Would KJVO's even trust a new TR translation?

You need to have your eyes checked! I just checked my Parallel New Testament containing 8 English versions and every single one of them had several tittles on every page!

 

Sorry, but "tittle" is also an English word! It is the "dot" above the "i" and "j" in contemporary English. And it serves substantially the same function as it does in Hebrew.

 

Was "tittle" an English word in 1611, or did it become one through the use of the Bible? other examples; baptize, cheribims,etc i.e. Which came first the chicken or the egg?

 

Which came first the chicken or the egg?


The rooster did!

 

It was in use in English from as early as 800 AD coming from the Latin titulus.

Came into English in the 11th century from the French "baptiste."

From the French "Cherubins."

God made the chicken on the 5th day of creation and the chickens then laid eggs.

 

Pastor KevinR said:

The NKJV is my personal favorite MV. However, it isn't based upon the TR, but the Majority Text, which the TR itself is based upon.

Not so. Read the preface. The NKJV is based on the TR. That's why its textual notes point out where it differs from both Nestle-Aland and Majority.

 

Ransom, All of this time I assumed the NKJV NT was based upon the MT! It seems like I read it somewhere and developed a "false-memory"! I just re-read the preface, and sure enough the NT is based on the traditional text. Thanks for pointing that out! I'm kinda embarrassed from my assumption. Yikes! It just goes to show how one can assume his belief to be true without supporting facts.

 

The rooster is a chicken!

 

No. The Greek word is "keraia" meaning "a little horn." The Latin word means "superscription" and is the basis for our English word "Title."

Both are from the Latin, but it is highly probable they came into Latin from Greek and Hebrew respectively.

Yes, that was my point.

 

The KJV of 1611 or one of its many revisions? Which one?

 

Yep, I think I was the one who originally said that the NKJV used the TR for its NT Greek text.....! Thanks, Pastor KevinR for acknowledging this fact. Now, if you are 'TR/Received Text' only/preferred, would you accept the NKJV as a translation that you may consider to be 'acceptable'?? It seems that some #4 and #5 KJV-onlyists would not even think about a modernized English translation based on the TR/Received Text would even be reliable and trustworthy. The textual notes (especially in the NT) in the NKJV point out major differences in variations in the NT Greek text-types. It is a very good guide, and I have found that the NKJV is a reliable translation and a good modern update of the King James (whichever: 1611, 1769, 1873, etc...).

 

Hi,
I already use primarily the NKJV, although I mistakenly thought it's NT was based upon the M.T.It's the only MV I use in teaching/preaching. I use the others to compare and get a "sense of the Sciptures" (didn't the AV translators say this?) such MV's as:NASV;NIV;NLT;ESV...Sometimes I use the KJV, too (preaching/teaching).

 

Yes, a good balance, indeed, Pastor KevinR!

P.S.-- You didn't go to a seminary in Pennsylvania, did you???

 

No, where is PA? Isn't that some foreign country? Why do you ask? Are you inquiring about Central B.S? Isn't Dr Tim Jordan the Big Cheese? aka President?

 

No, where is PA? Isn't that some foreign country? Why do you ask? Are you inquiring about Central B.S? Isn't Dr Tim Jordan the Big Cheese? aka President? </font>[/QUOTE]I had gone to Calvary Baptist Seminary there a few years back and had a good friend of mine with the same first name and last initial as you.... didn't think it might have been you, though.