New King James Version ALERT!

  • 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!

Pariah

New Member
Nov 10, 2007
416
0
0
59
This is just to avoid any confusion in regards to our faith by those that may read the New King James Version. The Good News will be shown in the King James Bible first.And then the comparison to the New King James Version.King James BibleHebrews 10: 14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.New King James VersionHebrews 10:14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.King James Bible 1 Corinthians 1:18For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.New King James Version1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.King James Bible2 Corinthians 2:15For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:New King James Version2 Corinthians 2:15 For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing.King James BibleMatthew 7:14Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.New King James VersionMatthew 7:14 Because[a] narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.Footnotes: Matthew 7:14 NU-Text and M-Text read How . . . ! Just sharing a few comparison so that if anyone believed they are not saved or that they are living the christian life religiously because they believe it to be hard, then you all may want to check the King James Bible for the Good News again. And you may want to stick with the King James Bible too.
 

Pariah

New Member
Nov 10, 2007
416
0
0
59
The points where Bible translations disagree as deviating from communicationg the truth of God found in the King James Bible, and thus inadequate for the ordering of the christian life by a leaven of the Pharisees.I have stated that if other translations puts the emphasis on man or on the "Spirit" whereas in the King James Bible, the scriptures testifies of the emphasis on Jesus, then I would go with the King James Bible as in knowing the true meaning of the Word of God.Example... of the emphasis on man... understanding that only God can cause the increase in helping others see the difference.1 Peter 4:18And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? 19Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator. King James BibleAs I read this by His grace, I rejoice inwardly that as we suffer in according to the will of God, I can entrust the keeping of my soul unto my faithful Creator in well doing for He is also My Good Shepherd as well as my Redeemer. The well doing is on Him in the keeping of my soul as I am entrusting Him to do it.Now read the other versions as it becomes unclear to some and seems obvious to others that the emphasis of the verse is on the believer to do good while they suffer. Combine that with verse 18, you get a deviation as the hope to be saved is placed on the believers to do good while they suffer.1 Peter 4:18And, "If it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?"[a] 19So then, those who suffer according to God's will should commit themselves to their faithful Creator and continue to do good. New International VersionSee how that emphasis is clearly on the believer? The reading of the word, "hard" in verse 18 puts on the religious reading glasses for verse 19 where making a commitment to Christ to do good and to follow Him has turned a believer's trust in the Lord into a religious striving.1 Peter 4:18 Now “ If the righteous one is scarcely saved,Where will the ungodly and the sinner appear?”[a] 19 Therefore let those who suffer according to the will of God commit their souls to Him in doing good, as to a faithful Creator. New King James VersionThis one leaves me guessing because I can see how a reader can see it as an emphasis on himself by committing his soul to Him in doing good like the commitment to follow Christ, and I also can see how they might read it as the King James Bible has it by entrusting the keeping of their souls to their faithful Creator , but the doing good part is on them as in doing good works, and not the originally intent of the Word of God in how the faithful Creator is keeping their souls.. in well doing.1 Peter 4: 18(A)AND IF IT IS WITH DIFFICULTY THAT THE RIGHTEOUS IS SAVED, WHAT WILL BECOME OF THE (B)GODLESS MAN AND THE SINNER? 19Therefore, those also who suffer according to (C)the will of God shall entrust their souls to a faithful Creator in doing what is right. New American Standard BibleHere, it is clearly an emphasis on the believer in doing what is right and not on the faithful Creator in the keeping of their soul in well doing. The "DIFFICULTY" makes it an obvious reading from a religious viewpoint.So then, one could say.. well in taking all the Bible translations together, we can find the true meaning of God's words, and if the King James Bible is outgunned, then 1 Peter 4:18-19 in all the other versions must be the correct meaning of God's words and why eternal security is not based on trusting the Lord but on man's religious effort and willpower.But... what does the scriptures say about the scriptures?John 5:39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.So if the meaning of the scriptures switch from emphasis on Jesus to yourself, then the King James Bible is the correct meaning of God's words for the religious of this world has always resorted to their own power in doing good and fail, and this is why Jesus made this invitation.Matthew 11:28Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.John 6:28Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.Philippians 1:6Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:Galatians 5: 1Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage....4Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. 5For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. So the good fight is keeping the faith and trusting Jesus Christ to not have our eyes taken off of Himself to ourselves or to another spirit to receive to have life as subtle as the other versions will have it.So again, the other translations will fail in reproving the works of darkness for a little leaven leavens into a whole lump, but the King James Bible can be used to keep the faith against that which voids it.Romans 13: 11And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. 12The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. 13Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.Ephesians 5:7Be not ye therefore partakers with them. 8For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: 9(For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth 10Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. 11And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.Psalm 118: 8It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.So if other Bible translations points to YOU while the King James Bible points to the faith in Jesus Christ, by His grace, I would place my trust in the Lord rather than resort to my own power in trying to live the christian life, thus using the King James Bible to defend the faith and keep the faith is paramount in my walk with Him.
 

Jordan

Active Member
Apr 6, 2007
4,875
5
38
Hi Pariah, I had a topic concerning Bible Versions, but I stop it for a reason or 2...1. We shouldn't rely on a translation of the Bible... While I believe wholeheartedly that KJV is the best English translation of the Bible, but KJV is not exactly perfect. There are some places where the translator got it wrong. I stopped doing it excessively... it was rather getting to the point of being almost Translation worshiping in my opinion. And that will lead to the fact that there is going to be an "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude.2. There are areas where people including translators may or may not understand what God is saying and it is been proven well here at CB also. Which leads me into the scripture of Daniel 12:4I won't judge anyone who started a Modern Version first, but I will kindly point out the errors of them...
 

Jordan

Active Member
Apr 6, 2007
4,875
5
38
Which Bible Translation to rely? As an English Bible... King James Version. Which Bible Translation to rely on in reality? How about none. The only thing we should rely on is God. Our Lord Jesus Christ. No bible translation is perfect. Trust in God, not the translation.
 

Pariah

New Member
Nov 10, 2007
416
0
0
59
Hi Pariah, I had a topic concerning Bible Versions, but I stop it for a reason or 2...1. We shouldn't rely on a translation of the Bible... While I believe wholeheartedly that KJV is the best English translation of the Bible, but KJV is not exactly perfect. There are some places where the translator got it wrong. I stopped doing it excessively... it was rather getting to the point of being almost Translation worshiping in my opinion. And that will lead to the fact that there is going to be an "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude.2. There are areas where people including translators may or may not understand what God is saying and it is been proven well here at CB also. Which leads me into the scripture of Daniel 12:4I won't judge anyone who started a Modern Version first, but I will kindly point out the errors of them...
I believe the format of my presentation was in regards to keeping the faith by relying on the true meaning of God's words. If we go for word for word format, then we can see chnages have been made, but in comparison with different translations, we can see that the true meaning of God's words has been kept in the King James Bible whereas other translation would shift it from Jesus Christ towards being on the believer or on the "Spirit", and yet scriptures was written that declares scriptures to testify of Jesus Christ. John 5:39-40 as the inner dwelling Holy Spirit and those led by the Spirit shall do as well: John 15:26-27.So it is in regards to keeping the faith that one must rely on the King James Bible for the true meaning of God's words... otherwise, scriptures wilol be open to private interpretation, and no one can know the will of God.2 Peter 1:15Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance. 16For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. 19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.So there is a promise from God about the keeping of the scriptures, else His word below cannot be fulfilled nor confirmed.Matthew 26:54But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?John 10:35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;There is ample evidence that scriptures were being shared abroad in the earky church days.Acts 18:24And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus....For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.Romans 15:4For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.Romans 16:26But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:Galatians 4:30Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.2 Timothy 3:15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.2 Timothy 4:12And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus. 13The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments. Acts 15: 22Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren: 23And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia. 24Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: 25It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. 28For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. 30So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle: 31Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation. Alot of Biblical references have been made to Antioch where the Received Text originated from. All other versions had their basis from documents out of Alexandria where poetic licensing has been known to have taken place.The New King James Version has not kept the true meaning of God's words found in the King James Bible.So which do you believe we should rely on? On God? Certainly. On God keeping His Word and making sure His followers get them. Most certainly... even more. Why else for tongues with interpretation and prophesying? Once they had the scriptures in full, what need be there for the tongues with interpretation or prophesying when the edification can be found in the completed scriptures?I understand the point about "I'm right and you're wrong attitude", but somewhen along the way, a stand has to be made as to what the true scriptures says so that we may be equipped to keep the faith and exposed the works of darkness by the scriptures. It is all about keeping the faith which is the good fight by the scriptures.
Thanks for the information, this is interesting.
I thank the Lord that I even came back here to post this. So be sure to thank Him. I wasn't going to come back here. He directed my footsteps and told me in a dream symbolically to come back here. I am glad He is Lord over me as well as being My Good Shepherd.
Topics merged, no need for two different topics which are so similar.
I was trying to avoid long posts, but okay.
 

soulja boy

New Member
Aug 10, 2009
63
0
0
80
Question: Which translation did the New Testament church use?Answer: The living bible. How do I know?The written New Testament did not exist when the New Testament church changed the world. Their bible was the lives and testimony of each other as in a "living bible." As a result they didn't know about God. They knew God and as a result they did exploits (Dan 11:32)
 

epistemaniac

New Member
Aug 13, 2008
219
2
0
59
soulja boy;71218 said:
Question: Which translation did the New Testament church use?Answer: The living bible. How do I know?The written New Testament did not exist when the New Testament church changed the world. Their bible was the lives and testimony of each other as in a "living bible." As a result they didn't know about God. They knew God and as a result they did exploits (Dan 11:32)
actually they in all likelihood used both the Masoretic Text and the LXX... although it is true that there was no official list of books that we today call the "New Testament" during New Testament times, they did use letters that carried the authority of scripture as is evidenced by verses like: 2Pe 3:15-16 ESV And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, (16) as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures."Here we see Peter's elevation of the status of Paul's writing to that of "other Scriptures' which would have been the OT... so there was a NT, eg in the form of written letters which were not yet collected and codified in the canon of Scripture, as well as there being an oral tradition...blessings,ken
 

epistemaniac

New Member
Aug 13, 2008
219
2
0
59
as far as the OP itself is concerned, what you have to prove FIRST is that the King James Version is THE standard by which all other translations must be measured, you can't presuppose it and then fault any translation that doesn't happen to perfectly match the King James Version. This is circular reasoning and is illogical. So listing a bunch of verses of one version of the bible alongside of any places where the 2 versions might differ from the King James Bible does not prove anything EXCEPT that one version is different from the King James Version, and that does not in and of itself prove ANYTHING except that the 2 versions differ from one another. And that conclusion is not especially illuminating. Secondly, its called the "King James Version" for a reason, it was just one version among others that were present in 1611 when King James originally commissioned his "approved" version for reading in the Church of England, and he only commissioned this version because he was unhappy with the Geneva Bible which was the most popular version of the day. Also, he did not care for the notes in the Geneva Bible as it subscribed to "Lex Rex" where "law is King", or, in other words, even Kings had to submit to God's law.Thirdly, which "version" of the King James is THE approved version? Why? Which version do you use?Fourthly, are there any Scriptures you can point me to in the King James Version which say, explicitly, something along the lines of "thus saith the Lord, the King James version was good enough for Jesus and the Apostles, so it shalt be good enough for everyone, verily and verily, amen and amen, it is the only version of the bible which thou shalt useth"... or anything remotely close to this...? If you can find a verse or passage in the King James Bible which does say this then you would be consistent in saying that it is the only version of the Bible we ought to use. Fifthly, if you can't find a verse or passage like this, and you can't, then you have to realize that what you are doing is elevating a man-made tradition, namely the tradition which uses the King James Bible, which happens to also be the tradition you subscribe to, to the status of Scripture itself, which is unbiblical, even according to your own standards.blessings,ken
 
K

kiwimac

Guest
There is no scriptural backing for King-James onlyism. It is a completely man-made doctrine.
 

jiggyfly

New Member
Nov 27, 2009
2,750
86
0
61
North Carolina
I have come to believe that there is no translation, transliteration or paraphrase that is without bias. I think that the English translations are corrupt, especially KJV but it didn't start there. Jerome's Latin Vulgate was a very corrupt translation of the scriptures. I find that most of the modern English translations follow after some of the same mistranslations of the KJV.
 

WhiteKnuckle

New Member
Mar 29, 2009
866
42
0
46
epistemaniac said:
as far as the OP itself is concerned, what you have to prove FIRST is that the King James Version is THE standard by which all other translations must be measured, you can't presuppose it and then fault any translation that doesn't happen to perfectly match the King James Version. This is circular reasoning and is illogical. So listing a bunch of verses of one version of the bible alongside of any places where the 2 versions might differ from the King James Bible does not prove anything EXCEPT that one version is different from the King James Version, and that does not in and of itself prove ANYTHING except that the 2 versions differ from one another. And that conclusion is not especially illuminating.

Secondly, its called the "King James Version" for a reason, it was just one version among others that were present in 1611 when King James originally commissioned his "approved" version for reading in the Church of England, and he only commissioned this version because he was unhappy with the Geneva Bible which was the most popular version of the day. Also, he did not care for the notes in the Geneva Bible as it subscribed to "Lex Rex" where "law is King", or, in other words, even Kings had to submit to God's law.

Thirdly, which "version" of the King James is THE approved version? Why? Which version do you use?

Fourthly, are there any Scriptures you can point me to in the King James Version which say, explicitly, something along the lines of "thus saith the Lord, the King James version was good enough for Jesus and the Apostles, so it shalt be good enough for everyone, verily and verily, amen and amen, it is the only version of the bible which thou shalt useth"... or anything remotely close to this...? If you can find a verse or passage in the King James Bible which does say this then you would be consistent in saying that it is the only version of the Bible we ought to use.

Fifthly, if you can't find a verse or passage like this, and you can't, then you have to realize that what you are doing is elevating a man-made tradition, namely the tradition which uses the King James Bible, which happens to also be the tradition you subscribe to, to the status of Scripture itself, which is unbiblical, even according to your own standards.

blessings,
ken

It's my understanding that the original KJV is closest to the original transcripts of the Bible. From my (limited) research, I have concluded and found that the KJV is the most accurate. I also find that this version is more in line with the Strongs Concordance. However, I do realize that the Strongs is based on the KJV.

However, I do find the "Kings English" insufferable. So, I use the New King James, same thing without the Thee, Thou, and the Wilst etc. It also makes it easier to do a little more linguistics type study and understand certain things a little more.

There are other translations in the Bible mostly written by certain scholarlisticly type people such as Ryrie. I don't care for the notes and for study bibles. I've found most to be denominationaly biased, or doctrinaly biased. Either falling heavy towards Calvinsim, or Arminianism. Some are just completely ate smooth up.

As with any translation, converting to a more modern form of language it's easy to loose some of the essence in translation, which can make study a little harder, although not impossible.

It is interesting the King James version was written by atheist scribes. (supposedly) In which the intent was that one who didn't believe would have no desire to change scripture or to be biased doctrinaly as to manipulate the words to suit their needs. It was under very close scruitiny, and constantly compared to the original scripts.

The reasons for the translations were solely so the layman would be able to read the Word of God without the aid of a Bishop or a Pope. At the time that was the only way the Layman could read or hear the word of God,and thus was subject to the manipulation of the Clergy as the Clergy saw fit. Interesting enough there were more people who couldn't read back then than those who could. However the intent was to bring the Word of God into the hands of the People.

As with all versions of the Bible, prayer should be done prior to reading the words. The Lord will lead you into all truths, and the Gospel will be explained to you as you can handle it and as the Lord has prepared your heart. Those who truly seek Him will find Him and will not be turned away.

If the only translation you can find are in Chinese, yet you only read English, the Lord will provide a way for you to read and understand one way or another.
 

kestrel

New Member
Oct 8, 2008
59
6
0
52
It's my understanding that there are no original manuscripts of the Bible. Translators have to choose among what they believe to be the most faithful copies. At the time of the KJV there were less manuscripts available in Western Europe. That, joined with the fact that language evolves in time and that translating is more art than science, explains the differences quite well.
 
K

kiwimac

Guest
The KJV was a good translation for it's day. It is both based on fewer and newer transcripts than are modern translations.
 

Christina

New Member
Apr 10, 2006
10,889
91
0
14
kestrel said:
It's my understanding that there are no original manuscripts of the Bible. Translators have to choose among what they believe to be the most faithful copies. At the time of the KJV there were less manuscripts available in Western Europe. That, joined with the fact that language evolves in time and that translating is more art than science, explains the differences quite well.

Well we often hear things from men who dont know what they are talking about learn to check these things out for oneself . The manuscripts most certaily exist


Antioch vs. Alexandria


We hear much talk these days about "older" and "more authoritative" manuscripts, but we aren't hearing much about the origin of these manuscripts. It is a well established fact that there are only two lines of Bibles: one coming from Antioch, Syria (known as the Syrian or Byzantine type text), and one coming from Alexandria, Egypt (known as the Egyptian or Hesycnian type text). The Syrian text from Antioch is the Majority text from which our King James 1611 comes, and the Egyptian text is the minority text from which the new versions come. (Never mind Rome and her Western text, for she got her manuscripts from Alexandria.)

The manuscripts from Antioch were mostly copied by Bible-believing Christians for the purpose of winning souls and spreading the word of God. The manuscripts from Alexandria were produced by infidels such as Origen Adamantius and Clement of Alexandria. These manuscripts are corrupted with Greek philosophy (Col. 2: , and allegorical foolishness (not believing God's word literally). The strange thing is that most Christians aren't paying any attention to what God's word says about these two places! Notice how the Holy Spirit casts Egypt and Alexandria in a NEGATIVE light, while His comments on Antioch tend to be very positive:

Egypt and Alexandria

1. Egypt is first mentioned in connection with Abraham not trusting Egyptians around his wife (Gen. 12:10-13).

2. One of the greatest types of Christ in the Bible was sold into Egypt as a slave (Gen. 37:36).>

3. Joseph did not want his bones left in Egypt (Gen. 50:25).

4. God killed all the firstborn of Egypt (Exo. 12:12).

5. God calls Egypt "the house of bondage" (Exo. 20:4).

6. God calls Egypt an "iron furnace" (Deu. 4:20).

7. The Kings of Israel were even forbidden to get horses from Egypt (Deu. 17:16), so why should we look there for a Bible?

8. The Jews were forbidden to go to Egypt for help (Jer. 42:13-19).

9. God plans to punish Egypt (Jer. 46:25).

10. God calls His Son out of Egypt (Hos. 11:1; Mat. 2:15).

11. Egypt is placed in the same category as Sodom (Rev. 11: .

12. The first time Alexandria is mentioned in the Bible, it is associated with unbelievers, persecution, and the eventual death of Stephen (Acts 6:9; 7:54-60).

13. The next mention of Alexandria involves a lost preacher who has to be set straight on his doctrine (Acts 18:24-26).

14. The last two times we read about Alexandria is in Acts 27:6 and Acts 28:11. Here we learn that Paul was carried to his eventual death in Rome by two ships from Alexandria .

Alexandria was the second largest city of the Roman Empire, with Rome being the first. It was founded in 332 B.C. by Alexander the Great (a type of the Antichrist in Daniel . Located at the Nile Delta, Alexandria was the home of the Pharos Lighthouse, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient world. Also, during the second and third centuries B.C., it was the home of a massive library containing between 500,000 and 700,000 volumes. It was also the home of a catechetical school once headmastered by the great apostate Adamantius Origen (185-254 A.D.).

QUESTION: In light of what God's word says about higher knowledge and philosophy (I Cor. 1:22; Rom. 1:22; Gen. 3:5; Col. 2:8; I Cor. 8:1), why would any serious Christian expect to find the true word of God in Alexandrian manuscripts?



Antioch

1. Upon it's first mention, we find that Antioch is the home of a Spirit-filled deacon (Acts 6:3-5). Do you suppose it is a mere accident that the Holy Spirit first mentions Antioch in the same chapter where He first mentions Alexandria?

2. In Acts 11:19, Antioch is a shelter for persecuted saints.

3. The first major movement of the Holy Ghost among the Gentiles occurs in Antioch (Acts 11:20-21).

4. Paul and Barnabas taught the Bible in Antioch for a whole year (Acts 11:26).

5. The disciples were first called "Christians" at Antioch (Acts 11:26).

6. The church at Antioch sends relief to the poor saints at Jerusalem (Acts 11:27-30).

7. The first missionary journey is sent out from Antioch (Acts 13:1-3).

8. Antioch remains the home base or headquarters of the early church (Acts 14:19-26; 15:35).

9. The final decision of the Jerusalem council was first sent to Antioch (Acts 15:19-23, 30), because Antioch was the home base.

10. Antioch was the location of Paul setting Peter straight on his doctrine (Gal. 2:11).

Founded in 300 B.C. by Seleucus Nicator, Antioch was the third largest city of the Roman Empire. Located in Syria, about twenty miles inland from the Mediterranean on the Orontes River, Antioch had it's on sea port and more than it's share of travelers and tradesmen. In His infinite wisdom, God picked the ideal location for a "home base". Antioch was far enough away from the culture and traditions of the Jews (Jerusalem and Judaea) and the Gentiles (Rome, Greece, Alexandria, etc) that new Christians could grow in the Lord. Meanwhile, it's geographical location was ideal for taking God's word into all the world.

So, friend, you have a choice. You can get your Bible from Alexandria, or you can get it from Antioch. If you have a KJV, then your Bible is based on manuscripts from Antioch. If you have a new version, its from Alexandria, Egypt.
 

Jordan

Active Member
Apr 6, 2007
4,875
5
38
kiwimac said:
The KJV was a good translation for it's day. It is both based on fewer and newer transcripts than are modern translations.

Are you telling me that modern version uses the "Oldest manuscripts / transcript"?

Oldest does not necessarily mean better. As far as New King James Version... I would not touch it because it is not really a KJV at all. Comparing it to the original does 100% say the same thing... so one must use discernment on these issue.
 

Nomad

Post Tenebras Lux
Aug 9, 2009
995
140
43
56
Philadelphia, PA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Jordan said:
Are you telling me that modern version uses the "Oldest manuscripts / transcript"?

Not exclusively. The critical text underlying the newer versions of the New Testament draws from a wide variety of available manuscripts that span many centuries.


Jordan said:
As far as New King James Version... I would not touch it because it is not really a KJV at all.

I'm not sure what you mean. The NKJV utilizes the same Textus Receptus and Masoretic texts that underlies the KJV. The NKJV is the KJV in updated English.
 

HammerStone

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Feb 12, 2006
5,114
270
83
35
South Carolina
prayerforums.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I wouldn't go so far as saying it's not the KJV at all - as Nomad said it's mostly an updated KJV - but it does use some different manuscripts from the KJV. The NKJV OT actually is based on the Stuttgart '67/'77. (All of which can verified by reading the Preface.) So it does differ and that's a fair statement to make.

In regards to much of what the OP posted, many of the passages are a differing use of tense and tone, which still essentially say the same thing at least to me. IMHO, if you understand God's name, the tenses make a good bit of sense.