Search results

Which we no longer have to get into!

So are the Nas/Esv and Niv!

They were making another revision of prior english translations, and their version was not inspired to be "only: translation God approves of!

What does God think on this issue?

I have found an interlinear to be helpful also.

Best of its time, but there have been advances in textual criticism and source texts!

Those same reasons can be used to support nas/esv/Niv!

Do those holding to Kjvo even have a reputable textual critic?

see #42!

Yes

How can we validate and sanction as a valid marriage relationship that God has not?

Think all that were involved on the nas/Esv/Niv affirmed Verbal plenary inspiration!

was not attested to until third edition of eramus!

Kjvo is bogus, as there are few reputable textual critics that would subscribe to it! Even the patron saint of the Kjvo, dean Burgeon, would not hold to it!

Thought the Nkjv team used same sources as kjv 1611 did?

Yes, as many believe that there were copiers and scribes who desired to finish and smooth off the end of mark, so added onto all known examples of what Apostles actually did do! So while the long ending not written by mark, it did reflect what the Apostles were able to do! Another case would be...

Those who say that the modern versions cut out the scriptures are assuming that the TR was the original!

Are you into the Oneness heresy then?

Jesus is not the father, as he was and is the eternal Word of the father!

Even the translators of the 1611 Kjv saw their version as improving on prior english translations, and that they saw others would revise update and improve theirs in the future! Kjvo, which Kjv version and which TR is the correct one?