[geocentrism] KJB v. NKJB
- From: "Cheryl" <c.battles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 04:19:46 -0500
Bob -- You say (below) that the KJB is the most accurate, yet you quote from
the New (and improved) KJV (per)version. The NKJV is the version that
supposedly just gets rid of the "thees and thous" and changes a word here
and there. There was absolutely no resemblance to what you quoted as
"Scripture" to the verse it replaces in KJB. As I said, your version
sounds like it was written by a Health and Human Services government
beurocrat and it is offensive and laughable to think God would ever speak in
that manner -- specifically in such a forgettable, vague, and just kind of
ugly-sounding and tacky manner.
And you yourself claim no inspiration to your NKJV. You say KJB is full of
errors but that your own so-called bible is full of even more; yet you claim
to represent God "in his Service" as you sign off, but you come on with
your defective, untrustworthy, plastic sword of the spirit to do battle.
If I had as little faith in my Bible as you have in yours, I would throw in
the towel and quit. And even admitting KJB is more accurate, you still
quote from that awful NKJV.
As to the verses you quote in Romans 8:16 and 26 referring to the Holy
Spirit as itself instead of Himself, in verse 27 the Spirit is referred to
as "he." I've never one time ever seen one single verse in KJB that I
thought should be changed. I believe the word "itself" is there because
it is the best word and needs to be there and because God WANTS it there.
When I see a word in my KJB I take it seriously as God's Word. I don't
second-guess it and presume to reword or rewrite it, go looking around from
version to version until I find the one I like best that suits me.
You talk about the JWs. The NKJV is doctrinally in line with them. Why?
Because it strips Jesus of His divinity as Creator. In all verses which
refer to Jesus as Creator, the KJV says the World was made BY Jesus. But
your (per)version (and ALL the others as well) says the world was made
THROUGH Jesus. Big difference. HUGE difference in a major, foundational,
crucial doctrine on the divinity of Jesus. Is Jesus the Creator of the
Universe or isn't He? Not ONE SINGLE OTHER (per)VERSION SAYS JESUS IS THE
CREATOR. NOT ONE. And that includes YOUR (per)version, regardless of its
claims to having been translated from the correct manuscripts (it wasn't)
and that it just makes a few changes in the thees and thous.
The NKJV doesn't use the Textus Receptus but rather the Majority Text
manuscripts. It is essentially a Catholic bible.
As to all your questions of why did God do this and that, not produce a
Bible for everyone immediately (meaning I suppose within 100 years) -- I
don't know the answer to that question, but God does, as to why He chose the
timing to make His appearance on earth 1500 years before the invention of
the printing press. As to the Geneva Bible, the Bishops Bible, William
Tyndale's Bible (for which Tyndale was martyred) -- these were good Bibles,
not perfect or complete, but nonetheless good and proper Bibles that the KJV
translators held in great respect and incorporated into their own
translation-- in Tyndale's case almost all his translation was put in
intact. God's Word culminated with KJB, perfect and complete. All
versions after KJB are perversions written by occultists and people with
agendas, were written without annointing and to the detriment of and in
opposition to God's own Word. As Gail Riplinger states, these are New Age
Bible Versions that are heading to the final (per)version that will be so
generic that every religion on earth will be able to find their own
"truths" in it. And it's not true that there were many revisions and
thousands of changes made to KJB. All changes involved formatting and
fixing typos, not changing the translation at all, and my own KJV has typos
in it here and there.
The Apocrypha? I already discussed KJV and the Apocrypha and I'll repost
it. But the Apocrypha is not inspired Scripture. Whether the King James
translators had a hand in translating it or not is irrelevant. I see
nothing wrong with the Apocrypha being translated. That it was included and
later dropped from inclusion in the KJV does not change the translation in
any way, the preservation of God's Word. It is just part of the
culmination into the perfection and completion of God's Word by God's
providence and preservation of His Word..
God is able to preserve His Word and Scripture itself says that he HAS
preserved it. I challenge you to show me one place in KJV where there is
error.
There are places on this earth now where people do not have a Bible. There
are also places on this earth where there are more Bibles than there are
people, but people don't read it, don't memorize it, don't appreciate it,
don't believe in it, say it needs a lot of fixing, and where people feel
free to rewrite it or paraphrase it themselves with the use of their Greek
dictionaries. It's likely that the first 1500 years when all people such
as the Waldenses and Albigenses and other Christians had were hand-copied
manuscripts it's likely these people appreciated and believed in Scripture
more than people do today. The point is, the Bible says in Psalm 119 that
God's Word is very pure, and Jesus said Heaven and Earth would pass away but
His Word would never pass away.
I'm not finished but I'll quit for now. It breaks my heart to see people
cutting their spiritual legs out from under themselves, attacking God's
Word, trying to fight Satan with a plastic sword, self-confessed phony
bibles full of errors. I thought when I came to a geocentric forum I'd find
some KJB people here because the vast majority of geocentrists are KJB
people. Instead, all I find are doubters, lost wanderers with no authority
to stand on, throwing stones against the Bible. It's quite depressing
actually, that and the starving of Terri Shindler just before Easter.
Cheryl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Davidson" <Jesus4me@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 12:06 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Flesh and blood
> Cheryl,
>
> Perhaps you know something that the KJV translators did not. Have you
> never
> read their original preface to the 1611 edition entitled, "The Translators
> to the Reader"? I have, in the original old English. They make it quite
> clear that God did not inspire them. The translators stated in the
> preface
> that there was a need for constant revision to update the language.
>
> Besides, which KJV do you use? The one most people use today is the 10th
> edition, which was published about 150 years later. The 1611 edition
> contained the Apocrypha. Are the books of the Apocrypha inspired as well?
> What Bible did the non-English people of this world use before 1611 and
> why
> did God leave English-speaking people without an inspired translation for
> sixteen centuries? How about other languages? Did God expect everyone on
> earth to immediately learn English or do without the Gospel? Did the
> pilgrims not have a real Bible because they instead used the Geneva Bible?
> Why did Jesus and the Apostles quote from the Septuagint, which differed
> from the original Hebrew in some places? How about Wycliff's Bible,
> published around 1382? It was translated from the Latin Vulgate and was
> the
> only complete English Bible for about 150 years. Was it worthless to the
> cause of Christ? Why were there marginal notes in the 1611 edition that
> offered alternate meanings if, as you indicate, the primary translation
> was
> inerrant and perfect? Blayney's 1769 edition of the KJV, which is
> probably
> the one you use, differs from the 1611 version in tens of thousands of
> minor
> details. Which one is the inerrant version? Since the 10th edition,
> hundreds of words and phrases have either changed meaning or completely
> disappeared from our language. Does God expect everyone to speak old
> English until the Last Day? Why does the KJV refer to the Holy Spirit as
> "itself" instead of Himself (see Romans 8:16 and 8:26)? The Jehovah's
> Witnesses capitalize on this mistranslation to support the heresy that the
> Holy Spirit is an impersonal force. I could go on and on with more time,
> but my point should be clear by now. If it is not, I can give you a
> truckload more reasons why the KJV is not perfect and is not inerrant.
> Again, it may arguably be the best translation but it is easy to prove
> that
> is not God-breathed, just as the original authors made clear in their
> preface.
>
> My faith is Rock solid, as I am sure yours is as well. Please do not
> challenge mine. God has preserved His Word perfectly to the degree that
> it
> is necessary to ensure that His Gospel will be preached to everyone who
> needs to hear it before Jesus returns.
>
> In His Service,
>
> Bob
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Cheryl
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 10:51 PM
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Flesh and blood
>
> Bob -- The New King James is a horrible mistranslation. I don't have time
> to go into it now but I will I guess have to start defending the Bible. I
> get so tired of doing this. I know I have a perfect, inerrant Bible. I'm
> sorry you don't have one, don't even believe one even exists. And when it
> comes time to use the Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God -- what
> do you do? You don't believe the Word of God exists for you at all.
>
> The Bible says God spoke through holy men of old. Do you trust him to
> speak? Then the words had to be written down in order to make Scripture
> (i.e. the written word as opposed to the spoken word). Do you trust God
> to
> see that those words were correctly written? After many years there
> were
> many, many manuscripts -- some of them corrupted deliberately by gnostics
> and other heretics. Do you trust God to see that the correct manuscripts
> were sorted out to be translated? Then once the correct manuscripts were
> sorted out (from the incorrect or corrupted ones) to be translated do you
> trust God to see they were properly translated?
>
> Where in this process does your faith break down that keeps you from
> believing God is able to preserve His Word?
>
> Cheryl
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob Davidson" <Jesus4me@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 5:50 PM
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Flesh and blood
>
>
>> Cheryl,
>>
>> I use the New King James Version, so your guarantee is not applicable.
>> There is nothing Inspired about the KJV. It is an excellent - and
>> possibly
>> the best - translation, but it is still only a translation. The only
>> Inspired documents are the original manuscripts, and none of them
>> survive.
>> The KJV was not published until 1611 A.D. For centuries prior to 1611,
>> Latin was the only scholarly language in Europe. The Latin Vulgate
>> translation of Jerome, based upon a corrupt Alexandrian Text, was the
>> "official" text of the Roman Catholic Church. Protestant translators
>> sometimes did not have access to all of the Received Greek Official Text,
>> and being familiar with the Vulgate, they sometimes put words into their
>> translations based upon the Latin which were never there in the original
>> Greek. The King James translators did a marvelous job with the materials
>> they had. While the KJV has numerous errors through no fault of its
>> writers, it should be noted that the errors, omissions and additions made
>> by
>> the RSV, NIV, and other modern translations are much, much worse. I grew
>> up
>> with and used the KJV almost exclusively until a few years ago, so I am
>> very
>> familiar with it. If I question a word or passage in the NKJV, I may
>> check
>> back to the KJV or use Strong's Concordance to examine the original Greek
>> or
>> Hebrew. Dr. Henry Morris wrote an excellent defense of the KJV at
>> http://www.icr.org/bible/kjv.htm. He also believes that the NKJV is the
>> best of the modern translations but uses the KJV.
>>
>> As for "cast out into the draught", it is clearer only if you know that a
>> "draught" refers to a toilet (Strong's Concordance #856). Who would know
>> that off the top of their head? It is more specific, but not clearer. I
>> think that the context makes clear what Jesus is referring to without any
>> need for checking a reference.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Cheryl
>> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 4:32 PM
>> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Flesh and blood
>>
>> Bob -- The real Bible says "goeth into the belly, and is cast out into
>> the
>> draught." Much better and more specific wording. The other version
>> sounds
>> like it was written by a government bureaucrat in HHS. "Eliminated"
>> could
>> mean anything. I don't know what version you're using but I'll guarantee
>> you it's a spin-off from the Catholic Bible and their Alexandrian
>> manuscripts.
>> Cheryl
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Bob Davidson" <Jesus4me@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 4:21 PM
>> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Flesh and blood
>>
>>
>>> To All,
>>>
>>> One more thought on Communion. Jesus had something to say about what
>>> happens to things that we ingest: "So Jesus said, 'Are you also still
>>> without understanding? Do you not yet understand that whatever enters
>>> the
>>> mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated?'" (Matthew 15:16-17)
>>> Jesus
>>> made no exception here for the bread and wine of Communion and we all
>>> know
>>> what "eliminated" means. That is not a very happy ending for objects
>>> that
>>> are supposedly the actual body and blood of Jesus.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
