Will the NKJV become the Next Version of the KJV?

[natters]

michelle said "I never said I was perfectly inerrant in all matters, nor do I believe this."

Ah, good.

So how does one recognize when they are wrong? Everyone always thinks they are right, nobody ever says "I'm wrong about this but I believe it anyway", so how do we recognize when we have made a mistake in our interpretations about something?

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

Originally posted by natters:
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.

I beg to differ,
Which is limiting God? To say that He perfectly preserved His Word without error in one Bible? Or to say that He was not able to and so His Word is today contained in many imperfect translations that need our "great wisdom" to, "properly translate and pull nuggets of His Word out of them"? That is reducing God to our level. And also, exalting ourselves to His level in claiming that we can tell what is Scripture and what is not! This is exactly the same type of attitude the religous leaders had that Jesus rebuked them for! It is because of this pompous attitude that todays christians have a lot of cute excuses for not doing what the Bible tells them to. Take witnessing for example, most able bodied christians today will not go out and witness and door-knock, but instead pompously state that they "are not called"! What rubbish!! Our churches today are filled with lukewarm pew warmers that do absolutely nothing! This is one of the reasons why our great country is steadily going down hill!! If you have a graveyard shift or are sick or are a missionary in a place where it would be taking your life in your hands to do it or something like that then its fine not to go. But if you have your saturdays free at least then why arent you out there for at least an hour door knocking or publicly witnessing?! Christians today are ashamed to wear a gospel shirt to work! They are ashamed to pray over their food in a resturaunt!
If the apostle Paul was here today I dont think ANY of us, and I am including myself here, could face him. I trace all this back to the point when christians relaxed their faith and standards and let worldliness creep in and when they abandoned the Bible for "new and improved modern versions"!
In Christ,
KJVBibleThumper

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

Originally posted by natters:
michelle said "I never said I was perfectly inerrant in all matters, nor do I believe this."

Ah, good.

So how does one recognize when they are wrong? Everyone always thinks they are right, nobody ever says "I'm wrong about this but I believe it anyway", so how do we recognize when we have made a mistake in our interpretations about something?

Exactly, you should stick with ONE version that you believe is the only Word of God and declare all other versions wrong! This raising ourselves to godhood by saying that we can interpret what is Scripture and what is not MUST STOP!! If we stopped adjusting the Bible to fit our beliefs instead of adjusting our beliefs to fit the Bible then things would straighten out in the churches! People might actually (gasp) go out and witness and DO something for Christ instead of sitting and warming a pew and thats all!

 

[Trotter]

Exactly, you should stick with ONE version that you believe is the only Word of God and declare all other versions wrong! This raising ourselves to godhood by saying that we can interpret what is Scripture and what is not MUST STOP!!

One problem, Thumper. You are raising yourself to the level of godhead when you take it upon yourself to declare what that one version should be.

Me, I choose not to worship the work of men's hands. The KJV is a fine translation, but that is all it is. If you and Michelle feel compelled to bow before it, that is between y'all and the Lord. We have tried to help you see the truth, but you both prefer to cover your eyes and sing "Row, row your boat" at the top of your lungs.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[russell55]

I beg to differ,
Which is limiting God? To say that He perfectly preserved His Word without error in one Bible?

To say that God perfectly preserved His Word without error in one Bible is not limiting God, if you have a statement from God saying that's the way he chose to do things.

But to say that that's the way he must have done it because that's the only way that seems right to me is limiting God. To say that it's impossible for many faithful translations to be the word of God is limiting God, unless God made a definite statement somewhere that that's not the way he did things.

Or to say that He was not able to

Except no one says he's not able to. They just say that it appears that he chose not to, but rather, he preferred to give us thousands of copies of copies of original writings, which have been translated many different times into our English, and into many different translations in other languages too.

and so His Word is today contained in many imperfect translations that need our "great wisdom" to, "properly translate and pull nuggets of His Word out of them"? That is reducing God to our level.

Is saying the Christ didn't heal everyone who was sick--not because he couldn't have, but because he chose not to--reducing God to our level? Or is it simply dealing with the facts we were given? Perhaps it is really just allowing God to chose to do miraculous works when it is his sovereign choice to do so, and also allowing him to chose to simply work providentially through fallible human beings when he chooses to work that way...

And also, exalting ourselves to His level in claiming that we can tell what is Scripture and what is not!

Oh, the irony!

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by michelle:


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

Wasn't it you who wrote that the KJV is the very words of God? If that is true then there should have never been a need for correction. God does not need to correct what he inspired. But the KJV has been corrected many times. It just goes to show it is not inspired by its very nature and by the understanding of inspiration.

Certainly scripture is 100 percent accurate in its wording and content. But the words have had to be corrected in the KJV. There is an obvious diference between what God inspires and what man does as a translation. God never needs correction but man may.

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

Originally posted by Trotter:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Exactly, you should stick with ONE version that you believe is the only Word of God and declare all other versions wrong! This raising ourselves to godhood by saying that we can interpret what is Scripture and what is not MUST STOP!!

One problem, Thumper. You are raising yourself to the level of godhead when you take it upon yourself to declare what that one version should be.

Me, I choose not to worship the work of men's hands. The KJV is a fine translation, but that is all it is. If you and Michelle feel compelled to bow before it, that is between y'all and the Lord. We have tried to help you see the truth, but you both prefer to cover your eyes and sing "Row, row your boat" at the top of your lungs.

In Christ,
Trotter </font>[/QUOTE]One problem Trotter,
I am not raising myself to godhood by believing that God preserved His Word for me to believe as it says in Psalm 12:6-7, YOU are the one worshipping the work of mens hands by placing yourself above God and believing that "you" can correctly say what it is you like and what you dont in the Bible and then find a version, or better yet make up your own translation to support your view. Both michelle and I have tried to bring you to your senses but you insist on "fiddling while Rome burns".
In Christ,
KJVBibleThumper

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

Originally posted by russell55:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I beg to differ,
Which is limiting God? To say that He perfectly preserved His Word without error in one Bible?

To say that God perfectly preserved His Word without error in one Bible is not limiting God, if you have a statement from God saying that's the way he chose to do things.

(Strangely enough I do, look in Psalm 12:6-7)

But to say that that's the way he must have done it because that's the only way that seems right to me is limiting God. To say that it's impossible for many faithful translations to be the word of God is limiting God, unless God made a definite statement somewhere that that's not the way he did things.

(I quite agree that the modern versions are faithful to the manuscripts they were translated from, the only problem is that they were translated from Roman Catholic manuscrips and are NOT the Word of God.)

Or to say that He was not able to

Except no one says he's not able to. They just say that it appears that he chose not to, but rather, he preferred to give us thousands of copies of copies of original writings, which have been translated many different times into our English, and into many different translations in other languages too.

(Yes they are saying that He was not able to, they are saying that He "needs" them to make it clear to the "uneducated layman" just what God has said. I dont have to rely on some puffed up scholar of today to tell me which bibles to use. I can go straight to the the Bible and see what God has to say to me directly.)

and so His Word is today contained in many imperfect translations that need our "great wisdom" to, "properly translate and pull nuggets of His Word out of them"? That is reducing God to our level.

Is saying the Christ didn't heal everyone who was sick--not because he couldn't have, but because he chose not to--reducing God to our level? Or is it simply dealing with the facts we were given? Perhaps it is really just allowing God to chose to do miraculous works when it is his sovereign choice to do so, and also allowing him to chose to simply work providentially through fallible human beings when he chooses to work that way...

(I see... God has provided you personally with the wisdom to accurately sort among over 100 bibles and find the truth. Thats quite a gift.)

And also, exalting ourselves to His level in claiming that we can tell what is Scripture and what is not!

Oh, the irony! </font>[/QUOTE]( Tell me about it, all the self-made "scholars" on here are choking me to death with their amazing gift to sort good from bad in the many bibles out)

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by michelle:


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

Wasn't it you who wrote that the KJV is the very words of God? If that is true then there should have never been a need for correction. God does not need to correct what he inspired. But the KJV has been corrected many times. It just goes to show it is not inspired by its very nature and by the understanding of inspiration.

Certainly scripture is 100 percent accurate in its wording and content. But the words have had to be corrected in the KJV. There is an obvious diference between what God inspires and what man does as a translation. God never needs correction but man may. </font>[/QUOTE]May I suggest a beginners course in the history of printing in the 1600s and the difficulties therein in getting it right the first time before any further discussion?

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
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

How can you you honestly say that the KJV has not used underlying manuscripts that have had added verses since the 4th century? And, was first published with the apocrypha. And I'm talking about fact, not belief of the translators. You still obviously haven't downloaded the 1611 Bible pages and reviewed them.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by natters:
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?

If I am not mistaken, Kinney has no training in Biblical study whatsoever. He makes his own interpretation and is one of the heavy KJVO fanatics.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by KJVBibleThumper:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by natters:
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.

I beg to differ,
Which is limiting God? To say that He perfectly preserved His Word without error in one Bible? Or to say that He was not able to and so His Word is today contained in many imperfect translations that need our "great wisdom" to, "properly translate and pull nuggets of His Word out of them"? That is reducing God to our level. And also, exalting ourselves to His level in claiming that we can tell what is Scripture and what is not! This is exactly the same type of attitude the religous leaders had that Jesus rebuked them for! It is because of this pompous attitude that todays christians have a lot of cute excuses for not doing what the Bible tells them to. Take witnessing for example, most able bodied christians today will not go out and witness and door-knock, but instead pompously state that they "are not called"! What rubbish!! Our churches today are filled with lukewarm pew warmers that do absolutely nothing! This is one of the reasons why our great country is steadily going down hill!! If you have a graveyard shift or are sick or are a missionary in a place where it would be taking your life in your hands to do it or something like that then its fine not to go. But if you have your saturdays free at least then why arent you out there for at least an hour door knocking or publicly witnessing?! Christians today are ashamed to wear a gospel shirt to work! They are ashamed to pray over their food in a resturaunt!
If the apostle Paul was here today I dont think ANY of us, and I am including myself here, could face him. I trace all this back to the point when christians relaxed their faith and standards and let worldliness creep in and when they abandoned the Bible for "new and improved modern versions"!
In Christ,
KJVBibleThumper </font>[/QUOTE]You are the one showing the pompous attitude. You are right; however, about people sitting in their pews. In all humbleness, I might add that the KJVO churches I have seen since I started looking for them after hearing about it on this bulletin board, it seems that they are so busy pushing their KJV Only issue that it tends to overshadow the gospel itself.

Every KJVO church I have seen keeps pretty much to themselves and don't grow. This may not be standard across the nation, but I predict that it is probably true.

See, another thread taking off in the KJVO direction with a simple question of what version you wouldn't recommend. The same old arguments, the same old circular reasoning. And, they still won't tell us what the Word of God was in 1590. They just remain silent on that issue. Because they know if they answer, then it would have to be the KJV that wasn't written yet. Otherwise, why would the KJV need to be written, if a perfect version in English was available before that?

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by KJVBibleThumper:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by michelle:


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

Wasn't it you who wrote that the KJV is the very words of God? If that is true then there should have never been a need for correction. God does not need to correct what he inspired. But the KJV has been corrected many times. It just goes to show it is not inspired by its very nature and by the understanding of inspiration.

Certainly scripture is 100 percent accurate in its wording and content. But the words have had to be corrected in the KJV. There is an obvious diference between what God inspires and what man does as a translation. God never needs correction but man may. </font>[/QUOTE]May I suggest a beginners course in the history of printing in the 1600s and the difficulties therein in getting it right the first time before any further discussion? </font>[/QUOTE]This is SOOOO true that a history lesson is needed. I would highly recommend a great book "The Journey from Texts to Translations"

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by KJVBibleThumper:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by michelle:


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

Wasn't it you who wrote that the KJV is the very words of God? If that is true then there should have never been a need for correction. God does not need to correct what he inspired. But the KJV has been corrected many times. It just goes to show it is not inspired by its very nature and by the understanding of inspiration.

Certainly scripture is 100 percent accurate in its wording and content. But the words have had to be corrected in the KJV. There is an obvious diference between what God inspires and what man does as a translation. God never needs correction but man may. </font>[/QUOTE]May I suggest a beginners course in the history of printing in the 1600s and the difficulties therein in getting it right the first time before any further discussion? </font>[/QUOTE]I am fully aware of some of the history of printing. But my point is that when someone says the KJV is inspired I would like to see the perfect document. The point is that there is not one and 1611 is only almost 400 years. That is not that long. I have personally seen some old editions of the KJV and some Bibles that are even older than the KJV. I have even picked some of them up.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Phillip, it is obvious to Bible believers that God has blessed the KJV beyond measure. [snip] It is the Bible God has put His stamp of approval on throughout the past 300+ years for the English-speaking people. To believe anything else is to be foolish.

[ October 18, 2004, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: Pastor_Bob ]

 

[Phillip]

Terry, no doubt the Lord has used the KJV for His mission; it is a good translation. But, it is more like 200+ years.

Your statement of the Word of God as being "perverted and sodomite influenced" is not correct and therefore you are in violation of the rules of the board.

The administrators of the board are obviously knowledgeable enough to know that the KJV theory is not scriptural, just an opinion on your part. But, don't twist this into saying I do not like the KJV. It is a great translation, but the language is quickly becoming archaic.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Let me repeat in case you did not understand, the NIV is a translation that has been influenced by a perverted sodomite. This is a fact. You can deny it, but it is still a fact!

 

[GeneMBridges]

And Terry, a great many of the translators of the KJV were paedobaptists who believed in baptismal regeneration as late as 1864! Not only that they believed in a difference between mortal and venial sins, as shown in their rendering of the Greek verb Parapwma as "faults" in some passages and "tresspasses" in others. And let's not forget dear Old James, who is on record as wanting to "harrow out" Baptists. The man's got the blood of our own forebears on his hands.

As for the NIV, as I recall the "sodomite" to whom you refer was a single lesbian who was a consultant and whose work was not included at all.


Hmmmm, slaves of Rome vs. the rejection of a lesbian...

Based on that, and using your logic, the KJV should be rejected.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Terry_Herrington:
Phillip, it is obvious to Bible believers that God has blessed the KJV beyond measure. [snip] It is the Bible God has put His stamp of approval on throughout the past 300+ years for the English-speaking people. To believe anything else is to be foolish.

Then why is there such oppressive racism in your part of the country? The way people talk there about people with different colors of skin was appalling to me when I lived there. Frankly I was shocked to hear such things from those who attended churches. And that is where KJV is most prominent. You explain that to me.

[ October 18, 2004, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: Pastor_Bob ]

 

[Dr. Bob]

"so spiritual", "becoming fools"? That is harsh. Would like to see you say such to the Lord Jesus (HE didn't use the KJV, remember).

We just ask you WHERE the Bible (version of your choice) is said to have God prserving His Word perfectly and without error in YOUR translation?

If you can't support it from Scripture, don't pass it off as a fundamental of the faith!