Baby Cottontail

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2016
834
273
41
Northwest Ohio
✟19,571.00
Faith
United Methodist
Marital Status
Single
I think kids are able to comprehend the concept of a prophet doing miracles in elementary school, but the first one - having a virgin mother - requires understanding the human life cycle to realize Jesus is not just a man with supernatural powers, but God in human form.
If kids are taught that Jesus is God from an early age, they can learn about the virgin birth too, without knowing what that means. By the time they start questioning what the word virgin means, they will be close to learning what that means in school. Kids accept at the level they understand. They won’t have an adult understanding.

They can grasp that God loves them, that they have sinned, and that Jesus died and rose again. They can understand on some level that they are forgiven. Again, I am not suggesting they have an adult understanding, only that they have some level.
 
Upvote 0

Taodeching

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2020
1,540
1,110
51
Southwest
✟60,418.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I don’t know anything about the Lighthouse Bible. Is it the name of a translation, or is it an edition of some other translation?

It's a translation, I found it one day by accident looking for something else. I found this link again Lighthouse Bible it tells about the translation

If you go to the American Bible Society website it looks like you can get a hardcover Good News Translation Bible. Hopefully it is good quality. I saw on the Christianbook website that one person who has been looking for a Good News Bible is having a hard time finding one of good quality on christianbook. If you order it directly from the publisher (American Bible Society), I think your chances for a good one are higher.

Thank you

My Good News is a children’s Bible that I received when I was in third grade. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to be in print anymore. It’s decent quality.

I found out about the GNT from Biblegateway.

I have heard of the Action Bible, which I know is really popular with kids. I have heard that it isn’t a complete Bible. Is that true?

Seems to be pretty complete. It is also popular with young adults and others with ADHD. This one oung women was in my college child literature class and she could not really read the Bible because of her attention problem but the Action Bible kept her engaged. Even asking questions about the specific things in the Bible she was able to give the answers and I wanted one after that. :)
 
Upvote 0

Baby Cottontail

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2016
834
273
41
Northwest Ohio
✟19,571.00
Faith
United Methodist
Marital Status
Single
It's a translation, I found it one day by accident looking for something else. I found this link again Lighthouse Bible it tells about the translation



Thank you



I found out about the GNT from Biblegateway.



Seems to be pretty complete. It is also popular with young adults and others with ADHD. This one oung women was in my college child literature class and she could not really read the Bible because of her attention problem but the Action Bible kept her engaged. Even asking questions about the specific things in the Bible she was able to give the answers and I wanted one after that. :)
Ok. Thanks :)

There are drawings in the physical copies of the Good News Translation that are unique.

I am glad that the Action Bible is reaching those who wouldn’t normally read a traditional Bible :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taodeching
Upvote 0

Baby Cottontail

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2016
834
273
41
Northwest Ohio
✟19,571.00
Faith
United Methodist
Marital Status
Single
If any complete modern American English Bible for adults had pictures, i would want to keep it for images and their captions more than anything else.
I am pretty sure most Good News Bibles do have the drawings in them. Again, buy directly from American Bible Society, as some people said there were hardly any drawings in the ones they bought on christianbook.

I don’t know of any other translations that have drawings in non children’s Bibles.

Actually, I found a better website with more Good News Bibles to choose from, and this website is also run by American Bible Society.

GNT.BIBLE - Home of the Good News Translation Bible

Apparently not all of the copies contain the drawings, but you can call them and ask which ones do.
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Site Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
As far as graphics are concerned, one of my favorite bibles is the "NIV First Century Study Bible". It is filled with drawings, graphs, maps, reference articles, etc. in addition to the (excellent) text. I'm not sure if it's still in print though.
 
Upvote 0

Davy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟267,597.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Okay, so one of your objections to the NKJV is that it includes footnotes about the other manuscripts?

I think those are included in order to truly make the translation scholarly. Most translations include footnotes showing that there are some variations in the various manuscripts. They are trying to be honest, not hiding the fact that there are other manuscripts that show different variations.

If a person isn’t interested in what other manuscripts say, the footnotes can be completely ignored. If you want only the Textus Receptus, just ignore the footnotes.

Your choice, but the NKJV Greek is based on the textual criticism like the NIV, etc. The following is from the Nestle-Aland website which compiled the NKJV New Testament.


"The Novum Testamentum Graece (Nestle-Aland) und its history

1. Its Beginnings (1st Edition, 1898)
The Novum Testamentum Graece was first published in 1898 by Wurttembergische Bibelanstalt (Germany). It was edited by Eberhard Nestle and followed a simple but nevertheless ingenious principle: Nestle compared the three most significant editions of the Greek New Testament from the 19th century (Tischendorf, Westcott/Hort, and Weymouth; the last mentioned was replaced by the edition of B. Weiss in 1901). Wherever one of these versions differed from the other two, Nestle adopted the reading given in the two identical versions and supplied a note in the apparatus showing the divergent reading. By this means, he grouped together the best findings of New Testament textual research from the 19th century and prevented one-sided views from becoming established. Nestles edition, due to its wide distribution, ultimately displaced the “Textus Receptus”, which among scholars had already long become obsolete, in churches and schools."


The Textus Receptus, or Received Texts, were the main Greek manuscripts the original KJV translators used. As said before, they exist as over 5,000 Greek manuscripts.

Can you confirm this info in the Preface of the NKJV? Dr. James Price was executive editor of the Old Testament part of the NKJV Bible.

"Dr. Price told me that the NKJV translators did not solely follow the Masoretic Hebrew text in the Old Testament of the NKJV but that they introduced textual changes. This is born out in the Preface to the NKJV, which says the New King James Bible modifies the Masoretic Hebrew with the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, “a variety of ancient versions,” and the Dead Sea Scrolls (New King James Bible, Preface)." (from What About the New King James Version?)
 
Upvote 0

Davy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟267,597.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I am glad that you agree that the gospel message is the same in all translations.

My point was that people can read any translation, including the KJV, and pull Scripture out of context, and believe in any heresy they wish. Exactly. Even Satan quoted Scripture, and it doesn’t make it his. The same is true for Bible translations other than the KJV. Just because someone might believe a heresy having read a non Textus Receptus translation does not mean that the manuscripts caused the heresy.

You apparently don't understand the allegorical traditions of the ancient 'mystery schools', on which even modern initiate fraternities base their roots upon. Some of its ancient movements were Neo-Platonism and Gnosticism. This is where if you pay attention to some brethren, their Bible interpretation is very allegorical even with parts meant literally; the future "thousand years" reign by Christ in Rev.20 being one such example; those see that as not a literal period, but as allegory. That kind of thinking actually changes what is written in The Bible which is meant literally. There is... some allegory in God's Word, like with parables, but that's certainly not with all Scripture.

I read over Luke chapter 4, and I have no idea why there is a difference, except possibly a difference in how the translators translated the text.

The reason why that "at any time" is missing from Luke 4 in the NKJV is because it isn't using the Textus Receptus Greek manuscripts that the original KJV did, as I have said. The Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies relied more on textual criticism, and pretty much discarded use of the Textus Receptus. I first became suspicious of this matter when doing a Bible study with a brother and he was using a NKJV. When I read from my KJV, he eventually had to put his NKJV down, because of how different it was. So this difference isn't a mistake, it was intentionally left out.

Now if we're going to philosophize to try and justify what the editors of the NKJV did with leaving that "at any time" phrase off of Luke 4, then it would only be in the sense that the original Psalms 91:12 verse doesn't have that phrase. But that... is exactly the point of Satan quoting it with adding... i.e., to change... the original meaning.

That Psalms 91:11-12 Scripture is about the angels having care over our Lord Jesus during His Ministry, at least until it was time for Him to be delivered up to be crucified. What Satan was doing with quoting that, and adding "at any time" to it, changed the meaning, to think Lord Jesus could test it, so... "go ahead Jesus, jump off that pinnacle, because it is written...". That protection by the angels was not something for our Lord Jesus to test The Father with. This is why Lord Jesus replied to Satan with, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." (Luke 4:12).
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Site Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,508
7,861
...
✟1,194,803.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I guess I'll be the odd-man-out here on this, but if you want the truth...

It's very important today to learn a bit about newer translations. They are not all from the same source of manuscripts. And even in the days of the early Church fathers, there was a division between the school at Alexandria (Egypt) and those at Antioch and western Churches, and even later also between the Roman Church and the British and German Churches.

In 1880s Wescott & Hort presented their translation of the New Testament from Alexandrian manuscripts they claimed were more accurate simply because they were the oldest manuscripts in existence. Later New Testament translations are from their work, the Nestle & Aland also following their translation. The NKJV also follows that modern translation. However, the original 1611 KJV New Testament is from a totally different set of Greek manuscripts (Textus Receptus). This is why the NKJV New Testament reading often does not agree with the original KJV Bible.

The Textus Receptus (or Received Texts) are what the KJV translators used for the New Testament, and also earlier translators. It exists in over 5,000 manuscripts that agree with each other. Although the oldest copies go back to around the 3rd century A.D., it was the most referred to and used texts by the early Church.

The Alexandrian (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, and three others) are older, but are fewer in number, and show little usage. Some scholars link this text to Eusebius who was a student of Origen of Alexandria who interpreted Scripture allegorically instead of literally, and link these texts with Alexandria, Egypt, where heresies like Gnosticism and Arianism came from. When reading the following New Testament translations, you are reading translation of those Alexandria type Greek texts (NIV, NKJV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, NAB, REB, RSV, CEV, TEV, GNB, LIVING, PHILLIPS, NEW JERUSALEM, NEW CENTURY).

I agree. The enemy wants to attack God's Word. I look at Modern Translations as panning through dirt to get to the gold in the KJB. Modern Translations are only helpful in the fact that they can update the 1600's English in my King James Bible. But if they say something different, the KJB is my final Word of authority. You may like the Defined King James Bible. It is a KJV advocate who added defined difficult words at the bottom of the page (but he left the text of the KJB unaltered).

full

full


full


Defined King James Bibles
(Note: They do sell a single Bible to purchase and not just bulk orders. You just have to scroll through the list to find it). I would recommend the thumb indexed version in Leather with Large print. The website does not appear to work well. So I would recommend contacting them to order.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Davy
Upvote 0

Davy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟267,597.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I agree. The enemy wants to attack God's Word. I look at Modern Translations as panning through dirt to get to the gold in the KJB. Modern Translations are only helpful in the fact that they can update the 1600's English in my King James Bible. But if they say something different, the KJB is my final Word of authority. You may like the Defined King James Bible. It is a KJV advocate who added defined difficult words at the bottom of the page (but he left the text of the KJB unaltered).
....

I really don't see the KJV Bible being that hard to understand. Those pointing to the Old English are referring to the 1st Edition which is in Old English, different type and all.

An Authorized KJV Bible and a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance ought to be the minimum study tools in every English speaking Christian's library. The Strong's because Dr. James Strong assigned a number to every word in the KJV Bible, and then gave Lexicon definitions for each word or phrase, so the English speaking Bible student can look up meanings of names and places, and with difficult readings.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Site Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,508
7,861
...
✟1,194,803.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I really don't see the KJV Bible being that hard to understand. Those pointing to the Old English are referring to the 1st Edition which is in Old English, different type and all.

An Authorized KJV Bible and a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance ought to be the minimum study tools in every English speaking Christian's library. The Strong's because Dr. James Strong assigned a number to every word in the KJV Bible, and then gave Lexicon definitions for each word or phrase, so the English speaking Bible student can look up meanings of names and places, and with difficult readings.

I did go this route originally, but I changed, and I now prefer a more unbiased use on words. For I have come to the conclusion that the majority of Christians have their own biased beliefs to some extent (Which would even include James Strong and his friends who created the work we now have today). So I wanted to just look at a less biased source like older English dictionaries to define words. I use the 1913 Webster Dictionary and a few other English dictionaries as my personal KJB study guide currently. I also look at Modern Translations and see if they line up with what the KJB says, as well (With the KJB being the final Word of authority). Of course, I look at the context, as well. However, maybe someday later I may look at the Strong's again after I have completed my English dictionary word study on the KJB. But no. I don't believe the KJB is always super easy to read or understand always. Many parts of the Old Testament and the book of Acts is kind of difficult to read at times and comparing it with a Modern Translation really helps. So while the KJB is the Word of God to me, I am not one of those KJB proponents who is going to say that it is easy to read always. It's not (IMO). I have been doing a word study on the KJB and there are many words in the KJB that your average person does not even know.
Here are just a few of them from my notes.

1. garner: = barn or grain enclosure.
2. lo = behold (look).
3. suffered = permitted (depending on the context).
4. lighting: (similar to “alight”) landing, or settling
5. tempted: = tested, or tried
6. pinnacle: = high point.
7. lest: = to avoid the risk of, (or) so as to prevent any chance that, (or) otherwise (depending on the context).
8. candlestick: = candle holder
9. ye = plural of you (can refer to two or more people). In essence, it can be translated as “you-all,” or “you-two.”
10. hence: = here.
11. wherewith: = with what
12. thenceforth: = thereafter
13. ought = anything.
14. spin: = to draw out and twist into threads; to spin wool, cotton, flax, or animal hair, etc.
15. evil: = concern, or troubles (depending on the context).
16. mete: = gauge, or measure.
17. centurion: = a Roman officer in command of 100 men.
18. beseeching: = begging, or asking desperately.
19. grievously: painfully.
20. the receipt of custom: = station, gate, or place where the tribute, or tax, or toll was collected on goods.
21. meat: = dinner.
22. minstrels: = flute players.
23. Give place: = Make room.
24. farthing: = thing of little value. “Farthing” possibly could be referring to the: Greek assarion, i.e., a small “as,” which was a Roman coin equal to a tenth of a denarius or drachma, nearly equal to a ½ penny of our money.
25. upbraid: = rebuke severely.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Site Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,508
7,861
...
✟1,194,803.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I really don't see the KJV Bible being that hard to understand. Those pointing to the Old English are referring to the 1st Edition which is in Old English, different type and all.

An Authorized KJV Bible and a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance ought to be the minimum study tools in every English speaking Christian's library. The Strong's because Dr. James Strong assigned a number to every word in the KJV Bible, and then gave Lexicon definitions for each word or phrase, so the English speaking Bible student can look up meanings of names and places, and with difficult readings.

I also wanted to say:

First, thank you for the “like” (rep) on my post, brother. Second, speaking of “minstrels,” and seeing you understand the importance of God's Word for our lives: You might be interested in a recent Christian film came out this passed March on DVD and digital format. The Christian film is called “Play the Flute” and it is available to own at ChristianMovies.com or Amazon.com (if it seems like a Christian film that is your cup of tea). It is a movie about inspiring others to read the Word of God and to follow the Lord.


I own it on DVD, and I have been giving copies out to my Christian friends at work.

If you are interested in my other Christian movies that uplift the Bible, and or following the Lord, check this CF thread link here:

My Christian DVD Collection
(Includes movie artwork, trailers, and where to rent or buy).

Anyways, may God bless you today, brother.
And thank you for your kindness.

Side Note:

In the movie, the main character does quote from the KJB several times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Davy
Upvote 0

Baby Cottontail

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2016
834
273
41
Northwest Ohio
✟19,571.00
Faith
United Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Your choice, but the NKJV Greek is based on the textual criticism like the NIV, etc. The following is from the Nestle-Aland website which compiled the NKJV New Testament.


"The Novum Testamentum Graece (Nestle-Aland) und its history

1. Its Beginnings (1st Edition, 1898)
The Novum Testamentum Graece was first published in 1898 by Wurttembergische Bibelanstalt (Germany). It was edited by Eberhard Nestle and followed a simple but nevertheless ingenious principle: Nestle compared the three most significant editions of the Greek New Testament from the 19th century (Tischendorf, Westcott/Hort, and Weymouth; the last mentioned was replaced by the edition of B. Weiss in 1901). Wherever one of these versions differed from the other two, Nestle adopted the reading given in the two identical versions and supplied a note in the apparatus showing the divergent reading. By this means, he grouped together the best findings of New Testament textual research from the 19th century and prevented one-sided views from becoming established. Nestles edition, due to its wide distribution, ultimately displaced the “Textus Receptus”, which among scholars had already long become obsolete, in churches and schools."


The Textus Receptus, or Received Texts, were the main Greek manuscripts the original KJV translators used. As said before, they exist as over 5,000 Greek manuscripts.

Can you confirm this info in the Preface of the NKJV? Dr. James Price was executive editor of the Old Testament part of the NKJV Bible.

"Dr. Price told me that the NKJV translators did not solely follow the Masoretic Hebrew text in the Old Testament of the NKJV but that they introduced textual changes. This is born out in the Preface to the NKJV, which says the New King James Bible modifies the Masoretic Hebrew with the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, “a variety of ancient versions,” and the Dead Sea Scrolls (New King James Bible, Preface)." (from What About the New King James Version?)
All I know is that all sources I have seen online state that the NKJV uses the Textus Receptus, too.

I don’t know the sources you are quoting.

I don’t believe that the NKJV translators had evil motives in leaving out anything or changing how it is in the KJV. I am sure that they made decisions based on their own understanding of Greek (for the NT) and Hebrew for the OT. They would have also made decisions based on scholarly research. There is a reason words are or are not in their translation.

I think the same is true for all legitimate translations of the Bible.

As far as textual criticism is concerned, there is nothing in and of itself that is wrong with it. They are just trying to make sure that the text is as close to the original as possible, that way people can be sure that the text is reliable. It helps fight the atheist argument that the Bible has changed over time just like the game of telephone. We can say to these atheists that we have confidence that the manuscripts we have are as close to the original as we can get.
 
Upvote 0

Baby Cottontail

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2016
834
273
41
Northwest Ohio
✟19,571.00
Faith
United Methodist
Marital Status
Single
You apparently don't understand the allegorical traditions of the ancient 'mystery schools', on which even modern initiate fraternities base their roots upon. Some of its ancient movements were Neo-Platonism and Gnosticism. This is where if you pay attention to some brethren, their Bible interpretation is very allegorical even with parts meant literally; the future "thousand years" reign by Christ in Rev.20 being one such example; those see that as not a literal period, but as allegory. That kind of thinking actually changes what is written in The Bible which is meant literally. There is... some allegory in God's Word, like with parables, but that's certainly not with all Scripture.

The reason why that "at any time" is missing from Luke 4 in the NKJV is because it isn't using the Textus Receptus Greek manuscripts that the original KJV did, as I have said. The Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies relied more on textual criticism, and pretty much discarded use of the Textus Receptus. I first became suspicious of this matter when doing a Bible study with a brother and he was using a NKJV. When I read from my KJV, he eventually had to put his NKJV down, because of how different it was. So this difference isn't a mistake, it was intentionally left out.

Now if we're going to philosophize to try and justify what the editors of the NKJV did with leaving that "at any time" phrase off of Luke 4, then it would only be in the sense that the original Psalms 91:12 verse doesn't have that phrase. But that... is exactly the point of Satan quoting it with adding... i.e., to change... the original meaning.

That Psalms 91:11-12 Scripture is about the angels having care over our Lord Jesus during His Ministry, at least until it was time for Him to be delivered up to be crucified. What Satan was doing with quoting that, and adding "at any time" to it, changed the meaning, to think Lord Jesus could test it, so... "go ahead Jesus, jump off that pinnacle, because it is written...". That protection by the angels was not something for our Lord Jesus to test The Father with. This is why Lord Jesus replied to Satan with, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." (Luke 4:12).
If the NKJV did not use the Textus Receptus, it would not be on the list of not recommended translations on a few websites I looked at. There are plenty of people out there who do not like the NKJV simply because it is based on the Textus Receptus, which they believe is not reliable, and does not contain the most up to date scholarship.

I have said before that a NKJV is on my wishlist because I do like the rendering of some verses in the NT of it that I have.

Since I don’t know Greek, or what the actual Textus Receptus says in Luke, I cannot argue how it should be translated. It is, however telling that “at any time” is missing in both the NKJV and the MEV. There was a reason neither translation includes it, and I am certain it wasn’t with some evil motive to change Scripture.

It is clear that you feel very strongly about the KJV, and that is great! I am glad that you really like it and understand it. It is a beautiful translation.
 
Upvote 0

Baby Cottontail

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2016
834
273
41
Northwest Ohio
✟19,571.00
Faith
United Methodist
Marital Status
Single
I really don't see the KJV Bible being that hard to understand. Those pointing to the Old English are referring to the 1st Edition which is in Old English, different type and all.

An Authorized KJV Bible and a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance ought to be the minimum study tools in every English speaking Christian's library. The Strong's because Dr. James Strong assigned a number to every word in the KJV Bible, and then gave Lexicon definitions for each word or phrase, so the English speaking Bible student can look up meanings of names and places, and with difficult readings.
Many, many people find the KJV difficult to read. I am glad that you do not.

I have been teaching 5th-7th graders at my church, and many of the kids struggle reading translations that are written at their grade level. Revised Standard Version? Forgot it. It is way above their reading level. They are completely confused by it. (To be fair, the RSV is supposedly 10th grade reading level, which would be above their grade level).

When I was teaching 5th and 6th graders, they really struggled with trying to read the New Century Version, which is the translation we happened to have in the classroom. The NCV is supposed to be at their grade level.

I ended up ordering copies of the New International Reader’s Version for them, which is supposed to be at 2.9 grade reading level. They still struggled with it some, but it was much better for them than the NCV was.

I don’t know if it is universally true everywhere, but the reading level of children seems to be declining. Eventually, we will have an adult population that really struggles reading anything over 6th, 7th, or 8th grade reading levels. I think even the NIV is too difficult for some adults.

I also think that this is the reason that so many translations have recently been made to try to make the Bible more readable. That was one of the reasons that the CEB was made.

I really fought against the CEB in my own mind. I don’t personally like contractions in Bibles, and I don’t like Human One for Son of Man. However, as I have prayed and thought about it, I see the need for translations like this. There are common words that I didn’t realize kids today don’t know. One example is the word “persecute.” We were reading a passage in class that had “persecute” in it, and the kids had to stop me and ask what that meant. They were totally confused by it, and they just couldn’t get passed this confusion. The CEB doesn’t use “persecute.” Instead it uses harass. Sure, persecute is a stronger word than harass, but they couldn’t understand persecute. If the CEB translators studied words that kids and young adults don’t know, then it definitely has a place.

People should be able to understand the Bible they read. If they don’t understand it, then how can they benefit by reading it? People should want to read their Bibles. It should not be a frustrating or discouraging experience. If everyone were forced to read the KJV, I guarantee you that some would truly struggle with it, and ultimately give up reading it. They would find it too confusing and frustrating.

However, I think you have certainly convinced me that I should have a KJV — not only to compare translations, but also because there are Christians that only will consider reading a KJV, and if I have Christian fellowship with one (discussing Scripture in any way), I would need one.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Site Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,508
7,861
...
✟1,194,803.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
If the NKJV did not use the Textus Receptus, it would not be on the list of not recommended translations on a few websites I looked at. There are plenty of people out there who do not like the NKJV simply because it is based on the Textus Receptus, which they believe is not reliable, and does not contain the most up to date scholarship.

I have said before that a NKJV is on my wishlist because I do like the rendering of some verses in the NT of it that I have.

Since I don’t know Greek, or what the actual Textus Receptus says in Luke, I cannot argue how it should be translated. It is, however telling that “at any time” is missing in both the NKJV and the MEV. There was a reason neither translation includes it, and I am certain it wasn’t with some evil motive to change Scripture.

It is clear that you feel very strongly about the KJV, and that is great! I am glad that you really like it and understand it. It is a beautiful translation.

You have to understand that there are predominatly two major lines of manuscripts that are used today. There is...

#1. Textus Receptus line of manuscripts (Which is where we get the KJB from).
#2. Alexandrian line of manuscripts (Critical Text) (Which is where most of your Modern Translations defenders come from).​

Yes, a few Modern Translations like NKJV, and ESV take from the Textus Receptus at times, but they also take from the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts at times, too. They don't say the same thing exactly. There are 450 + English Modern Translations in existence. Many of these are based on the Alexandrian, Egypt line of manuscripts (the Critical Text). If you were to do a Google search on the origin of Arianism (i.e. a denial of the Trinity), you will discover that it's origins is in Alexandrian, Egypt. Is it not odd that 1 John 5:7 that is the one and only verse that point blank talks about the Trinity is removed in the Alexandrian, Egypt manuscripts? Now, it does not take detective to figure out that this is not a coincidence. There are other problems with the Alexandrian, Egypt texts that are used as the foundation to build most Modern Translations today. New Testament commands have actually been removed. The teaching on fasting so as to cast out difficult demons is removed. Living holy for the Lord is watered down. The Incarnation, the blood atonement are all watered down. Some translations make you even doubt certain portions of the Bible on whether it should be in your Bible or not like the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery. This sounds like the devil. Yea, hath God said?

In fact, to say there is no problems in Modern Translations is to assume that the devil is not seeking to corrupt or change God's Words today. That would be a silly assumption. The devil operates through subtlity.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Site Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,508
7,861
...
✟1,194,803.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Many, many people find the KJV difficult to read. I am glad that you do not.

I have been teaching 5th-7th graders at my church, and many of the kids struggle reading translations that are written at their grade level. Revised Standard Version? Forgot it. It is way above their reading level. They are completely confused by it. (To be fair, the RSV is supposedly 10th grade reading level, which would be above their grade level).

When I was teaching 5th and 6th graders, they really struggled with trying to read the New Century Version, which is the translation we happened to have in the classroom. The NCV is supposed to be at their grade level.

I ended up ordering copies of the New International Reader’s Version for them, which is supposed to be at 2.9 grade reading level. They still struggled with it some, but it was much better for them than the NCV was.

I don’t know if it is universally true everywhere, but the reading level of children seems to be declining. Eventually, we will have an adult population that really struggles reading anything over 6th, 7th, or 8th grade reading levels. I think even the NIV is too difficult for some adults.

I also think that this is the reason that so many translations have recently been made to try to make the Bible more readable. That was one of the reasons that the CEB was made.

I really fought against the CEB in my own mind. I don’t personally like contractions in Bibles, and I don’t like Human One for Son of Man. However, as I have prayed and thought about it, I see the need for translations like this. There are common words that I didn’t realize kids today don’t know. One example is the word “persecute.” We were reading a passage in class that had “persecute” in it, and the kids had to stop me and ask what that meant. They were totally confused by it, and they just couldn’t get passed this confusion. The CEB doesn’t use “persecute.” Instead it uses harass. Sure, persecute is a stronger word than harass, but they couldn’t understand persecute. If the CEB translators studied words that kids and young adults don’t know, then it definitely has a place.

People should be able to understand the Bible they read. If they don’t understand it, then how can they benefit by reading it? People should want to read their Bibles. It should not be a frustrating or discouraging experience. If everyone were forced to read the KJV, I guarantee you that some would truly struggle with it, and ultimately give up reading it. They would find it too confusing and frustrating.

However, I think you have certainly convinced me that I should have a KJV — not only to compare translations, but also because there are Christians that only will consider reading a KJV, and if I have Christian fellowship with one (discussing Scripture in any way), I would need one.

I believe the KJB is the pure Word of God for today and it should be a person's final Word of authority, but I also would encourage Christiand to use Modern Translations, and other study helps (like dictionaries, etc.) to help understand what the KJB says.

With children: We should try to relate to things that they understand already. Play the Flute (A Christian film that came out on DVD last March) does this wonderfullly (See my post #52 for the trailer). The youth pastor in the film compared the Word of God to various things that the student could grasp in the world that they already knew. Analogies of things in our real world are always helpful. In fact, our Lord Jesus (as you know) had done this very thing, too.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Site Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,508
7,861
...
✟1,194,803.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
If the NKJV did not use the Textus Receptus, it would not be on the list of not recommended translations on a few websites I looked at. There are plenty of people out there who do not like the NKJV simply because it is based on the Textus Receptus, which they believe is not reliable, and does not contain the most up to date scholarship.

I have said before that a NKJV is on my wishlist because I do like the rendering of some verses in the NT of it that I have.

Since I don’t know Greek, or what the actual Textus Receptus says in Luke, I cannot argue how it should be translated. It is, however telling that “at any time” is missing in both the NKJV and the MEV. There was a reason neither translation includes it, and I am certain it wasn’t with some evil motive to change Scripture.

It is clear that you feel very strongly about the KJV, and that is great! I am glad that you really like it and understand it. It is a beautiful translation.

To help you to see the KJB side of things:

There is a really good movie like quality set of videos that goes into explaining it.

Here is the 1st episode.


Here is a link on YouTube to all seven episodes + a bonus video.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLdD7_B3zweu0qi_gUHA9W_0JxSM_jT0zj

Note: While I may not believe everything Mr. Gipp believes (Particularily his view on Soteriology), and neither do I agree with everything that he says, I do agree with him that the KJB is our final Word of authority. He presents a really good case that I think every Christian should hear.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Baby Cottontail

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2016
834
273
41
Northwest Ohio
✟19,571.00
Faith
United Methodist
Marital Status
Single
You have to understand that there are predominatly two major lines of manuscripts that are used today. There is...

#1. Textus Receptus line of manuscripts (Which is where we get the KJB from).
#2. Alexandrian line of manuscripts (Critical Text) (Which is where most of your Modern Translations defenders come from).​

Yes, a few Modern Translations like NKJV, and ESV take from the Textus Receptus at times, but they also take from the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts at times, too. They don't say the same thing exactly. There are 450 + English Modern Translations in existence. Many of these are based on the Alexandrian, Egypt line of manuscripts (the Critical Text). If you were to do a Google search on the origin of Arianism (i.e. a denial of the Trinity), you will discover that it's origins is in Alexandrian, Egypt. Is it not odd that 1 John 5:7 that is the one and only verse that point blank talks about the Trinity is removed in the Alexandrian, Egypt manuscripts? Now, it does not take detective to figure out that this is not a coincidence. There are other problems with the Alexandrian, Egypt texts that are used as the foundation to build most Modern Translations today. New Testament commands have actually been removed. The teaching on fasting so as to cast out difficult demons is removed. Living holy for the Lord is watered down. The Incarnation, the blood atonement are all watered down. Some translations make you even doubt certain portions of the Bible on whether it should be in your Bible or not like the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery. This sounds like the devil. Yea, hath God said?

In fact, to say there is no problems in Modern Translations is to assume that the devil is not seeking to corrupt or change God's Words today. That would be a silly assumption. The devil operates through subtlity.
As I pointed out earlier, the NKJV actually does have John 5:7 in it. Most modern translations leave it out not because they disagree with the teaching, but rather because they are trying to be scholarly honest. It is missing from the earliest copies of the NT that they have.

Many theologically liberal/progressive Christians do not like the NIV precisely because they think it is too conservative and emphasizes Jesus’ deity too much. It is true that the NIV scholars were conservative. I am sure they had no agenda to remove the Trinity from the Bible. They just did not think they could honestly leave the verse in due to the fact that it was missing from the earliest manuscripts.

The same is true for the woman caught in adulatory. Again, the scholarly are trying to be honest. I have heard that many new translations/updates of translations are putting this account in the footnotes instead of in the regular part of the text. Did this bother me? At first, but if it actually isn’t in the oldest manuscripts, fine. It’s at least still there in the footnotes. It doesn’t shake my faith if that part is not authentic to John’s Gospel.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Baby Cottontail

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2016
834
273
41
Northwest Ohio
✟19,571.00
Faith
United Methodist
Marital Status
Single
I believe the KJB is the pure Word of God for today and it should be a person's final Word of authority, but I also would encourage Christiand to use Modern Translations, and other study helps (like dictionaries, etc.) to help understand what the KJB says.

With children: We should try to relate to things that they understand already. Play the Flute (A Christian film that came out on DVD last March) does this wonderfullly (See my post #52 for the trailer). The youth pastor in the film compared the Word of God to various things that the student could grasp in the world that they already knew. Analogies of things in our real world are always helpful. In fact, our Lord Jesus (as you know) had done this very thing, too.
Thanks for the movie recommendation. :)
 
Upvote 0