KJV Only...which one!

[JesusFan1]

There is more than enough proof for those who care to investigate. And your mention of Erasmus and the Vulgate (as though they negatively influenced the KJB) shows that you know little or nothing about this matter.

Been studying the subject past 30 years!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Nas and Nkjv both more formal and literal then the Kjv

Now you are just spewing out things that are absolutely not true. Not even Textual Critics would agree with you on that one.

Note: Do you believe it is true that Jesuit Catholic priests secretly infiltrate Protestant churches to serve the greater Catholic Rome Agenda?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The Nkjv translators used SAME source texts as ther kjv team did, and they just put into margins the alternate readings of the MT/CT, and the Kjv has had many changes in the words between the differen t editions!

No offense: While you may claim to have studied the KJB vs. the Modern Bible issue for the past 30 years I don’t believe you have been doing an unbiased in-depth study because you don’t appear to be aware that the newest NKJV at times actually alters the text at times to favor the Westcott and Hort text or the Nestle and Aland text. Maybe your 1982 NKJV does not alter the text and it just adds footnotes, but not your 2013 NKJV. Not all NKJV’s say the same thing. So just saying that the NKJV as if it exists as some kind of unique singular entity is simply not true. Which NKJV Edition are you referring to?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Also were the 1873 and 1900, so which edition is really the "perfect English translation?"

Psalms 12:6-7 says that the words of the Lord are purified seven times.
This is prophetically speaking ahead to the seven MAJOR KJB Editions.

The KJB 1900 Pure Cambridge Edition is the current perfect 1600’s English translation. While all previous KJB Editions basically say the same thing using different words, the Pure Cambridge’s Edition is the current KJB purification with the clarity of certain words (that were different from the previous editions). I believe God will make His words available to the world and they have to be in one book and not many books. If this is not the case, then Jesus words in Matthew 24:35 simply could not be true. For Modern bibles do attack the words of Jesus (for the worse and not for the better).

Why is the KJB 1900 Pure King James Cambridge Edition the chosen KJB?

#1. In 1885, publishers started to removed the Apocrypha from the Bible.
#2. The Cambridge KJB does clarify a certain small number of words more clearly and or correctly (from it’s previous editions).
#3. It was a quiet and humble edition not boasting itself to be great and yet it is popular and widely used even today (with Biblehub.com courtesy of BibleProtector.com).
#4. It was a KJB that became established for a long time to meet the oncoming rise of popularity of the Modern Translation movement beginning with the popular NIV in the 1970’s (Which just so happens to be the years when the New Age movement also happened to boom).

 

[JesusFan1]

Now you are just spewing out things that are absolutely not true. Not even Textual Critics would agree with you on that one.

Note: Do you believe it is true that Jesuit Catholic priests secretly infiltrate Protestant churches to serve the greater Catholic Rome Agenda?

Pretty all respected textual critics would agree with me that both the Nas, at least the 1977/1995, and the Nkjv are more literal then even the kjv!

 

[JesusFan1]

No offense: While you may claim to have studied the KJB vs. the Modern Bible issue for the past 30 years I don’t believe you have been doing an unbiased in-depth study because you don’t appear to be aware that the newest NKJV at times actually alters the text at times to favor the Westcott and Hort text or the Nestle and Aland text. Maybe your 1982 NKJV does not alter the text and it just adds footnotes, but not your 2013 NKJV. Not all NKJV’s say the same thing. So just saying that the NKJV as if it exists as some kind of unique singular entity is simply not true. Which NKJV Edition are you referring to?

The first edition Nkjv

 

[JesusFan1]

Psalms 12:6-7 says that the words of the Lord are purified seven times.
This is prophetically speaking ahead to the seven MAJOR KJB Editions.

The KJB 1900 Pure Cambridge Edition is the current perfect 1600’s English translation. While all previous KJB Editions basically say the same thing using different words, the Pure Cambridge’s Edition is the current KJB purification with the clarity of certain words (that were different from the previous editions). I believe God will make His words available to the world and they have to be in one book and not many books. If this is not the case, then Jesus words in Matthew 24:35 simply could not be true. For Modern bibles do attack the words of Jesus (for the worse and not for the better).

Why is the KJB 1900 Pure King James Cambridge Edition the chosen KJB?

#1. In 1885, publishers started to removed the Apocrypha from the Bible.
#2. The Cambridge KJB does clarify a certain small number of words more clearly and or correctly (from it’s previous editions).
#3. It was a quiet and humble edition not boasting itself to be great and yet it is popular and widely used even today (with Biblehub.com courtesy of BibleProtector.com).
#4. It was a KJB that became established for a long time to meet the oncoming rise of popularity of the Modern Translation movement beginning with the popular NIV in the 1970’s (Which just so happens to be the years when the New Age movement also happened to boom).

NONE of the scriptures refers to ANY translation, as those promises All refer back to the original Hebrew and Greek books as penned down under inspiration of the Holy Spirit!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I think it’s time to move on. Your jukst

The first edition Nkjv

There was a NKJV in the 1970’s that was just the New Testament. Is that the one you were referring to? This was only the New Testament.
Or are you referring to the 1982 edition with the Westcott and Hort footnotes?

Note: The NKJV creators lied and said they were not going to subject us to the Westcott and Hort Critical Text from the previous 1970’s version. Then they came out with the 1982 with the Westcott and Hort text. Then later they started to actually change the text.

But again… this argument is silly because not all NKJV’s say the same thing. Later editions made changes. There is no body of believers claiming the NKJV as the perfect Bible because the 1970’s version was an incomplete Bible, and the 1982 version had the corrupt WH footnotes in it, and the later NKJV Editions subjected you to actual changes in the text favoring the WH text, and Nestle and Aland (Which are corrupt manuscripts and a corrupt approach to the Word of God - with them not actually fearing God’s words but they simply change His words like silly putty).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

NONE of the scriptures refers to ANY translation, as those promises All refer back to the original Hebrew and Greek books as penned down under inspiration of the Holy Spirit!

Sorry. Psalms 12:6-7 does not say His words would only be preserved in the original languages. It says His words shall be preserved for all generations. This generation does not know Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek. The world language of today is English. Just as God spread the NT Scriptures in the world language (Koine Greek) at one time in the past, and He did not keep His Scriptures in the Biblical Hebrew (OT), God moved naturally moves with the times so people can know His Word. For God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

Besides, even if you are right, where is your perfect manuscripts of the Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek. Not all Alexandrian manuscripts agree with each other and the Nestle and Aland text did not just use one source text alone. Plus, the Nestle and Aland keeps changing and updating to new manuscript evidence that comes out. So it’s never the settled and perfect Word of God.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Pretty all respected textual critics would agree with me that both the Nas, at least the 1977/1995, and the Nkjv are more literal then even the kjv!

The NAS is a Catholic favored Bible. Always has been. So if you want to suck up to a Catholic bible, be my guest.

The NKJV comes from the KJV and you are shooting down the KJV. You are totally illogical, my friend. Especially when you refer to either the 1970’s NKJV (New Testament version only) and the 1982 version (with the Westcott and Hort footnotes). It’s not more literal with the NKJV because they change the necessary pronouns that distinguish between referring to a group of people (you, ye) vs. a singular person (thou, thee). The NKJV eliminates this essential distinction in the text and replaces it with you, your, etc. and it does not properly mention if it is referring to more than one person always.

 

[JesusFan1]

I think it’s time to move on. Your jukst


There was a NKJV in the 1970’s that was just the New Testament. Is that the one you were referring to? This was only the New Testament.
Or are you referring to the 1982 edition with the Westcott and Hort footnotes?

Note: The NKJV creators lied and said they were not going to subject us to the Westcott and Hort Critical Text from the previous 1970’s version. Then they came out with the 1982 with the Westcott and Hort text. Then later they started to actually change the text.

But again… this argument is silly because not all NKJV’s say the same thing. Later editions made changes. There is no body of believers claiming the NKJV as the perfect Bible because the 1970’s version was an incomplete Bible, and the 1982 version had the corrupt WH footnotes in it, and the later NKJV Editions subjected you to actual changes in the text favoring the WH text, and Nestle and Aland (Which are corrupt manuscripts and a corrupt approach to the Word of God - with them not actually fearing God’s words but they simply change His words like silly putty).

No, the Nkjv was translated off same texts as the kjv was, but did include in the footnotes and margins alternative readings, as did the kjv!

 

[JesusFan1]

Sorry. Psalms 12:6-7 does not say His words would only be preserved in the original languages. It says His words shall be preserved for all generations. This generation does not know Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek. The world language of today is English. Just as God spread the NT Scriptures in the world language (Koine Greek) at one time in the past, and He did not keep His Scriptures in the Biblical Hebrew (OT), God moved naturally moves with the times so people can know His Word. For God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

Besides, even if you are right, where is your perfect manuscripts of the Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek. Not all Alexandrian manuscripts agree with each other and the Nestle and Aland text did not just use one source text alone. Plus, the Nestle and Aland keeps changing and updating to new manuscript evidence that comes out. So it’s never the settled and perfect Word of God.

The originals were the only inspired and perfect texts!

 

[JesusFan1]

The NAS is a Catholic favored Bible. Always has been. So if you want to suck up to a Catholic bible, be my guest.

The NKJV comes from the KJV and you are shooting down the KJV. You are totally illogical, my friend. Especially when you refer to either the 1970’s NKJV (New Testament version only) and the 1982 version (with the Westcott and Hort footnotes). It’s not more literal with the NKJV because they change the necessary pronouns that distinguish between referring to a group of people (you, ye) vs. a singular person (thou, thee). The NKJV eliminates this essential distinction in the text and replaces it with you, your, etc. and it does not properly mention if it is referring to more than one person always.

Both the Nas and ther Nkjv are more accurate to the original texts though!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

No, the Nkjv was translated off same texts as the kjv was, but did include in the footnotes and margins alternative readings, as did the kjv!

The problem is why are you choosing the older NKJV? Is there a reason why? Do you believe it is the settled Word of God? Most likely not. The newest NKJV does make changes that favor the Alexandrian texts. Plus, the updates of the ye, etcetera changes meaning in pronoun distinctions. Do you even know what these distinctions are in the KJB and their importance? My guess is you don’t fully understand their importance. This is why you just mindlessly attack the KJB and just spew out nonsensical statements (from Textual Critics who seek to attack and change the Bible continually).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Of course the Textual Critic (Original Onlyist) may potentially ask me:

So dear Mr. Highlighter, where was your perfect bible before the Cambridge 1900 edition?

Even other King James Inerrantists like yourself will disagree with you and say they had a perfect bible before you (at least all the way back to 1611).

My reply in love to my Textual Critic brother in Christ would be:

Dear friend. I don’t need sight to confirm my faith. We walk by faith and not by sight according to Hebrews. I don’t need a manuscript of the original languages to confirm the King James Bible always. I also don’t need a perfect unbroken line of KJB editions going back to the 1611, either. I just don’t think that is possible because the Apocrypha was in KJV bibles before 1885 (Except when the publisher or tract society decided to remove it). The Apocrypha needed to be removed in an official capacity in order for the Bible to be perfect. Yes, I know that Christians did not regard the Apocrypha as Scripture, and they most likely kept it in there to use as an evangelization tool to bring in Catholics to the faith by with those corrupt books in there, but those uninspired books did not make the Bible perfect. It would be like having a piece of maggot infested rotten meat inside a super delicious hotdog bun and saying that it is perfectly good to eat just the bun. Granted, the Word of God could still be used because of its amazing powerful nature. No doubt about it, but the Apocrypha’s placement slightly tainted the existence of “the Book of the Lord” or the Bible and it needed to be removed so that it would be perfected and settled (or finalized, i.e. standardized).

But where was the perfect Bible before the Cambridge 1900?
I don’t know. But I do know that His words perfectly existed somewhere among some culture on the planet in one form or another. Do I have historical proof? No sir. What I have is faith. God’s word says His words are pure words and they would be kept for all generations. Maybe it was in a Christian tribe or village that was entirely wiped out by the Catholics or some other group. I don’t know. But I have faith. I believe. I walk by faith, and not by sight. So yes. There was a perfect Word before 1900. What did it look like? I don’t know. I don’t need to know. I have faith and I trust God and His Word and that is enough for me. I don’t need to see in order to believe. I don’t need that historical document as proof in order to believe. I did not see the resurrection of Jesus Christ so as to believe in it. I believe that He rose from the dead on the third day. I take that by faith just as I do the rest of the parts of Scripture.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Both the Nas and ther Nkjv are more accurate to the original texts though!

The NAS and NKJV are not more accurate than the KJB because most of all your Modern Translations are going off the corrupt Westcott and Hort / Nestle and Aland (Alexandrian) texts influenced by Rome. I have already demonstrated how Modern bibles have corrupt doctrines, make Jesus appear to sin, and how they place the devil’s name in the Bible where it does not belong; So you can give up this charade.

 

[quietthinker]

KJV Only...which one!
How many have you got?

 

[JesusFan1]

The problem is why are you choosing the older NKJV? Is there a reason why? Do you believe it is the settled Word of God? Most likely not. The newest NKJV does make changes that favor the Alexandrian texts. Plus, the updates of the ye, etcetera changes meaning in pronoun distinctions. Do you even know what these distinctions are in the KJB and their importance? My guess is you don’t fully understand their importance. This is why you just mindlessly attack the KJB and just spew out nonsensical statements (from Textual Critics who seek to attack and change the Bible continually).

I have NEVER attacked the Kjv, as see it as being a good translation, probably most influential ever made, but NOT a perfect one! Attack the Kjvo position itself!

 

[JesusFan1]

I already answered this. There is no point in repeating a flawed statement I already addressed.

The Scriptures themselves affirm that truth, as all of the promises refers to the originals, not ANY translation!

 

[JesusFan1]

The NAS and NKJV are not more accurate than the KJB because most of all your Modern Translations are going off the corrupt Westcott and Hort / Nestle and Aland (Alexandrian) texts influenced by Rome. I have already demonstrated how Modern bibles have corrupt doctrines, make Jesus appear to sin, and how they place the devil’s name in the Bible where it does not belong; So you can give up this charade.

There is NO textual proof that they watered down the text, as they both affirm all essentials of the faith!