understand the problems this causes? Or are you turning a blind eye? Where does God say we are to condone such things? We are to abstain from all appearances of evil, and omitting from the words of the Lord are one of the most EVIL things that can be done, as this was what Satan did and Eve did, in the beginning. I do not know about you, but the Lord does not lead me to put up with error, but reject it, and warn others of it.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

michelle said "So what has the Lord revealed to you about those verses that are omitted in the modern versions?"

That they were likely added to the traditional versions, and that simply knowing the issues involved and believing the scriptures and trusting God and having faith in his promises anyway despite not fully knowing the authenticity of a few disputed phrases is what is important. Adding is just as erroneous as deleting, perhaps even more so.

 

Seems to me there is divergence with their own ranks. Which one translation is the very words of God? I would like an answer from one of the KJVO's. Is this a case of addition, subtraction or confusion.

 

--------------------------------------------------
That they were likely added to the traditional versions, and that simply knowing the issues involved and believing the scriptures and trusting God and having faith in his promises anyway despite not fully knowing the authenticity of a few disputed phrases is what is important. Adding is just as erroneous as deleting, perhaps even more so.
--------------------------------------------------


Then by your own admission, and to be obediant to the Lord, you should reject the KJB and warn others about it. At least I am not found to be a hypocrite in my belief.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Bruce

From the brilliant Ed Edwards:
Simply compare Ruth 3:15 to the following table.
Ruth 3:15 (KJV1769):
... and she went into the city.
Ruth 3:15 (KJV1873):
... and he went into the city.
Ruth 3:15 (KJV1611);
... and he went into the citie.

9 out of 10 times it is a 1769 edition of the KJB.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seems to me there is divergence with their own ranks. Which one translation is the very words of God? I would like an answer from one of the KJVO's. Is this a case of addition, subtraction or confusion.
--------------------------------------------------


Will Kinney has an excellant explanation for this found at this link:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/unboundscriptures.html#pt5


Now please explain to me HOW can even compare to the information in the link that I provided above?


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Bruce

From the brilliant Ed Edwards:
Simply compare Ruth 3:15 to the following table.
Ruth 3:15 (KJV1769):
... and she went into the city.
Ruth 3:15 (KJV1873):
... and he went into the city.
Ruth 3:15 (KJV1611);
... and he went into the citie.

9 out of 10 times it is a 1769 edition of the KJB.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gb quoted:

Seems to me there is divergence with their own ranks. Which one translation is the very words of God? I would like an answer from one of the KJVO's. Is this a case of addition, subtraction or confusion.
--------------------------------------------------

michelle quoted:

Will Kinney has an excellant explanation for this found at this link:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/unboundscriptures.html#pt5


Now please explain to me HOW can even compare to the information in the link that I provided above?

--------------------------------------------------

Sorry, the link I was referring to was on another thread, so here is the link:


http://www.watch.pair.com/scriptures.html


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle;

Are you saying that God inspired the KJV and preserved His very words in it but could not get it right when it came to spelling and wording? Does not agree with what my Bible says about inspiration in 2 Peter 1:20,21.

2 Peter 1:20,21, "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."

So if you believe the KJV is the very words of God and He inspired the KJV how did He get it wrong and had to be corrected? In one place it is she and in another KJV it is he. Did God reinspire the KJV because He was wrong the first time to make a corection?

 

You trust Kinney's explanations? He disagrees with you about Luke 22:1 and "passover". How do you know you're interpreting that scriptures properly, instead of Kinney? Do you believe the Holy Spirit has guided you into "ALL TRUTH"? Do you believe you yourself are now perfectly inerrant in all matters of doctrine?

 

--------------------------------------------------
You trust Kinney's explanations? He disagrees with you about Luke 22:1 and "passover". How do you know you're interpreting that scriptures properly, instead of Kinney? Do you believe the Holy Spirit has guided you into "ALL TRUTH"? Do you believe you yourself are now perfectly inerrant in all matters of doctrine?
--------------------------------------------------


Yes I do, very much trust what Will says in this issue, because what he says and believes regarding this issue is the truth and not hypocrytical, or contradictory. The interpretation of Easter is something separate, but he does agree Easter is correct. I agree with him more than you because his belief in this issue comes from the scriptures and faith in them, and your belief in this does not.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

michelle said "your belief in this does not."

I love when people tell me what I believe and why I believe it.

Do you believe the Holy Spirit has guided you into "ALL TRUTH"? Do you believe you yourself are now perfectly inerrant in all matters of doctrine?

One day, michelle, you will see.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Do you believe the Holy Spirit has guided you into "ALL TRUTH"? Do you believe you yourself are now perfectly inerrant in all matters of doctrine?
--------------------------------------------------


My belief in this COMES FROM the scriptures by and through the Holy Spirit of truth. I never said I was perfectly inerrant in all matters, nor do I believe this.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle