What prompted translators to issue the New King James Version of the Bible?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 жов 2011
- This clip is from our series entitled, "Which English Translation of The Bible is best for Christians to Use Today? What prompted translators to issue the New King James Version of the Bible?
Agree, the NKJV is a wonderful translation. I prefer the ESV and NASB, but the NKJV follows closely.
I have no problem with people who prefer the KJV. It's a beautiful and majestic translation. It's all the lunacy that the KJVOnlyists have stated that is my problem.
The KJV translators thought that using multiple translations was a good thing! They said in "The Translators to the Readers" that "a variety of translations is necessary for finding out the sense of the Scriptures"
Amen. KJVO's are a scourge on Christianity because their goal is to divide and diminish over a man-made doctrine. It depends on a liberal use of double standards and nonsense. There is something not right with them in that they are mean-spirited and conversation depends on invective. If loving the scriptures makes someone mean, then it's evidence of a life without the fruit of the Spirit. Prayers for the bride of Christ are always needed. God Bless Christian friend.
Great work here. It's really too bad that people will go to these shameful lengths for their "perfect, infallible, inerrant" KJV. Their arguments are old, multiple times refuted and in some cases 'egregious'. It seems that the arguments get more and more strident and more and more ridiculous. A PCE? Nonsense. I hope you can help this person see the light, because you surely have it. God Bless.
The existence of errors in the KJV prompted the translation of the NKJV. And those words are real errors
Quite the reverse. You need to study more.
Actually, the NKJV was supposed to be an update to the KJV tradition. Sure there were translational errors and variants in the KJV, but the primary reason was to update the language to be more readable for the modern day English reader. Each of our (valid) translations are the Word of God. Valid translations include the NIV, KJV, ESV, NASB, NKJV, etc. I am not including perversions (JS Inspired Version or the NWT), liberal translations (The Message) and paraphrases (NLT). I highly recommend reading James White's King James Only Controversy. Facts are facts, and he did a great job of backing up his claims.
One thing I will say is that we definitely have enough translations. We need to get what we have out to the world instead of doing further translations.
i grow up with the kjv and i use the nkjv personally. i know Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit. i don't see what the kjvo have against the nkjv but to each their own. the mormons also use the kjv and they are lost
I think the KJV is unrivaled for it's majestic speech, it is stunning literature! But that said, we must have God's words & message in a language that we can understand, and most of us struggle with understanding the KJV. That is why the NKJV fills such a vacumn, especially for those that like the KJV but struggle with alot of its archaic language. To denounce it as so many of the KJVonly's have done, just demonstrates their sheer ignorance and how much Kool-Aid they actually drank!
Anyone doing any bible translation at any time, sit down and make decisions about which words to use and not use! It's just a fact! I personally think the KJV translators did a pretty good job, but that is exactly what they did. So unless you contend, like Gipp and Ruckman that the KJV translators were also inspired by God. Then the KJV translation is simply an effort by men to provide folks 400 yrs ago God's message to them in language from that time that they could understand!
The Roman Catholic Church decreed that the Comma Johanneum was open to dispute (June 2, 1927), and it is rarely included in modern scholarly translations.
The third edition of 1522 was probably used by Tyndale for the first English New Testament (Worms, 1526) and was the basis for the 1550 Robert Stephanus edition used by the translators of the Geneva Bible and King James Version of the English Bible.
The NKJV is a great work, were I not completely sold on the NIV I would definitely use the NKJV as my main bible. My wife got me a Charles Stanley large print "Life Principles Bible" study bible in NKJV and I love it, and refer to it often, mine has notes to demonstrate signicant changes from the TR, with a (NU) which stands for Nestle/Aland - United Bible societies or (M-text) which indicates majority text, these are great helps!
Erasmus dedicated his work to Pope Leo X as a patron of learning and regarded this work as his chief service to the cause of Christianity. Immediately afterward, he began the publication of his Paraphrases of the New Testament, a popular presentation of the contents of the several books. These, like all of his writings, were published in Latin but were quickly translated into other languages, with his encouragement.
Certainly the NIV is not perfect, as no work of man is! But I would certainly put its accuracy up against ANY English translation out there. I had occassion this week to be doing word studies on two different words, and was happy to find out the NIV was right in its selection over some other translations!
Erasmus published a definitive fourth edition in 1527 containing parallel columns of Greek, Latin Vulgate and Erasmus's Latin texts. He used the now available Polyglot Bible to improve this version. In this edition Erasmus also supplied the Greek text of the last six verses of Revelation (which he had translated from Latin back into Greek in his first edition) from Cardinal Ximenez's Biblia Complutensis.
amen brother i read the NKJV and got to know Jesus and i also love the KJV, the words come alive in me.the kjvo keep telling me that i don't understand who Jesus and i answered He is my Lord and God. the niv and the nwt leave out 1st john 5:7 and acts 8:37 so i don't read them for spiritual food
In a way it is legitimate to say that Erasmus "synchronized" or "unified" the Greek and the Latin traditions of the New Testament by producing an updated version of either simultaneously. Both being part of canonical tradition, he clearly found it necessary to ensure that both were actually presenting the same content. In modern terminology, he made the two traditions "compatible".
"My mind is so excited at the thought of emending Jerome’s text, with notes, that I seem to myself inspired by some god. I have already almost finished emending him by collating a large number of ancient manuscripts, and this I am doing at enormous personal expense."
Most of the manuscripts were, however, late Greek manuscripts of the Byzantine textual family and Erasmus used the oldest manuscript the least because "he was afraid of its supposedly erratic text." He also ignored much older and better manuscripts that were at his disposal.
The first New Testament printed in Greek was part of the Complutensian Polyglot. This portion was printed in 1514, but publication was delayed until 1522 by waiting for the Old Testament portion, and the sanction of Pope Leo X. Erasmus had been working for years on two projects: a collation of
part of the actual hard text itself. It was meant to help readers understand what was going on and what was being talked about, NOT to be actual physical text.
In 1535 Erasmus published the fifth (and final) edition which dropped the Latin Vulgate column but was otherwise similar to the fourth edition. Subsequent versions of Erasmus's Greek New Testament became known as the Textus Receptus.
The publishers do not even use that symbol anymore. It's a silly argument against the translation, especially considering how many pagan images appear on the cover page of the 1611 KJV. Also, plenty of people reject the NKJV for sticking with the Textus Receptus and for keeping the KJV sentence structure. And plenty of people accept it for those very same reasons.
This is clearly evidenced by the fact that his Greek text is not just the basis for his Latin translation, but also the other way round: there are numerous instances where he edits the Greek text to reflect his Latin version. For instance, since the last six verses of Revelation were missing from his Greek manuscript, Erasmus translated the Vulgate's text back into Greek.
I think paraphrases can be helpful at times, but absolutely you need a serious translation to do serious bible study!
There are several words in the KJV that I don't like or speak, the NIV has done a good job of sanitizing some of those words!
While his intentions for publishing a fresh Latin translation are clear, it is less clear why he included the Greek text. Though some speculate that he intended to produce a critical Greek text or that he wanted to beat the Complutensian Polyglot into print, there is no evidence to support this. He wrote, "There remains the New Testament translated by me, with the Greek
He further demonstrated the reason for the inclusion of the Greek text when defending his work: "But one thing the facts cry out, and it can be clear, as they say, even to a blind man, that often through the translator’s clumsiness or inattention the Greek has been wrongly rendered; often the true and genuine reading has been corrupted by ignorant scribes, which we see happen every day, or altered by scribes who are half-taught and half-asleep."
So he included the Greek text to permit qualified readers to verify the quality of his Latin version. But by first calling the final product Novum Instrumentum omne ("All of the New Teaching") and later Novum Testamentum omne ("All of the New Testament") he also indicated clearly that he considered a text in which the Greek and the Latin versions were consistently comparable to be the essential core of the church's New Testament tradition.
I have noted the exact same nasty spirit among the KJVonly's!
Erasmus said it was "rushed into print rather than edited", resulting in a number of transcription errors. After comparing what writings he could find, Erasmus wrote corrections between the lines of the manuscripts he was using (among which was Minuscule 2) and sent them as proofs to Froben.
Erasmus also translated the Latin text into Greek wherever he found that the Greek text and the accompanying commentaries were mixed up, or where he simply preferred the Vulgate’s reading to the Greek text.
So everybody knows, the full show is still available for sale at www.jashow.org for only $3 per episode (as of this writing) if you buy the downloadable versions, and there are eight episodes. There are two versions of the show available for purchase, and if you want to see the full show as it originally aired, the one you want is entitled, “Which English Translation of the Bible is Best for Christians to Use Today?” The other one is similar to these UA-cam videos in that it shows excerpts of the show, but it has commentary by John Ankerberg in between those excerpts. That one is entitled, “The King James Controversy Revisited.” I have decided to place this comment on every video in this playlist and hope it is useful to any viewers who are a little frustrated by the choppiness of these clips.
His hurried effort was published by his friend Johann Froben of Basel in 1516 and thence became the first published Greek New Testament, the Novum Instrumentum omne, diligenter ab Erasmo Rot. Recognitum et Emendatum. Erasmus used several Greek manuscript sources because he did not have access to a single complete manuscript.
The first and second edition texts did not include the passage (1 John 5:7-8) that has become known as the Comma Johanneum. Erasmus had been unable to find those verses in any Greek manuscript, but one was supplied to him during production of the third edition. That manuscript is now thought to be a 1520 creation from the Latin Vulgate, which likely got the verses from a fifth-century marginal gloss in a Latin copy of I John
First off, you are wrong. Erasmus used whatever he had at the time and he used the Latin as his base text. Epistle 273" in Collected Works of Erasmus Vol. 2: Letters 142 to 297, 1501-1514 (tr. R.A.B. Mynors and D.F.S. Thomson; annotated Wallace K. Ferguson; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1976), 253. You can find it there as to what he said of which I will post.
one of the best translations was done by Daniel Webster.
doctrine? Your use of the text is wrong most of the time. You merely state without evidence that texts should be in the bible, when they are already there in another gospel or in the case of the Comma doesn't even appear. There are tons of passages that teach the trinity, clearly showing that it doesn't take the comma (of which we have no physical proof) to make it valid. By claiming it is there, even though it is only in early latin in the margin, do you find it and even there it's not..
There are good reasons why the NIV didn't use those verses. You must be careful when you say a translation LEFT something out! The question is whether they should have ever been included in ANY translation!
As is the KJV!
the nkjv have the Holy Ghost as Him or He. i see that in the kjv. what is the word for hell in greek?
The KJV also has a copyright! Possession of KJV copyright privileges are owned by the University Presses of Oxford & Cambridge and has brought them massive sums of revenue over the years!
Only a deceiving KJVonly could read my comment and say I only told half of the story. I could probaby go on for an hour about copyrights and copyright law, but it wouldn't be enough to satisfy KJVonly's. The ONLY point I was trying to make is that the KJV has a copyright, that's all!
It doesn't matter where you live, the KJV has a copyright!
It most certainly does have a copyright! If it were taken to the moon, it would still have a copyright. What you are trying to say, and I will help you here, is that the KJV doesn't have "copyright protections" here in the U.S., but, yes, it certainly has a copyright.
SK - I am not wrong. You are welcome to your own opinions but not your own facts. The KJV was under worldwide copyright in all countries ruled by the British empire from it's 1st publishing in 1611 all the way up to 1782. As of 1881, the KJV has been under exclusive copyright in Great Britain and its colonies for 270 years to the present day, the KJV is published in England under copyright. Possession of the copyright privileges belong to the University Presses of Oxford and Cambridge and has brought them massive revenue over the centrures.
So-called (Chaplain) Bob Walker continuously lies and misrepresents his idol (the KJV translation, which btw, is a great translation) and also misrepresnts the facts regarding this literary masterpiece, and seems unwilling to recognize the MASSIVE influence that catholics had in this wonderful, early English translation. There would be no KJV NT without the dedicated efforts of Erasmus, a faithful Roman Catholic priest to his dying day. And then we have those faithful catholic monks copying those (magical, seemingly to KJVonlies) Byzantine manuscripts for hundreds of years prior to the reformation. So for anyone to act as though there was not a huge catholic influence in bringing the KJV to fruition they are either unimformed or they have been drinking kool-aid provided by liars like Peter "Piper" Ruckman! And I don't care how many letters you have after your name that were probably provided by a diploma mill.
Regarding King James sexual proclivities, they are well-documented, and are a fact of history.
*****
However, when the KJV first came out it had an equivalent of a copyright and it included the apocrypha. That is a sham of an argument. The KJVonly position is indefensible by anyone who is truly honest about accurate scholarship The KJV is a good translation. The KJV only position is ignorant and full of distortions. Greek works cannot have an English translation as its standard. Unless you are claiming re inspiration in 1611. But then why all the revisions? In fact I doubt that you study from the 1611. I am quite sure you study from either the Oxford or Cambridge edition of the 1769 Blayney revision.. So Chaplain Bob, does your KJV say anything about bearing false witness? my KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, and ESV all do. your little answer to Greg appears to be a bit of false witness. Maybe you should examine yourself as scripture tells us to.
In the second (1519) edition, the more familiar term Testamentum was used instead of Instrumentum. This edition was used by Martin Luther in making his German translation of the Bible for his own religious movement. Together, the first and second editions sold 3,300 copies. Only 600 copies of the Complutensian Polyglot were ever printed.
The ESV is scripture! Good show!
Greek texts and a fresh Latin New Testament. In 1512, he began his work on this Latin New Testament. He collected all the Vulgate manuscripts he could find to create a critical edition. Then he polished the Latin. He declared, "It is only fair that Paul should address the Romans in somewhat better Latin." In the earlier phases of the project, he never mentioned a Greek text:
So before you begin to think you understand the construction by which Erasmus did his work, do some real work first then do as I instructed a long time ago... come to your own conclusions. The facts are out there just look them up.
Dr Chambers is wrong, the KJV was never true to the original Bible, it's been miss translated.
It's only lunacy until you study some history and understand the circumstances out of which the counter-reformation bibles and Greek texts came. It really began with Westcott & Hort when they proposed a new textual theory to try and justify the use of Alexandrian gnostic Greek texts instead of the Church sanctioned Greek text. Compare Acts 8.37; 1 Tim 3.16; 1 Jn 5.7 in KJV vs NIV and tell me it doesn't affect doctrine.
I thought we were talking about the KJV?
You can look up Greek word for Hell in many different places!
And roadrunner, let me give you a little run down on Erasmus and historical background.
And yes you did revert to name calling with the term "Slow" implying that his thought process is not up to speed. So clearly you tried to attack his person rather then sticking to the facts. If you use the 3 arguments you supplied (which are wrong), then you still end up on the short end of the stick because they can be proven wrong as I have demonstrated many times to you in several different forums. Do you wish to go through the many times that the NIV and NASB BOTH supply consistent...
And Roadrunner, Ad Hominem is more then just a fallacious argument on the basis of personal attacks. It is hort for argumentum ad hominem, which is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy, more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance. Go back to logic class.
1. Name calling would necessitate the use of a noun which I most definately didn't use. I made an objective observation of another's comment.
2. Ad hominem is a logically fallacious argument on the basis of personal attack instead of on merits of a position. I neither personally attacked *nor* did I rely upon such to make a counter-argument.
3. I offered hard facts- 3 verses demonstrating doctrinal changes.
4. Ironically it is YOU who has resorted to ad hominem instead of dealing with facts!
And Again Acts 8:37 does not exist, there is not physical evidence to support it except for the TR and not the originating texts.
gal 1:6-8 will help you
You don't find it weird that the KJV calls the Holy Spirit and "It" in four places, as does the JW's wicked "New World Translation" and all the modern translations fix that egregious error?
John 1:32, Rom 8:16, Rom 8:26 & 1 Pet 1:11
God the Holy Spirit is not an "it" and should NEVER be called one!
In John 1:32 (KJB) it says,
"And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him." This passage is referring to the dove as an "it," not the Holy Spirit~!
As far as Romans 8:16 is concerned you need to read the verse in context, starting with verse 15. You'll find that the Spirit spoken of here, is the "Spirit of adoption."
"For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit (Spirit of adoption) itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God:
The Spirit being talked about, in 8:26, is not The Holy Spirit, it is the Spirit of life as stated in Romans 8:2.
"For the law of the "Spirit of life" in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death."
No, the NIV is not full of doctrinal errors, and I note any evidence of that is conspicously absent in your comment!
The KJV is a man-made TRANSLATION!
you don't find it weird that every verse the niv amended and left out is the same as the jw bible?
You lost the argument when you resort to trying to belittle people. That is not a Christian behavior,, hence you're not a Christian. You also have not answered the question about 1 John 5:12.
Please don't misquote the bible! 2 Timothy says nothing about the KJV being given by inspiration! It says "All Scriptures is God-breathed....."
Can't speak for the NASB but the NIV is actually more accurate than the KJV, but it is also in lanugage that folks can understand!
Do you believe Jesus was dead when He was hung on the cross? That's what the KJV says at Acts 5:30!
And you did not supply "textual facts" to support your attack on SkiesVibrant. Using John 5:7 is not a supplied fact. It's a pastoric fact, not a physical one.
No, I'm not a liar. The ESV is scripture.
You do know that Acts 8:37 came from Erasmus who included it from the Latin Vulgate after only finding it in 1 mss and none before the 6th century. But I know you are wrong, because the KJV translators baptized infants as their doctrine taught. Erasmus did the same thing Revelation 22:16-21. Also the comma. My goodness all those Catholic sources.
Again with your "counter-reformation" bible argument. STrangely the interesting points need to made about your argument. 1. The fact that the same thing happened when Martin Luther tacked his thesis on the doors. Caused a big huge split in the church. So originally YOU and I were both catholics, if ML had not done this very thing. Yet you attack the use of modern bibles that use the older texts. Your arguments don't amount to a hill of beans because you have no facts.
Are you under the impression that I am under some obligation to do as you wish? Get over it. That won't work. You have demonstrated a mean spirit that is unseemly in a Christian. Ephesians 4:29.
Wow, you're slow.
Acts 8.37 in the KJV establishes the *believer's* baptism. Not so in the NIV.
1 Tim 3.16 emphatically states the deity of Christ. Not so in the NIV.
1 Jn 5.7 clear mentions the trinity. Not so in the NIV.
There are HUNDREDS of such doctrinal differences between the KJV and the NIV (and other counter-reformation pseudo-bibles). Moorman's- Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version identifies 356 doctrinal changes brought about by the counter-reformation Greek texts (eg. W&H)
Really? 2 Tim 3:16 says the KJV is given by inspiration? I have FIVE KJV's and none of them say that. They say 'ALL' scripture. Are you saying that "Pretty simple stuff" requires you to misstate what the scripture says? Typical behavior for a KJVOnlyist. I have NIV, NASB, ESV, they say "all" scripture. This is yet another KJVO double standard. Which of your KJV's is the 'perfect' one? Go read 1 John 5:12 in the AV1611 and then the 1769. Somebody either added or deleted scripture.
Why unify a blood sacrifice, sun worshipping, occult?
I don't see any three verses! I have studied this matter deeply, and because I use to be a worse KJVonly than you, I probably know your points better than you do!
Get this, the KJV is a TRANSLATION! The bible is completely silent about perfect English translations coming to a town near you in 1611, so, because the bible itself is silent on this issue, may I suggest you do the same!
"Ye" is the Old Enlgish AND KJV term for our slang "yall," - a plural form of you aka. everyone (or like term). But "ye" was NOT slang. Old English was phased out in the 15th century when the KJV was printed (1611). "Ye" becma the Middle English term to address someone of higher social stature. So why did the KJV writers keep "ye?"
In the Greek texts, and the KJV, Jesus said to Nicodemus, "Ye must be born again." Theoriginal languages, and KJV are saying what Jesus said to Nic: that everyone needs salvation - not just Nic needed to be saved. The translation would have been "you must be born again" if Christ meant JUST Nic. in this verse.
The NKJV has removed thepluralmeaning Christ intended, and makes it look like Jesus was telling just Nic., where Jesus (in the NKJV) says, "You must be born again." This is definitely NOT what Jesus said.
But b/c too many people nowadays are not interested enough to understand and look into the difference of "you" vs "ye," the NKJV has its market and followers. Their Bible does not say what God intended wherever this word has been substituted. And modern laziness in not wanting to learn one word (ye) has also helped the market.
Every place ye has been taken out erases the intended meaning of a verse. If they wanted accuracy, the NKJV COULD have used "everyone" in place of ye. This would not have erased the meaning of the verses. And anywhere the NKJV eliminates "ye" they need to revise it by saying "everyone, all of you, etc." Until the tense in these verses is restored, the NKJV cannot be said to accurately portray what God meant in these verses.
Please don't assume. I was only using the KJV in this instance because the plurality of the word "ye" was implemented by the KJV translaters. The full meaning was (I assume unintentionally) left out of the NKJV by the elimination of the plural.
Also, you likely have a newer version of the NKJV because it says, "One must..." instead of my NKJV which says, "You must be born again." The NKJV like other modern ones, are updated/changed where errors are pointed out and verified.
And yet... there still is a difference if a person says, "one must...," vs. "everyone must... ." While the word "one" would allow a person (who knows to do it) to infer Jesus was telling Nicodemus that all men are in need of salvation, the word one also can be seen to have the meaning of Christ only directing the statement to Nicodemus as a singular reference again. "Everyone must be born again," would leave out all ambiguity. And, again, "Ye" already does - if people will take the time to remember it is plural. Until about the last 50 years or so - people knew this.
Just for a bit of info where I am coming from here:
1. I have been using the original Greek for over 25 years and comparing all versions against it.
2. I am a teacher who has taught classes concerning the original manuscripts, comparing the original manuscripts, origins of translations, historicity of Biblical texts, and derivations of modern translations.
The NKJV, while meaning well, has left out an entire case of the Greek language when translating into modern English b/c they did not include a plurality of the word "you."
Since we are not dealing with Shakespeare here, but the inspired Word of God, what they did, meaning well, has the dire consequences of leaving out specific meaning God intended in those verses. And God's Word says not to change anything (meaning) in His Word.
You got that right. The NIV is indeed a work of man!
Which of the many editions between 1611 and 1769 does this typology work for you KJV onlys?. Most KJV only's talk about the AV1611 (of course that contained the catholic Apocrypha) but most uneducated KJV only's currently use the 1769 Blayney revision. Btw, there are about 100,000 differences between the AV1611 and the 1769 Blayney revision, much more than that if you count the deletion of the Apocrypha.
Also, the 1611 was edited by a non inspired human king that told translators what words they could or could not use.
Lol
Answers all your questions. ua-cam.com/video/cs4Fns_yXyE/v-deo.html
@Puritan Pilgrim diisagree? See they didn't have computers back then copiest errors. The only thing for me is the KJV is the only English Bible that usef correct manuscripts.
@Puritan Pilgrim here is the real deal in simple words and very very true most claim to be Bible believers but really they should be called Bible correctors but they are scared to come out the closet, they should never be called Bible believers. Psalm 12:6-7 KJVS
The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. [7] Thou shalt keep them, O Lord , thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
@Puritan Pilgrim your a Bible corrector not a Bible believer. Lol you don't get it because you don't believe it. That simple
Since Jerry Fallwell, old pal of Thomas Nelson, gave this vision a resounding plug in his "Fundamentalist Journal"; and since Nelson is on the board at Jerry's LIBERTY University, I hereby dub thee the JFV: Jerry Falwell Version!
Erasmus didn't use "Catholic sources" as you suppose but instead was able to identify the Traditional Text, distinct from the anti-Christ influence of the papacy. Yes, some of the Traditional Text made it into the L.Vulgate.
I'm looking forward to hearing from you about how you know how many MS, versions, patrisic writings and ancient lexionaries Erasmus had access to. Your answer will be quite telling indeed.
Do you think the KJV translators were IFB's? They were Anglicans and they believed in transubstantiation, infant baptism, the perpetual virginity of Mary and most Calvinist doctrines. They included some work from the Douay-Rheims, the Latin Vulgate, even a conjectural emendation at Rev. 16:5. Are you saying that as long as we avoid the 'appearance' of evil, it doesn't matter if we do evil? That's what the KJV implies at 1 Thess 5:22.
Please point out any doctrinal error.
Do you not have a response to the 3 verses I've offered which clearly demonstrate doctrinal changes brought about in the counter-reformation bibles?
C'mon Greg. You can do better than that!
Spend some time with the Geneva, Bishops, Great Bibles. The KJV translators used those translations liberally. Erasmus used the Latin Vulgate and even the Douay Rheims. To say that new Bibles leave out things from the KJV is nonsensical. The KJV took things out of itself over the years, to include the word "God". Unless you can read Greek and Hebrew you can't say what should have been added or deleted. Can you prove the KJV didn't ADD something?
Then how can you explain the total absence of doctrinal error in the KJV? The NIV, being man-made, is filled with perverse doctrine.
(Psalm 119:158) I beheld the transgressors, and was grieved; because they kept not thy word.
(Proverbs 11:3-6) The integrity of the upright shall guide them: but the perverseness of transgressors shall destroy them. {4} Riches profit not in the day of wrath: but righteousness delivereth from death. {5} The righteousness of the perfect shall direct his way: but the wicked shall fall by his own wickedness. {6} The righteousness of the upright shall deliver them: but transgressors shall be taken in their own naughtiness.
(Proverbs 13:13-14) Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed: but he that feareth the commandment shall be rewarded. {14} The law of the wise is a fountain of life, to depart from the snares of death.
(Proverbs 26:9-10) As a thorn goeth up into the hand of a drunkard, so is a parable in the mouth of fools. {10} The great God that formed all things both rewardeth the fool, and rewardeth transgressors.
(Isaiah 1:28) And the destruction of the transgressors and of the sinners shall be together, and they that forsake the LORD shall be consumed.
(Isaiah 46:8-10) Remember this, and shew yourselves men: bring it again to mind, O ye transgressors. {9} Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, {10} Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
(Hosea 14:9) Who is wise, and he shall understand these things? prudent, and he shall know them? for the ways of the LORD are right, and the just shall walk in them: but the transgressors shall fall therein.
they all buying niv now because of you guys
Its about money!!!
I agree
What's an IFB? Define your terms first.
We are to avoid the even the appearance of evil. The KJV is correct in 1 Thes 5.22. It is perfectly clear from the rest of the chapter that all evil is to be avoided. How slow does one have to be to not get this?
What crap Greg!
are you a christian now?
NKJV speaks of Christians 'being saved' in verses that the original language and the KJV say 'saved'. THAT is a huge doctrinal difference. I have depended on the NKJV for many years. No more. I have returned to the real Bible.
Discuss the subject matter or get lost. Your prudish spiritual immaturity is pointless in theological debate.
Come now Roadrunner I've already refuted you, surely you can do better then this. You try the same old dog and pony show over and over again.
The KJV is given by inspiration (2 Tim 3.16)
Pretty simple stuff.
The counter-reformation bibles, which followed the KJV, are clearly different, and if different then they can not be True Bibles.
Also pretty simple stuff, one would think.
Read your King James Bible. The NIV and NASB are clearly NOT the Words of God.
When you resort to childish name-calling such as "Wow, you're slow", you show yourself to be a true KJVOnlyist. The moment you display this behavior, you have lost the argument. You can't deal with the facts, so ad hominem becomes your displayed doctrine. It's very typical. Did you figure out the problem at 1 John 5:12 yet?
KJVO's really need to get some new material, because this stuff is old & has been refuted repeatedly. If you knew anything about textual criticism, you'd know that Westcott & Hort Rev, is so far back in mix it has no effect on modern bibles. Erasmus said that, the comma, is likely not original. None of the mss he had, even included it. Get the facts and stop promoting this nonsense. Go read 1 Thess 5:22. The KJV says we should avoid the 'appearance' of evil, but evidently not evil.
You're a liar (Jn 8.44)-
The KJV is Scripture. Paul said all Scripture is given by inspiration (2 Tim 3.16). Therefore the passage says that the KJV is given by inspiration.
The NIV, NASB, NLT, ESV, RSV et al, are *not* Scripture and therefore do *not* qualify for the passage.
I'm looking forward to proving the fact even further to you.
Most anti-KJV's are ignorant of even the most basic facts.
I will never believe these newer versions of the bible. I will stick with the KJV.
I'll stick with my OSB.
+William Sculley osb?
Ryan Taylor Orthodox Study Bible. It uses the St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint translation for the Old Testament and the NKJV for the New
+William Sculley ok thanks for the info
Ryan Taylor No problem. It's a version I highly recommend for anyone who wants a real idea of what Orthodox dogma, instead of what everyone, especially extremists like KJV onlyists, else says
You're a liar (Jn 8.44).
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" 2 Ti 3.16
Your "bible" doesn't say this because you have a counter-reformation bible.
There's no error in Acts 5.30. They did indeed slay Christ and they did indeed hang Him on a tree. It takes an enemy of the Word of God to begin to impute error in this way.
He's a lier
Grow up.
You're spouting all the usual anti-Christ guff.
Time for you to prove you're not a liar-
Tell us how you know how many manuscripts Erasmus was familiar with?
The NKJV is not a good work...the symbol on the cover is very evil!! Leave the most beloved translation alone...thousands of people have already rejected the NKJV.