I will reject a AI bible when it comes out which will happen eventually.Someone will do it its just a matter of time if it hasn't happened already.
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
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!
The NKJV is based on the TR, not the Majority Text.I dont know of any English Bible that's based on the Textus Receptus other than the KJV, perhaps you can enlighten the forums with your knowledge of the others you claim?
The New King James Version is based upon the Majority text type, I don't know of any others?
Thanks for the response!The NKJV is based on the TR, not the Majority Text.
Off the top of my head, the following are based on the T.R.: the Webster's Bible, Wesley's New Testament, Revised Common Version, Voice in the Wilderness Bible, Modern English Version, New King James Version, Modern King James Version, LITV, KJ3, The October Testament (a modern revision of the Matthew's Bible N.T.), Revised Geneva New Testament, Young's Literal Translation (and there's a modern revision of its N.T.). There are others, but I can't remember them all off-hand.
Then there are some based on the Majority Text: World English Bible, English Majority Text Version (N.T. only), Analytical Literal Translation (N.T. only), Wilbur Pickering's New Testament and the Text Critical New Testament (there's also a Greek Orthodox one, but I can't recall its name).
The Webster Bible is a "Revision" of the KJV and the Common Version is a "Revision" of the Webster bibleThe NKJV is based on the TR, not the Majority Text.
Off the top of my head, the following are based on the T.R.: the Webster's Bible, Revised Common Version,
I didn't address the O.T. text; but you're right, the NKJV uses an edition of the Biblia Hebraica.Thanks for the response!
The NKJV uses the corrupt critical edition in the Old Testament created by Rudolph Kittle (1853-1929) "Biblia Hebraica" that's used in most of the modern counterfeits, the 1611 KJV uses the historical Hebrew Masoretic Text, following the Ben Asher closely
Thanks for the response!
Wikipedia: New King James Version (NKJV) is a translation of the Bible in contemporary English, working as a revision of the King James Version. Published by Thomas Nelson, the complete NKJV was released in 1982. With regard to its textual basis, the NKJV relies on a modern critical edition (the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) for the Old Testament,[1] while opting to use the Textus Receptus for the New Testament.[2][a]
The "Common Version" was a kind of nickname for the Webster. The Revised Common Version is a modernised revision of that; however, the Webster and the R.C.V. are still different translations from the K.J.V., although the Webster is very closely based on it.The Webster Bible is a "Revision" of the KJV and the Common Version is a "Revision" of the Webster bible
You sound like a Ruckmanite. Do you follow the teachings of Peter Ruckman?
The Webster was a "Revision" of the KJV not a translation, Webster changed archaic and offensive words, he didn't use a Greek text to do so, it would have been a translation if he did use a Greek textThe "Common Version" was a kind of nickname for the Webster. The Revised Common Version is a modernised revision of that; however, the Webster and the R.C.V. are still different translations from the K.J.V., although the Webster is very closely based on it.
A revision is still a translation, albeit a minor one (e.g. Webster, correctly, changed "Easter" to "Passover").The Webster was a "Revision" of the KJV not a translation, Webster changed archaic and offensive words, he didn't use a Greek text to do so, it would have been a translation if he did use a Greek text
Wikipedia: Webster's Revision
Noah Webster's 1833 limited revision of the King James Version, (more commonly called Webster Bible) focused mainly on replacing archaic words and making simple grammatical changes. For example: "why" instead of "wherefore", "its" instead of "his" when referring to nonliving things, "male child" instead of "manchild", etc.[1] He also introduced euphemisms to remove words which he found to be offensive: "whore" becomes "lewd woman". He changed some of the spelling of the 1611 version, some of which had been changed by British usage since 1611 and others that he himself had deliberately changed in his dictionary to reflect an American identity over a British one.
I DisagreeA revision is still a translation, albeit a minor one (e.g. Webster, correctly, changed "Easter" to "Passover").
Here's a quote, by Webster himself, from the preface to the Webster Bible.I Disagree
A "Translation" is from one language to another, in this case from the (Hebrew/Greek) language to the (English) language
Webster did nothing more than "Minimal" word changes within the "English Language" (English/English) no translating performed, his work was a very minor "Revision" of the KJV
Jesus Is The Lord
Wikipedia: Webster's Revision
Noah Webster's 1833 limited revision of the King James Version, (more commonly called Webster Bible) focused mainly on replacing archaic words and making simple grammatical changes. For example: "why" instead of "wherefore", "its" instead of "his" when referring to nonliving things, "male child" instead of "manchild", etc.[1] He also introduced euphemisms to remove words which he found to be offensive: "whore" becomes "lewd woman". He changed some of the spelling of the 1611 version, some of which had been changed by British usage since 1611 and others that he himself had deliberately changed in his dictionary to reflect an American identity over a British one.
That's not the point. Why eat junk food when you can feast on the pure word of God? Satan knows those who have been fed a diet depleted of nutrients are no threat to him.My feeling is that any version is sufficient for salvation purposes
Do not change the words of this.... New plagues will be added So why do they continue to make them.I didn't know where to post this video but Bible versions have usually been debated so put it here for you to see what is coming out.
Do not change the words of this.... New plagues will be added So why do they continue to make them.
When one is starving...junk food looks good.That's not the point. Why eat junk food when you can feast on the pure word of God? Satan knows those who have been fed a diet depleted of nutrients are no threat to him.
verily i do type unto thee that watching much of christendom is like watching a great and mighty blizzard .That's definitely one flakey dude.
Lets add a wee bit to that first reminder .When one is starving...junk food looks good.
I believe that any version of the bible is good for material sufficiency.
Anyone can read the NT and come away knowing that:
1. They are a sinner.
2. God demands us to follow Him in order to be saved.
3. To follow God means to obey Him.
The above will be true for any version.
If one wants to dive deep into theology and really study the bible,,,
then we move to formal sufficiency and this must be studied.
Different versions must be used....
the Greek language must be used....
hermeneutics in general.
At this point I agree with your statement.
I would not use The Message or The New Testament,
both written (translated) by one person and put on the market.
I'm sure other versions can be added to the above,,,
Maybe The Passion version.
I think that, basically, we agree.
so what is a major key in knowing whether one has the LOVE OF GODThat's definitely one flakey dude.
so what is a major key in knowing whether one has the LOVE OF GOD