KJV Alone?

[tall73]

So can we now agree that the NKJV is not based on the same critical text as the NIV? Or do we need to keep going through examples?

 

[tall73]

As I have said earlier, I have studied these things for over 20 years. It would take me days to post all that I have studied. This is why I have said that every person needs to study these things and not just simply accept someone's word, even my own. The truth is out there. One only needs to search it out. I must say that I have no doubt that God has preserved his word in the KJB after years of looking at what has been done regarding translations. God does not lie but there is another that is called "The Father of All Lies".

Joh:8:44: Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

I quoted your statement about the notion that the MEV uses other texts besides the TR. You said you just read it. I am not asking for a difficult thing to have you post the source so I can check it out. I am simply interested in what you found.

 

[mikenold]

I came here to help out the OP, and his question involved whether there was any legitimacy to the notion that the KJV is the only good translation. So the two are related.

And I am currently going through the examples you posted for the NIV to show that the NKJV does NOT use the same NIV text, and does not make the same changes as the NIV.

I am not attacking your posts by disagreeing with you. And yes, you did move the goal posts when you talk about underlying texts and then the one example you give for the NKJV is not about underlying texts at all, but how to translate a word.

And since I am currently posting very clear examples that show you were wrong about the NIV and NKJV making the same changes, you want to quit?

Ok, but I did not treat you unfairly. I am responding to your points, which is the purpose of a discussion forum.

You said "And since I am currently posting very clear examples that show you were wrong about the NIV and NKJV making the same changes"

This is in error as I did not say that the NIV and the NKJV make the same changes. I said the agenda was the same. You see, WORDS MATTER, when we change the word(s) of what God has said, we change the meaning of what God said. You have illustrated that point here perfectly by changing the words that I posted.

If I tape the 100 dollar symbol from a 100 dollar bill to a counterfeit bill will you still give me change in real money for it? I never said that the KJB was the only one to use the TR in translation. However, regarding the other modern bibles, once they use anything from the minority texts or delete verses or make any other changes they become counterfeit.

 

[tall73]

You said "And since I am currently posting very clear examples that show you were wrong about the NIV and NKJV making the same changes"

This is in error as I did not say that the NIV and the NKJV make the same changes. I said the agenda was the same. You see, WORDS MATTER, when we change the word(s) of what God has said, we change the meaning of what God said. You have illustrated that point here perfectly by changing the words that I posted.

If I tape the 100 dollar symbol from a 100 dollar bill to a counterfeit bill will you still give me change in real money for it? I never said that the KJB was the only one to use the TR in translation. However, regarding the other modern bibles, once they use anything from the minority texts or delete verses or make any other changes they become counterfeit.

Again, what you posted, and what was part of this whole stream of discussion:

Sorry, but the NKJV has the same changes as the NIV, same verses missing etc. What I said is still fact.

So how can you say?

This is in error as I did not say that the NIV and the NKJV make the same changes.

You did say it, and that was what was responded to.

 

[mikenold]

Here are the actual words you posted:



You did say the NKJV has the same changes as the NIV, same verses missing.

Now that I am going through point by point to show that is not true you want to change it?

I apologize for the error on my part. Although there are many of the same changes shared by the NKJV and the NIV. I should not have said all the changes were the same. The agenda is still the same. This agenda is from the Devil himself.

 

[tall73]

I apologize for the error on my part. Although there are many of the same changes shared by the NKJV and the NIV. I should not have said all the changes were the same. The agenda is still the same. This agenda is from the Devil himself.

An apology is not needed, it is just probably confusion from the winding nature of the discussion.

I just wanted it clear I was not trying to distort what you said, I was trying to respond to what I thought you were saying based on your words.

However, to show an agenda you will have to demonstrate that they made these changes you speak of. So far you give one example that looks at how to translate one word. The other examples I posted the readings are the same for the KJV and NKJV.

I am waiting on you to explain what Godhead means to you, and why you think it is best in your one example.

 

[John Robie]

Still waiting for the evidence that doctrines are missing from later translations.

 

[mikenold]

So can we now agree that the NKJV is not based on the same critical text as the NIV? Or do we need to keep going through examples?

They are both based on the same agenda that all modern bibles are based excepting the KJB.

 

[tall73]

They are both based on the same agenda that all modern bibles are based excepting the KJB.

I think we are cross posting since we are going back and forth a lot.

If you wish to discuss this agenda we can. It will be necessary to demonstrate it from the evidence. Post your examples. I am still waiting for you to clarify what you think Godhead means and why you think it is best.

 

[mikenold]

An apology is not needed, it is just probably confusion from the winding nature of the discussion.

I just wanted it clear I was not trying to distort what you said, I was trying to respond to what I thought you were saying based on your words.

However, to show an agenda you will have to demonstrate that they made these changes you speak of. So far you give one example that looks at how to translate one word. The other examples I posted the readings are the same for the KJV and NKJV.

I am waiting on you to explain what Godhead means to you, and why you think it is best in your one example.

The Godhead is in reference to the Trinity or triune nature of God. Father, Son and Spirit.

Here are the verses in question:

Romans 1:20 (KJV) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Romans 1:20 (NIV) For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Colossians 2:9 (KJV) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Colossians 2:9 (NIV) For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

Acts 17:29 (KJV) Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

Acts 17:29 (NIV) "Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone--an image made by man's design and skill.

Godhead = divine nature?
Godhead = deity?
Godhead = divine being?

1Jo:2:22: Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

It's Saturday and I have other things to do. Gotta go.

 

[Goodbook]

I know that other bible versions miss this verse in John talking about the three witnesses of blood, spirit and water...will find the verse for you later as cant remember the reference off the top of my head.

But that is doctrine. Look up 1 john 5:8


God our Father-spirit
Jesus the man - blood
holy ghost- water

Compare the different bible versions on bible hub.

 

[Goodbook]

Some of them say these agree while others say these three agree in one.

 

[John Robie]

I know that other bible versions miss this verse in John talking about the three witnesses of blood, spirit and water...will find the verse for you later as cant remember the reference off the top of my head.

But that is doctrine. Look up 1 john 5:8


God our Father-spirit
Jesus the man - blood
holy ghost- water

Compare the different bible versions on bible hub.

I think I can make an argument for the Trinity from a modern translation without quoting 1 John. If that's the case, then the doctrine is not affected.

 

[Goodbook]

Well it is if you havent read that part of the bible.
Its not good to have missing parts like the sin of omission. You could cause a beleiver to stumble if that part is missing from their bible.

 

[tall73]

I know that other bible versions miss this verse in John talking about the three witnesses of blood, spirit and water...will find the verse for you later as cant remember the reference off the top of my head.

But that is doctrine. Look up 1 john 5:8


God our Father-spirit
Jesus the man - blood
holy ghost- water

Compare the different bible versions on bible hub.

Yes, that is probably the most famous missing verse, and a controversial one. The reason is that the verse appears in very few Greek manuscripts that contain the passage, and also because in some of those it only appears in the margin. All of the ones it appears in are of very late date. Though in fairness, there are not that many early manuscripts that contain the passage to start with.

There are some claimed allusions though in early church fathers, which would suggest at least that folks were discussing it early.

And others theorize it started out as a note someone put in the margin and got copied as part of the text by a careless copyist.

Moreover, during the church councils a debated subject for years was the nature of the Trinity and the Divinity of the Son and the Spirit etc. Yet this verse was not referenced in the arguments again and again as we would expect if everyone had it in their manuscripts.

Folks can make arguments for it either way. I would rather they leave all the verses in and just put a footnote explaining the issue.

 

[tall73]

The Godhead is in reference to the Trinity or triune nature of God. Father, Son and Spirit.

Thank you for your response. I am typing some things up on it but I want to do all the research first. May be a bit.

 

[High Fidelity]

I would say stick with KJV. It has never put me wrong or made me question the words in my walk. If I do need to compare a translation, I go online and look up biblehub. But it is the KJV that comes out tops.

I have noticed other versions omit words and even whole verses. This should not be.

I will say however, make sure its not a commented, noted version. Scofield Bible, which is based on KJV, actually tries to twist scripture according to a strange doctrine in their notes.

If you find a cancerous growth, you remove it before it taints the rest of its host.

 

[Catherineanne]

Hi everyone,

I have heard many different reports about the King James Version alone belief. Do these have grounding? If so, is the KJV really the best translation of the Bible into English?

I am currently using the ESV, having come from using the NIV; but I have been getting more and more interested in the KJV.

So, I would be interested in hearing your arguments about if I should switch right this second to the King James or if it is all blown out of proportion or just whatever insight y'all might be able to provide.

Thanks so much!

I tend to use at least 2, sometimes more, translations at once, to get a fuller idea of what might be intended. Because they are all translations I think any one version will always lose something; hopefully using more than one will show where that might happen.

KJV is my fav, but I like others too. RSV particularly, then NIV.

 

[tall73]

If you find a cancerous growth, you remove it before it taints the rest of its host.

Or to put it another way, there is an open question which manuscripts are correct. And we do not just have two types of manuscripts, the KJV type and the NIV type. There are many manuscripts with various differences. Most are not major. Some are.

Now were the verses that are in the KJV there originally and they were removed by the other manuscripts?

Or were they not there originally and people added them later to support their ideas of doctrine. That is the debate.

In the case of the text about the three witnesses some allege that the text was added after the Trinity had already been hammered out by the councils to support that.

Of course others point to evidence that say it was not.

The point remains that if you have 10 different versions of the same document, it is not immediately clear that the longest one is correct, and the shortest is not, or the reverse.

The people who favor the NIV type manuscript go by a rule that says the shorter reading is preferred, because they see scribes as trying to add things to fit their theology.

People who favor the KJV type manuscript tend to say that it is more likely that someone who is copying a document might skip phrases than add new ones. Or that it is possible those who didn't like a particular doctrine might just leave out references.

There are cases where one can see both might be right. Some have studies examples of manuscripts that are unique in a given reading. In other words, only one manuscript that we have today has that exact reading for a particular verse. By looking at these they can see how that change may have happened. Especially if they just skipped a word, or added something that clearly favors a particular viewpoint.

The problem is no one rule is going to account for all the human possibilities among copyists. Sometimes people act differently.

 

[John Robie]

Well it is if you havent read that part of the bible.
Its not good to have missing parts like the sin of omission. You could cause a beleiver to stumble if that part is missing from their bible.

Not at all. I don't need that verse to prove the Trinity. So your argument is invalid.