The book of Proverbs KJB vs NKJV

[PeterAV]

to tell you the truth,

the KJV you are reading today, is not the original KJV...... it also has been updated....  and updated and updated..... and missing books compared to the original.... the original has 80 books and was only authorized by a man, yes, King James the first authorized the People of the country to have an english printed Bible.... whether it was the one people claim as the 1611 king james or it was some other english printed Bible....

I have personally seen reprints of all these versions, and would love to see some one that is a KJV onlyist, read the actual print for the 1611....

*******

Sorry there Mr.And Mrs.Mike Irish,but that is not the truth at all,but only your opinion.This is not a game of "I PREFER".

I brought up the 1611 version on the internet for my six year old son to read and he did fine.All I had to do is shew him that "U" is a "V" and a V is a U. And it came out word perfect.

Anybody can read it.

http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/print...&PagePosition=1

Talking about word perfect,one can read the 1611 and the 2005 edition of the 1611 and they come out word for word.All that is diferent is the spellings and fonts and typographical errors that all have since been corrected.

Plus Will just shewed you that the extra books were not part of the cannon of scriptures like the corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts have ;that the new versions use for their manuscripts.

King James never authorized it.He just gave them permission to do the work.

It was simply called the Holy Bible for a great many years.It was a general accepted FACT that the Bible was "THE AUTHORIZED VERSION" for the English speaking world and then bore that name.It was not until the begining of the onslaught of fake usurping quasi pumped out versions by heretics like Westcott and Hort,that the AV finally got the name of KJV.But I still call it by the name of

The Holy Bible

There is only one.

PeterAV

[RGR]

and typographical errors

BUT the KJV is perfect, now isn't it? How could there be typo's in the version to end all versions? If God corrected the Hebrew and Greek via the KJV and made it the only version to read, you are saying God made a mistake!

[hmh]

I'll ask God himself to explain himself.

[Guest brandplucked]

Those thousands of new words has to do with "Copyright laws".

You are completely correct in saying "little comparative study",for I have found many more over the years.Many of the changes that may appear sincere or non-threatening at first,are full of doctrinal error.

PeterAV

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Peter, thanks for the comments. Here is just one of several places where the changing of a single word makes all the difference between the truth and a lie. The sad thing is, most Christians today do not have the spiritual sense to see when something is wrong with a fake bible, or if they do, they just don't care.

Looking for and HASTING UNTO the coming of the day of God

2 Peter 3:12

Promoters of the modern bible versions insist there are no doctrines of the Christian faith which are affected in any way by the differences between the King James Bible and the new versions. This is blatantly false in several critical areas. This article will address only one of several doctrines which have been changed in such modern versions as the NKJV, NIV, NASB, and Holman Standard.

Puny man, who is but of dust, can do nothing to effect in any way the timetable already established by Almighty God. Man can neither speed up nor slow down God's timetable. This view is contrary to much modern Christian thought, that portrays God as a grandfatherly figure, anxiously wringing His hands, hoping things will turn out for the best, but He just can

[Guest brandplucked]

and typographical errors

BUT the KJV is perfect, now isn't it? How could there be typo's in the version to end all versions? If God corrected the Hebrew and Greek via the KJV and made it the only version to read, you are saying God made a mistake!

Hi Ronald, if you object to minor printing errors, then you are cutting your own throat. ALL versions including the modern ones have printing errors. By the way, the Hebrew and the Greek were not "corrected" by God in the KJB. The KJB always follows the Hebrew texts. It is versions like the nasb, niv, rsv, esv and Holman that all frequently reject the clear Hebrew readings - NOT the King James Bible.

The fact is you do not believe any Bible or any text in any language is now the inerrant and complete words of God, do you? Mock on all you wish about printing errors. It is just a smokescreen and an excuse you use to cover up the simple fact that you do not believe any Bible is the inerrant words of God.

Here are some facts about the printing errors.

What About Those Printing Errors and "Revisions" of the 1611 King James Holy Bible?

People who do not believe that any Bible or any text in any language IS right now, today, the inspired, inerrant and complete words of God often raise this objection. They ask us Which Revision of the King James Bible is the inspired word of God?

The simple fact is, the King James Bible has never been "revised". There have been different editions of the King James Bible, in which the Gothic type was changed to Roman type, the spelling of various English words was updated, some minor punctuation changes were made, and several minor printing errors were corrected, but the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts have never changed at all.

Even the American Bible Society, no friend to the King James Bible, had this to say about the "revisions" of the King James Bible. The American Bible Society wrote, "The English Bible, as left by the translators (of 1611), has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text..." They further stated, "With the exception of typographical errors and changes required by the progress of orthography in the English language, the text of our present Bibles remains unchanged, and without variation from the original copy as left by the translators" (Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers, American Bible Society, 1852).

Pastor David F. Reagan has written an excellent article about The Myth of Early Revisions of the Authorized King James Holy Bible. In his article he discusses the conditions of the printing process in 1611, and shows how the so called revisions are actually only examples of updating the spelling of words and the correction of minor printing errors.

His article can be seen here - http://www.learnthebible.org/Myth%20of%20E...20Revisions.htm

Pastor Reagan rightly says: "We need to establish one thing from the out-set. The authority for our preserved English text is not found in any human work. The authority for our preserved and infallible English text is in God! Printers may foul up at times and humans will still make plenty of errors, but God in His power and mercy will preserve His text despite the weaknesses of fallible man."

Dr. Donald Waite also has written a booklet titled The Authorized Version 1611 Compared to Today's King James Version. In this booklet Dr. Waite discusses the "thousands of changes", and he clearly shows that the vast majority of the changes have to do with changing the printing type from Gothic print to Roman, and updating the spelling of such words as "Sonne" to "Son", and "sinne" to "sin", "blesse" to "bless", "weepe" to "weep" and "owne" to "own".

In the first printing of the 1611 Holy Bible there were hundreds of very minor printing errors such as omitting or duplicating a word, or the mispelling of a simple word. None of these printing errors seriously affected the sense of the passage nor introduced any false doctrines. The printing process was laboriously done by hand, one letter at a time, and it was very common in all printed works of that day to slip in "typos". These are things like "the shearer" to "his shearer" Acts 8:32; "sacrifice" to "sacrifices" 1 Peter 2:5 ; "made a" to "made thee a" Isaiah 57:8; "the field" to "thy field" Lev. 33:22; "Bozra" to "Bozrah" Genesis 36:33; "Jabok" to "Jabbok" Lev. 21:24, and "while the feast" to "while their feast" Judges 14:17.

The King James Bible contains 791,328 words. Since the first King James Bible rolled off the press in 1611 to the King James Bible you buy off the shelf today, NOTHING HAS BEEN CHANGED in the English text aside from these minor corrections of printing errors nor in the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts that were used in the making of this magnificent Holy Bible.

The total number of printing errors that have been corrected or the spelling updates would amount to no more than a maximum of one-tenth of one percent. Among these changes are the following examples:

TOWARDS has been changed to TOWARD 14 times.

BURNT has been changed to BURNED 31 times.

AMONGST has been changed to AMONG 36 times.

LIFT has been changed to LIFTED 51 times.

The nature of the other so called "revisions" have been of the type of "thy people" to "the children of thy people" in Ezekiel 3:11 (easily a printing error of skipping three words); "wayes" to "ways" 2 Kings 22:2; "wee shall" to "for we shall" Romans 14:10. All of these are easily explained as minor printing errors, but THE TEXT itself has never changed.

In the first printing of 1611, the words "of God" were accidentally left out of 1 John 5:12. These two words are in the Greek texts and in all previous English Bible versions. 1 John 5:12 reads: "He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life."

The biggest printing error occured in Exodus 14:10 "and...afraid" where 21 words were accidentally omitted due most likely to the printer's eyes having skipped from one "and" to the next "and".

In every case, the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts remained the same and only minor printing errors occured, all of which were soon caught and corrected to read as they now stand in the King James Bible.

Modern Bible versions such as the NASB, NKJV, NIV are constantly and deliberately changing their own English texts in literally hundreds and even thousands of places. The NASB made some 8000 changes in their own text from the 1977 to the 1995 editions. Likewise the NKJV 1982 edition has changed thousands of words from that of their 1979 edition, and the NIV continues to do the same from one edition to the next. These are not minor printing errors in the NASB, NKJV, and NIV, but deliberate alterations of both the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts as well as the English translation.

Throughout the history of Bible publishing there have been some rather humorous examples of printing errors . It should also be noted that there have been printing errors, even with today's advanced technology, in the NASB, NKJV, and NIV as well. Here are a few of the printing errors that have occurred in various King James Bible editions.

A 1631 edition became known as the

[yomotalking]

So I take it that you are a KJV ONLY person?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Yomo, You got it! Good guess :-)

It is the only inerrant Bible God has given us. You can get saved using the others, but they are not the true words of God 100% of the time. Most Christiand today do not believe The Bible, or any Bible is now the inerrant words of God, but ballpark approximations that vary wildly among themselves in hundreds of verses.

Will K

Ah. I thought you were a Baptist.

As I have stated before, my opionion of Baptists has been brutally damaged by AV Lambasters.

I have been badly hurt by Baptists.

Sadly, as they have smashed their doctrine in my face, repulsion of Baptists has formed.

So, it is not always right to hit someone over the head, even though you believe you are right.

Only one family I know are Baptists, and they are very free in Jesus.

They love any Translation, and have no condemnation.

I envy them.

They love Jesus, but they are not bound to Legalism.

(Thank God.)

Can I ask you a question, Brandplucked?

Which do you like best?

The Origianal AV, or the Modern one?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I hope not the original because it contained the Apocrypha.

The KJV has many errors in it that are widely known.

Hi Yomo, it appears you do not believe that there exists an inerrant Bible on this earth. Is this your view?

Secondly, could you please give us one example of a clear "widely known error" in the King James Bible, and we will discuss it, OK?

And thirdly, regarding the Apocrypha -

WHY DID THE 1611 KJV INCLUDE THE APOCRYPHA?

Early editions of the King James Bible, as well as many other English-language Bibles of the past, including the Wycliffe Bible (1382), the Coverdale Bible (1535), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), the Bishop's Bible (1568), the Douay-Rheims Bible (1609), and the Authorized Version (1611, and the German Luther, all contained the Apocrypha, but these books were included for historical reference only, not as additions to the canon of Scripture.

If you look at a copy of the original 1611 King James Bible, the book of Malachi ends with these words: "The end of the Prophets". Then the whole Apocrypha, which itself means "unknown, or spurious" is clearly marked off from the rest of the Scriptures by the words "Apocrypha" twice at the top of every page throughout. It then ends with these words: "The end of Apocrypha". Then on the next page is an elaborate woodcutting and it says: "The Newe Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."

It is ironic and somewhat hypocritical of those who criticize the KJB for including the Apocrypha in its earlier printings, when they usually favor the modern English versions like the NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV. These versions are based primarily on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts, which actually contain the Apocrypha books and then some others as well mixed up within and scattered throughout the rest of the Old Testament Scriptures with no separation indicating that they are less than inspired and authoritative.

Alexander McClure, a biographer of the KJV translators, says: "...the Apocryphal books in those times were more read and accounted of than now, though by no means placed on a level with the canonical books of Scripture" (McClure, Translators Revived, p. 185). He then lists seven reasons assigned by the KJV translators for rejecting the Apocrypha as canonical.

The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England clearly states that the Apocrypha have no scriptural authority. "...[the Church of England] doth not apply to them to establish any doctrine."

The Westminster Confession, which was written in England between 1643-48, only a few years after the publication of the King James Bible, says, "The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings."

Martin Luther included a note on the Apocrypha that stated, "These are books not to be held in equal esteem with those of Holy Scripture..."

It is also important to understand that in the early King James Bibles, the Apocryphal books were placed between the Old and New Testaments rather than intermingled within the O.T. itself as is done in Catholic Bibles. In the Jerusalem Bible (a Catholic Bible), for example, Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees follow Nehemiah; the Book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus follow Ecclesiastes; Baruch follows Lamentations; etc.

The Apocrypha was never considered canonical by the Church of England or the KJV translators. It was only included in the Reformation Bibles (and not only in the KJV) for historical reference, much as notes, etc. are included in modern study Bibles.

Final Authority, p. 166-167, W. P. Grady, “Now of the many issues raised against the King James Bible, none is so hypocritical as that of the Apocrypha question. A typical example of Nicolaitan desperation is the sarcastic barb of Robert L. Sumner who wrote: “It is also interesting-and perhaps you are not aware of it-that the early editions of the Authorized Version contained the Apocrypha. Horrors!”

Although it is technically correct that the first editions of the King James Bible contained the Apocrypha, the complete picture is rarely given. What Dr. Sumner conveniently failed to mention is that the translators were careful to set these spurious books apart from the inspired text by inserting them between the Testaments. And to insure that there was no misunderstanding, they listed seven reasons why the apocryphal books were to be categorically rejected as part of the inspired canon.”

The Answer Book, p. 99-100, S. C. Gipp, “Question #34: QUESTION: Didn't the King James Bible when first printed contain the Apocrypha? ANSWER: Yes. EXPLANATION: Many critics of the perfect Bible like to point out that the original King James had the Apocrypha in it as though that fact compromises its integrity. But several things must be examined to get the factual picture.

First, in the days in which our Bible was translated, the Apocrypha was accepted reading based on its historical value, though not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of' the Catholic church. The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts.

That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is very obvious by the seven reasons which they gave for not incorporating it into the text. They are as follows:

1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.

5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.

6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.

If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt must be totally worthless since their authors obviously didn't have the conviction of the King James translators and incorporated its books into the text of the Old Testament thus giving it authority with Scripture.”

Two of the most important Greek manuscripts for modern textual criticism are Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Vaticanus contains all of the Apocrypha with the exception of 1 and 2 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasses. Sinaiticus contains all of the Old Testament Apocrypha books as well as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas in the New Testament. (see A General Introduction To The Bible, by Geisler and Nix, Moody Press, pp.271-274; or The Text Of The New Testament, by Aland, Eerdmans Press, pp.107-109.)

QUESTION: Since the Greek texts of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus contain the Apocrypha as part of its text, and these two manuscripts are used for the basis of most modern Greek texts and English translations, is not your question a little misleading? Why would you reject the original KJV for having the Apocrypha between the Testaments while accepting ancient uncial manuscripts which contained the Apocrypha as part of the text?

You claim the Original is the best.

If I handed you the 1611 AV, you'd sit there, and stare your eyes out.

(unless you knew Medieval English)

You'd have no clue what it said!!!!

But, my dear Brand plucked, IT IS THE IRRERRENT WORD OF GOD!!! (According to you!)

I want one I can understand.

I will quote what I said in another Thread.

............"I'd rather have other Translations that lead me closer to God, than an AV, that got me nowhere."

Yomo

[kittylover0991]

I promise that as soon as I put in my "two cents" worth.. i will shut my mouth

I have been reading the posts.. and have debated this argument many times. My pastor has even had a long line of sunday school lessons on it. As has been said, it is possible that one can be led to Christ through many different versions, including the KJV, NIV, KJBM, NRSV.. etc.. However, there are many things changed. To change 2000 words in the New Testament means something. To remove 21 verses means something. To change the meaning of verses, means something. Whatever the "inerrant" is/was(I do have an opinion on this)... had to be have been inspired by God. Now, if someone takes that and writes what they think it means... does it not change the meaning? Children can be the perfect example of this Oh how I love children!

Mommy says: The Kids can have a dog

Children says to friend/dad/whoever: Their mom said they have a dog.. but she doesn't want a dog becuae she wants to keep the house clean becuase she just got new white carpet and doesn't want it stained. She doesn't want a dog.. but the kids can have a dog. As long as it is small one.

This might seem like an overexageration, but is it not the truth? God says something, and then we interpret what we think it means. Is that not how we have all the denominations today?.. because we "interpreted" God's word differently?

One more thing, about the KJV being errant because it has been translated so many times..

God said in Psalms that he would preserve his word and that it would be tried as with fire seven times. The thing about fire, is that it purifies(think of how the wood hay and stubble will be burned). God wouldn't give us a bible that wasn't perfect.. woudl he? If God said he woudl preserve His Word.. woudlnt' you think that God would watch over his word through translations?

What version of the bible that I use is irrelevant to this argument at this point. These statemenst were not made based on what bible I use, but rather, what the bible says. God's Word has been teh same from the beginning(In teh beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God). His Word is perfect and he said he woudl preserve it.

God's Word is perfect.. if we.. as imperfect beings change that perfect word.. would it still be perfect?

[yomotalking]