• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The CF Faith Groups List has been updated. The Statement of Faith has also been updated (section on unorthodox Christian theology only). Please review both of these updates. If you would like to request a different faith group, please open a support ticket.

Featured The King James Version

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by Lik3, Dec 6, 2017 at 10:56 AM.

  1. Lik3

    Lik3 Newbie

    +247
    Baptist
    Single
    US-Republican
    Is the KJV only view a false view of preaching or studying the Bible? I am just wondering because I believe all translations are written about the same things? They are translations, not a promotion of false doctrine. When did the KJV only view take place? Why would it be considered more accurate than the NKJV and other translations?
     
  2. brinny

    brinny everlovin' shiner of light in dark places Supporter

    +87,743
    Non-Denom
    Private
    US-Constitution
    You might want to research it. Many versions leave out crucial God-breathed elements.

    In addition, pray about it.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  3. HereIStand

    HereIStand Regular Member Supporter

    +1,471
    Presbyterian
    Married
    I believe the NKJV is translated from the same manuscripts as KJV. Technically, the KJV-only debate hinges on different manuscripts used for it, than other translations, such as the ESV. Historically, I'm not sure the KJV-only movement really emerged until other translations, such as the NIV, became more common in evangelical circles. Preferring the KJV over other translations is fine. KJV-only goes to far.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Like Like x 1
    • List
  4. tampasteve

    tampasteve Tampa, Florida, USA, Earth, Sol, Orion arm Supporter

    632
    +354
    United States
    Messianic
    Married
    US-Constitution
    I am not a KVO person, not by a long stretch (I prefer the Jewish tradition translations, such as Artscroll, for the Tanakh). However, translations absolutely do promote whatever the translators are biased to in terms of doctrine, which is why one should look at several translations when taking doctrinal issues in study. One translation might use a different set of texts, which may or may not be older or more exact, than another and might translate a particular passage differently, which can lend credence to different doctrines or differences. A extreme of this would be the NWT from the Jehovah's Witnesses which has passages translated that support their doctrines, seen as heresy by most mainstream Christians.

    But no one translation has everything correct.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • List
  5. Albion

    Albion Facilitator

    +13,357
    Anglican
    Married
    As Brinny was thinking, the answer is too big to handle in a couple of paragraphs, but one thing must be understood. If there are elements in the KJV that have been questioned, that doesn't make every new, modern language, translation that has come along since the KJV be better! Their own errors have been well documented.

    None of that supports the *KJV Only* people, however. There are many more people who prefer the KJV than those who say it is somehow the only true Bible.
     
  6. 1stcenturylady

    1stcenturylady Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,398
    Charismatic
    Celibate
    How does the Artscroll state Isaiah 9:6? Can you type it out for me?
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  7. tampasteve

    tampasteve Tampa, Florida, USA, Earth, Sol, Orion arm Supporter

    632
    +354
    United States
    Messianic
    Married
    US-Constitution
    Sure, no problem; I wrote out 5 and 6 since you are probably looking for verse 5, but Isaiah is numbered slightly differently in most Jewish Tanakh translations.This is from the Artscroll Tanakh Stone Edition:

    5. For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and dominion will rest on his shoulder; Wondrous Adviser, Mighty God, Eternal Father, called name Sar-shalom; 6. upon the one with the greatness in dominion and the boundless peace that will prevail on the throne of David and on his kingdom, to establish it and sustain it through justice and righteousness, from now to eternity. The zealousness of Hashem, Master of Legions, will accomplish this!
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • List
  8. 1stcenturylady

    1stcenturylady Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,398
    Charismatic
    Celibate
    My Bible of choice is the NKJV, just so I can read the KJV more easily. I'm not aware of any changes in meaning from this updated version of the KJV. Is anyone aware of any?

    I choose the KJV and NKJV because of Romans 8:1 and 1 John 5:7. Tyndale's English version has them. I would like to see an updated Tyndale NT using modern spelling, instead of Spirit spelled Fpirit, etc. It takes a long time to read. I would like to compare it to the KJV to see how closely Erasmus used it and other sources for the KJV. (I think it was Erasmus...)
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2017 at 1:16 PM
  9. 1stcenturylady

    1stcenturylady Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,398
    Charismatic
    Celibate
    Thanks. It was interesting. The Tanakh reads:

    5. For a child has been born to us,
    A son has been given us.
    And authority has settled on his shoulders.
    He has been named
    "The Might God is planning grace;
    The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler" -
    6. In token of abundant authority
    And of peace without limit
    Upon David's throne and kingdom,
    That it may be firmly established
    In justice and in equity
    Now and evermore.
    The zeal of the Lord of Hosts
    Shall bring this to pass.

    What I like in yours is the lack of a comma between Wonderful and Adviser. That's how I prefer it.

    NKJV:
    And His name will be called
    Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
     
  10. JackRT

    JackRT "Karma" can bite you in the butt

    +6,675
    Canada
    Christian
    Married
    Good questions all. With regard to the last question ----
    The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text (the Textus Receptus) that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and yet he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus. We now possess many more ancient manuscripts (about 9000 compared to just 10) of the New Testament, and thanks to another 400 years of biblical scholarship, are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. Much as we might love the KJV and the majesty of it’s Jacobean English, modern translations are more accurate.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  11. 1stcenturylady

    1stcenturylady Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,398
    Charismatic
    Celibate
    Outside missing the complete verses of Romans 8:1 and 1 John 5:7, I like to read the New American Standard Bible also. I don't like the NIV thought for thought version, but I do love the paraphrase of the Living Bible. When I read it, I was astounded by Romans 6. It changed my complete understanding of the gospel. Of course, I immediately compared it with the KJV which said the same thing, only I never understood it before. I praise God for the Living Bible and it's author. It's like reading a very good commentary.
     
  12. JackRT

    JackRT "Karma" can bite you in the butt

    +6,675
    Canada
    Christian
    Married
    Perhaps those verses were removed because they were not present in the oldest manuscripts. And there are verses that are included but shouldn't be: If you have been paying attention to more recent translations of the Gospel of John, you will have noticed that John 7:53 - 8:11—the story of the woman caught in adultery of whom Jesus says, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her"—has been getting some interesting treatment by the scholars. The evidence that it was not an original part of this gospel is clear. The verses are absent from a wide array of early and diverse witnesses (papyrus 66, papyrus 75, Aleph [Codex Sinaiticus], B [Codex Vaticanus] and a host of others), and there is evidence that some manuscripts of John place these verses after John 7:36, some after John 7:52, some after John 21:25, and one manuscript even has it in the Gospel of Luke after Luke 21:38.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2017 at 1:35 PM
  13. 1stcenturylady

    1stcenturylady Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,398
    Charismatic
    Celibate
    Wow! I just looked on Amazon.com and a modernized edition of Tyndales NT exists! Of course I bought it in hardcover.
     
  14. 1stcenturylady

    1stcenturylady Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,398
    Charismatic
    Celibate
    I really don't want to debate whether or not those verses actually exist on the oldest manuscripts we have TODAY. I believed they did in Tyndale's time.
     
  15. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting The Librarian Supporter

    +2,583
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    IN THE "NEW KJV," THERE ARE

    22 omissions of "hell",
    23 omissions of "blood",
    44 omissions of "repent",
    50 omissions of "heaven",
    51 omissions of "God",
    66 omissions of "Lord".

    The term "JEHOVAH" is completely omitted.
    A Deadly Translation - The "New" KJV
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  16. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting The Librarian Supporter

    +2,583
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    All important aspects of Christianity are explained
    by multiple authors in different ways, spread over time.
    Some things do not pass this test.
     
  17. 1stcenturylady

    1stcenturylady Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,398
    Charismatic
    Celibate
    I'm not sure what you are saying - it is too brief. Do you mean the different apostles wrote the same things in different ways for clarification? If so, I would agree. But I'm not sure if that is what you meant.
     
  18. 1stcenturylady

    1stcenturylady Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,398
    Charismatic
    Celibate
    I stopped reading your attachment when I read this:

    "There's nothing "new" about the NKJV logo. It is a "666" symbol of the pagan trinity which was used in the ancient Egyptian mysteries."

    :eek:
     
  19. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting The Librarian Supporter

    +2,583
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    The pagan trinity is not a mystery. It is symbolic of a father, mother, and child.
    You should remember that Adam wrote the first scriptures, so ideas in scripture
    were not formed "late" in humanity. You might find them anywhere.

    What and when you stop doing research is always up to you. I don't endorse my sources in any way. I provide them for your interest.
     
  20. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting The Librarian Supporter

    +2,583
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    All important aspects of Christianity are explained by multiple authors
    with different viewpoints, in different ways, in the New or Old Testaments.
    There are no "central points" in our faith, covered only once.

    Some things do not pass this test.
     
Loading...