Matthew 5:32

[Trust & Obey]

Trust and obey...if your disagreement with me lies not in the KJV/NKJV debate, as I originally thought, but, rather, in the Textus Receptus/Alexandrian debate...that is a whole different story.  And one that I am taking up with Super Jew.  It will be of your interest in observing our exchanges, and, by all means, join in if you'd like.  Super Jew brought up some intellectual points and I am presently constructing a defense of my position.  It is taking some time because of the references I plan on using, etc.

To clarify, I thought that you were merely stating that the NKJV is ON PAR with the KJV.  Obviously, you are not arguing this, but instead, maintaining that the Alexandrian manuscripts ARE IN THEORY AND REALITY God's Preserved Word.  It is here where we lie then, and not in the KJV/NKJV debate.

Lastly, I do believe that words, and many words at that, have been intentionally changed in the NKJV translation.  I do not see what justification you can make for this...but obviously you do.  The verdict is simple...the NKJV translators, by necessity, as previously stated, changed words delibrately...not only from the KJV but ALSO from the actual manuscripts that they used in their rendering.  They had to...by LAW for publishing rights.  Perhaps I am hard-headed, but for good reason I believe.  This is utterly wrong...I don't care what spin you put on it. 

The original King James Version translators set out to do their jobs for a reason: to make the Word of God available to the general public and to advance Protestant doctrines in light of the reformation.  Many of the translators were Puritans and staunch anti-romish believers.  Their cause, THOUGH YOU MAY DISAGREE WITH IT, had much higher principle's behind it than what those clinging to the NKJV can claim.  Money (at least in part)...or solely theological motivations???  Take your pick. 

God bless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not arguing for or against the Alexandrian manuscripts, as I haven't given enough study to the issue to intelligently contribute to that discussion. I'll let you two hash it out.

What I am arguing is that the NKJV is a great translation. When you say "changed the word of God" you must understand that the "word of God" is contained in manuscripts, not translations only.

So, the KJV is a translation of the word of God, it isn't the word of God directly. So, too, is the NKJV a translation of the word of God.

Can the NKJV render things differently than the KJV and still be a good translation? Yes, it can. As I've shown, the NKJV has rendered things differently than the KJV, but it enhances the understanding of the original manuscript. Do you know what that means? It means that the KJV rendered the manuscripts less understandable than the NKJV does. That is not "changing God's word." It is "translating it in a more effective manner."

You have not given any solid evidence that the NKJV is a "perverted distortion of God's word." You've only responded with traditional KJV-Only rhetoric, with all due respect.

On the other hand, I've responded with 2 passages in the NKJV that are clearly better than the KJV rendering. Does that make the KJV a "perverted distortion of the word of God?" No, it doesn't. It just makes it a bit dated. Are there areas where the KJV might be better than the NKJV? Probably. It goes both ways and that is true of ALL translations. NO TRANSLATION IS THE PURE UNADULTERATED WORD OF GOD AS IT WAS PENNED BY THE AUTHORS. All translations are man's attempt to translate documents from a foreign language into our language. Things will be lost in the translation any way you slice it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am not saying that a translation can't be different from the KJV and still be God's Word. What I am saying is that a translation cannot be based on DIFFERENT MANUSCRIPTS other than the TEXTUS RECEPTUS and be called the Word of God. The preface to the NewKJV readily admits that they use different manuscripts than the KJV did. Herein lies the debate.

Just because the NKJV may be more accurate in places, which indeed it may be, the distinction is thus: while the original KJV does have instances in which it is not perfect...that was not the premeditative intentions of the translators. They did not set out to purposefully fall short of perfection...though they obviously did at times. I am proposing that the King James Version is a FAITHFUL TRANSLATION in all respects and only fall short wherein lies human imperfections. I am proposing that the New KJV is not a faithful translation and in many respects falls short despite mere human shortcomings. I contend that it falls short because of motivational reasons, monetary reasons, doctrinal reasons, and manuscript selection and integrity.

There are vast differences between the two. If I were to believe in my heart that the New King James Version translators were honest people with sincere hearts looking to update the Textus Receptus into modern english...I would hold to it and cherish it. However, I do not find this perception a reality based in fact concerning this version.

God bless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

halifax, I think you have a bit of idolatry in your heart for the Textus Receptus.

You just said that "even if the NKJV is more correct" it is still wrong. Do you see the fallacy of that argument?

What went on behind the scenes I do not know, except for what I've heard from people on the KJV-Only side. What I am judging is the finished product. And, the NKJV is as good, if not better for today, than the KJV. You have failed to show any evidence except for "the NKJV translators used a different manuscript, yet it is more accurate in places than the KJV." Are you really going to hold to that logic?

Judge the NKJV by the NKJV, not by the politics behind it or whatever else you're holding to.

So, are you going to provide anything other than "I don't like the manuscripts that they used?" I believe the preface says it was about 80% TR and 20% Sinaticus, etc.

But, the proof in in the pudding. Did the utilization of 20% 'other manuscripts" lead to it being perverted in the translation? If you say it did, then please show me where... AGAIN!

You are letting your love of the TR, or perhaps the KJV-Only debate (some people just like to hop on bandwagons) skew your understanding and reasoning in logic.

[halifaxchristian]

Plain english...I accept the Textus Receptus, the Byzantine lineage of Holy Scripture. I cherish God's Word in my heart and this is not idolatry. I do not believe that the Alexandrian, B or Aleph, Sinaticus, Vaticanus, or Western lineage of manuscripts are wholly God's Word.

You see my point and I stand sure.

God bless.

[Trust & Obey]

Plain english...I accept the Textus Receptus, the Byzantine lineage of Holy Scripture.  I cherish God's Word in my heart and this is not idolatry.  I do not believe that the Alexandrian, B or Aleph, Sinaticus, Vaticanus, or Western lineage of manuscripts are wholly God's Word.

You see my point and I stand sure.

God bless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is fine. I won't argue with any of that.

But, what I will argue against is your rejection of the NKJV for no tangible purpose, even though it is "translated better" in many places.

[halifaxchristian]

Although it is plausibly translated better in "certain", not many, places...this does not mean that the KJV is wrong. It may not be as clear or tangible...but it is not inherently evil or adding/subtracting/changing God's inspired Word. The NKJV in fact does change MANUSCRIPTS and, in turn, is, in a variety of instances, inherently evil and adds/subtracts/changes and/or questions God's inspired Word. Though the KJV translators themselves were not perfect...the manuscripts they used were and are everything that God provided that was essential and that was in fulfillment of His divine promises concerning His Word. Any texts outside of the Byzantine/Textus Receptus fall short of these standards...in my opinion.

God bless.

[Trust & Obey]

So, even though there are no differences of translation that would lead someone astray (aside from petty differences that even the KJV has) it is an "evil translation?"

I could say the same thing about the KJV from the other side. It is evil. Why, asketh thee? Well, because it MUST be evil since it is so similar to the NKJV.

Do you see the fallicy of that argument.

You need to judge a book by its contents, not its cover... and not by the car that the author drove or even by the type of medical insurance he had.

[halifaxchristian]

So, even though there are no differences of translation that would lead someone astray (aside from petty differences that even the KJV has) it is an "evil translation?"

I could say the same thing about the KJV from the other side. It is evil. Why, asketh thee? Well, because it MUST be evil since it is so similar to the NKJV.

Do you see the fallicy of that argument.

You need to judge a book by its contents, not its cover... and not by the car that the author drove or even by the type of medical insurance he had.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What is so difficult about this? A "petty" difference...is still a difference. This was not done in secret or with blindfolds on...the NKJV translators willingly and knowingly used DIFFERENT MANUSCRIPTS in their version. Plain and simple. The copyright, as mentioned, the footnotes and margins, and other changes and/or modifications...are a compromise.

That is not hard to understand nor unreasonable.

God bless.

[Trust & Obey]

So, even though there are no differences of translation that would lead someone astray (aside from petty differences that even the KJV has) it is an "evil translation?"

I could say the same thing about the KJV from the other side. It is evil. Why, asketh thee? Well, because it MUST be evil since it is so similar to the NKJV.

Do you see the fallicy of that argument.

You need to judge a book by its contents, not its cover... and not by the car that the author drove or even by the type of medical insurance he had.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What is so difficult about this? A "petty" difference...is still a difference. This was not done in secret or with blindfolds on...the NKJV translators willingly and knowingly used DIFFERENT MANUSCRIPTS in their version. Plain and simple. The copyright, as mentioned, the footnotes and margins, and other changes and/or modifications...are a compromise.

That is not hard to understand nor unreasonable.

God bless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yet, the "petty differences" do nothing to distort the text in a way to lead one astray. Rather, they improve upon the KJV's incorrect rendering at times, and outdated speach at other times.

I'm just having a hard time seeing how improvement is Satanic, regardless of the method of improvement here.

Obviously, the manuscripts they used must have been pretty good because they came out with a great translation that translates the text better than the KJV in many places.

Anyways, I think this topic is pretty much dead. You had your chance to *prove* the NKJV is unreliable and I don't think you did that. You probably feel otherwise.

[halifaxchristian]

I feel as if I have proved beyond a shadow of doubt that the New King James Version is exactly Satanic. To what degree, or magnitude, is up to the reader to decide. Personally, I believe that any translation that claims to be a faithful representation of an "older version", yet sneaks in different manuscripts, subtle and/or outright changes and modifications, and alarming and destructive footnotes and marginal heresies...is heretical, deceptive, and a bridge to compromise.

If Satan can get someone to accept the NewKJV...his reasoning is probably along the lines that...it will in turn not be difficult for these individuals to be favourable and/or sympathetic to other modern version and other corrupted manuscripts.

I will not, never, and I refuse, to cherish a version that has footnotes and commentaries that cast doubt upon God's Word. I will not, never, and I refuse, to cherish a version that, by its own admission, changes and modifies even one word of the Bible.

God bless.

[Trust & Obey]

halifax, you have some narrow blinders on. 'The Bible' isn't limited to the KJV. So, coming out with a translation that deviates from the KJV, in any way, is not "changing the Bible."

The KJV isn't the "end all, be all" of the word of God. It is a translation of the word of God.

Tell me... does God believe in unicorns?

Job 39:10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?

[halifaxchristian]

halifax, you have some narrow blinders on. 'The Bible' isn't limited to the KJV. So, coming out with a translation that deviates from the KJV, in any way, is not "changing the Bible."

The KJV isn't the "end all, be all" of the word of God. It is a translation of the word of God.

Tell me... does God believe in unicorns?

Job 39:10  Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay...we are both starting to act a little childish I think. I know where you stand and you know where I stand. Can we respectively disagree?

Before you make your final and foregone conclusion...please read my textus receptus post to super jew. I just added it. Please read it through thoroughly, it contains a lot of information.

I would like to see your response.

God bless you.

p.s. does God believe in Leviathan's???