Will the Real KJV Please Stand Up!

RBrent: "No! NO!! NO!!! - most definitely not. The NKJV replaces the text of the KJV in hundreds of places with NASV type readings."

So? Can you prove'em wrong?

"The NKJV refuses to translate hades and instead transliterates it in many verses."

So? The KJV doesn't translate urim, thummin nor ephod, to name a few.And hades is separate from tartarus, sheol, or gehenna. The generic "hell" loses that distinction.

"The NKJV dumps ?thee?, ?thou?, ?ye?, etc., and replaces them with ?you? which certainly does not convey with the precision of the old KJV, the exact persons being addressed."

That's the way we talk in contemporary English, and I bet you do, too, as is evident from the English of your posts. The AV 1611, when it was written, used the most modern English and spellings of its day. I don't see anyone having any difficulty communicating without using the archaic pronouns and verb endings. That's what CONTEXT is for. Why should we NOT be able to read God's word in OUR language?[/i]

"As for the long list of differences between the KJV editions over the years, it seems self-evident that a typesetter, working from hand-written manuscripts, setting Gothic typeface, could make some errors and would even forget or overlook to put in some words here and there."

If God inspired the translators, could He not inspire the printers also?

"Since we don't have the original hand-written manuscript which the KJV translators delivered to the King's printers, we can only use the KJVs we have."

So you place your trust in the king's printers to have been 100% accurate?

We DO have many of the mss used by Erasmus and the revisers of the Textus Receptus as well as more than 5K later-found mss.

"If you folks want to use any 'new' version, with the thousands of excisions based on the Vaticanus & Sinaiticus manuscripts, please feel free to do so..."

I DO! And how can you PROVE that what you call "excisions" aren't merely the removal of "additions" in some mss placed there by some unknown scribe centuries ago?

"I believe the KJV in ANY edition except the NKJV is far superior to ANY 'new' version with its allegedly 'better renderings' which somehow, always end up being an attack on doctrine."

That's your right. However, we have PROVEN KJVO to be wrong, both by Scripture and secular history. There's not one word of Scripture in support of KJVO, and every English Bible version ever made is different from any other. These facts alone show KJVO to be a lie.

 

Matthew 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. (KJV 1769 for you Ed )

The tense of the verb "hungred" is present tense. Jesus is now hungry after fasting 40 days. The tense is really inconsequential to the truth of the passage. The key word, IMHO, is "afterward." Jesus was miraculously sustained by His Father throughout this time of testing. He did not hunger for physical food until afterwards.

There is no difference. The truth of the passage is very effectively communicated in the KJV. I asked my 10 year old daughter to explain this verse to me from her KJV; she had no problem giving a very accurate explanation.

You need to separate the KJV from the copyist. Humans make mistakes; God does not. The KJV did not preserve anything; God preserved His Word through the KJV and all other reliable translations of the Traditional Recieved Text.

Is there anywhere I can purchase these 393 year old strawberries? Is there a jar still around that contains 99.9% of the original jar?

 

1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said.......? Gen 3:1

 

Whoa. Never heard that on this forum before.


Mike, why did the KJV translators say "Yea, hath God said...." and produce the KJV instead of just accepting the word of God that already existed in 1605?

 

Interesting question Brian.

(1) I take the evidence of God's blessing on the KJV for almost 400 years as proof of its authenticity.
</font>[/QUOTE]That doesn't answer the question. I.e. it was being blessed while it still contained errors.

Keyword in your comments: "almost".

EXACTLY. I AGREE 100%.

Don't think that I didn't notice that you didn't actually answer any of my questions. If you'd like to give it another go....

We can trust Bibles today by considering how much *in agreement* they are. After 2000 years, and across thousands of manuscripts, and various translations in various languages, the points of questionable variants are relatively miniscule.

Ah, but we are not *authoritatively* asserting any
version(s) are trustworthy. We are just examining the evidence and deriving a conclusion from that - we are not asserting a doctrine. It is the KJV-only supporters that are making a *doctrinal* assertion, about a particular translation. By what authority do you assert that doctrine? I thought Baptists were supposed to get their doctrine from scripture. KJV-onlyism isn't taught in scripture - so by what authority should you proclaim it, and by what authority should we accept it?

 

Actually, Brother Roby, in prior cases right on this Forum
these questions have been answered.
Perchance these earlier KJ-HBOs were of a
kinder and gentler sort?

 

Common dency and attribution legal requirements
require a better reference than provided here.

Genesis 3:1a (TMB = Third Millennium Bible)

Now the serpent was more subtle
than any beast of the field whith the LORD GOd
had made. And he said unto the woman,
"Yea, hath God said, ...

Alright, that wasn't your reference,
different spelling for "subtle".
Don't you know that we Boreans check the scripture
you cite and your incorrect citation makes us
work harder? This seems like a TRICK OF THE DEVIL
to make uwe Boreans work harder, but I can't say that
here because it is too accusatory, but
the thought did cross my mind, i just
can't prove it.

Genefis III:1 (KJV1611):

Now the serpent was more
subtill then any beast of the
field, which the LORD God had made, and he said
vnto the woman, + Yea, had God said ...

sidenote + Heb. Yea, because

Genefis III:1 (KJV1611, second best reading):

Now the serpent was more
subtill then any beast of the
field, which the LORD God had made, and he siad
vnto the woman, + Yea, because God said ...

We note the sidenote does not make the serpent's
statement an accusing question with which
one may torment others but makes it
just a damning statement.
That is reading the REAL KING JAMES VERSION, 1611
Edition (KJV1611).
We also note the quoted scripture does NOT spell
"subtill" like the REAL KING JAMES VERSION.

Please, out of respect for your fellow posters,
cite the reference when quoting what looks like
scriptures. Please check with your legal adviser
about attribution laws. Thank you.

 

Thank you for your kind
consideration of we Bereans who check each
quote in our Blessed Holy Bibles
(BTW, i still have 16 Bibles
on my comuter desk including
three editions of the King James Version).

I read the attribution laws on the internet
to require the same level of source
documentation, especially when you use
an electronic Bible. But i do note most
electronic Bibles, while being KJV1769
do NOT properly document.

 

Ya know what I've been thinking??? Even if someone could "name" whatever it is everyone means by the 'by what authority' question, even that would be questioned! Huh? (Well, I know what I mean).

It is by God's Authority & no one else's that I believe the KJBible(& it's ancestors) to be the only true Word of God. So there!

 

Me, too. I also believe the same about the Tyndale, NIV, Geneva, NJKV, NASB, etc.

 

And the question still remains- Where did God say that? If its by God's authority then it should be in the Bible, right?

 

Maybe she's secretly Pentecostal, receiving prophetic messages.

 

/ed jumps on the bandwagon/

Exactly why i believe that the New King
James Version (nKJV) is the true Word of God.
God showed me that the New International
Version (NIV) is God's written Word He
has preserved for the 20th Century English
speakers of the World (a majority
of whom do NOT speak American).

 

I guess because of the same reason people said "yea" in 1881;and STILL haven't got it right..

Amaturish drivel!!

 

I guess because of the same reason people said "yea" in 1881;
</font>[/QUOTE]The same reason? Really? I agree.

Don't worry, you'll improve I'm sure.

 

Well said!!! That is what BOMC members call "KJBO."

No...It has preserved His word(little w,not to be confused with the Word in John 1.)in the KJB.

Congrats

 

Are there none in the KJVO camp who know the tense of the verb in Mt. 4:2? I am surprised at how none can contend for the TR and the KJV and not know Greek well enough to even use the TR to get the tense right.

 

Maybe you don't get it?

The English KJV is so good, you don't need
to know Hebrew or Greek.

Personally, i believe this is true
IF you include the sidenotes found
in the original KJV1611 edition
(the same footnotes, well almost the
same, are in my copy of the KJV1873.