SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : NKJV ?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 )
PosterThread
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4527


 Re:

Stever...

Quote:
NIV, NAS, NLT, NKJ, RSV – All change new to 'unshrunk' in Mark 2:21
The variety of word uses amongst all the new versions in some of the following verses is a good example of 'Scripture du jour' for those who want to make the Word fit their own idea of what God intended to say. Mat. 8:11, Lk. 5:29, Mat. 11:26, Lk. 10:21, Jn. 7:8, Acts 11:24,26, Col. 2:13, 2 Thes. 2:3, Acts 25:20, Acts 27:30, Acts 19:23.

Just to make this clear (again...and again...and...): The NIV did not [u]change[/u] the King James Version. It is a new translation from a different set of original sources. It was translated accordingly. Thus, to repeatedly state that the NIV, NASB, NKJV, etc... [i]changed[/i] the KJV is completely [u]deceptive[/u]. If you want to continue your crusade against [i]all other versions[/i], then please make it clear that this is YOUR OWN conclusion or opinion. Truth is truth. But sometimes "facts" and "truth" can be blurred by errant interpretations.

You stated that "[i]The Holy Spirit has convicted me of my error, of my sin, in suggesting that the NIV would be acceptable for new believers who are young and or uneducated and cannot read well[/i]." That is a very bold and powerful allegation to make about the Holy Spirit. If you are going to make such a statement, please make certain that you are not bearing false witness against Him. This is the problem with many people defending their own particular beliefs, and substantiating them by comments like "[i]the Holy Spirit led me[/i]" or "[i]God told me[/i]..." Sometimes, we simply "figure things out" by study, research and prayer. Remember, "[i]It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter[/i]" (Proverbs 25:2). Many of us have prayed, studied, and researched, and have felt comfortable with a conclusion that the NIV is a good, serious academic translation.

As I have stated before, I prefer the KJV as my primary version for study. Do I think that it is completely superior to all other versions? No. It may very well be. But then again, it is simply a translation. I believe (from my own understanding and research) that the KJV is the best translation from the Textus Receptus (and other old English versions). However, the archaic, early 17th Century "King's English" is difficult to understand for many people. I would suggest that all [i]KJV-only[/i] adherents to read carefully the translators' Preface of the King James Version. This [url=http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/pref1611.htm]link[/url] will take you to the Preface as contained, ironically, at a [i]KJV-only[/i] website.

The only reason that I have responded again is to publicly allow others to know that there is another side to this debate. I do not like to constantly provide a rebuttal for your chronic [i]anti-all-over-version[/i] posts. I am not attempting to pinpoint you as an individual, or even to question your motives in this. I am quite sure that you feel that your posts might even be a [i]work of the Lord[/i]. However, you need to be careful to let people know that this is your own personal conclusion. And remember to be clear to state that "[i]the NIV translated this as such from its sources[/i]" rather than "[i]the NIV and other versions [u]changed[/u] the KJV[/i]."

:-)


_________________
Christopher

 2006/5/12 1:00Profile
Combat_Chuck
Member



Joined: 2006/1/27
Posts: 202


 Re:

Here we go again

*ducks for cover*

:-o


_________________
Combat Chuck

 2006/5/12 1:11Profile









 Re:

Dear Ccchhhrrriiisss:

You have never responded to my challenge on this issue.

Specifically

"Ccchhhrrriiisss, I would be interested in a Scholarly debate of this issue. You are a College man that surely knows how to take two sides of the same issue, and be able to be either for or against the other side, no matter what your own internal bias is, don't you? Go back to my first post in this thread (THE NESTLE GREEK TEXT), as well as my first post on Philologos' thread of "Why would anyone still read the King James Bible" [BOTH FOUND ON SCRIPTURES & DOCTRINE], and refute what I have posted by documentation and source material, not adjectives. Not words like WRONG, UNWISE OR DISHONEST. Those very adjectives, without source material that can be verified, will provide you with a failing grade!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Ccchhhrrriiisss-----
Without your scholarly response to the above,as well as the entire post below, how can you be taken seriously on this issue of "Which Version is really the Bible"??


God bless,

Stever :-)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Ccchhhrrrriiisss continues to believe that there are no doctrinal differences that really matter between the NIV and all of the other newer versions and the King James Bible. With him, it is all in the “original source material”. I am very well aware of that. To be very clear, I will state it one more time, without the textural proofs that I normally post to back it up---“THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE ORIGINAL SOURCE MATERIAL. THE RECEIVED TEXT IS THE TEXT “RECEIVED” FROM THE DISCIPLES & APOSTLES AND THE “CHURCH”, AND AMOUNTS TO THE VERY WORDS OF GOD. THE “MINORITY” TEXT IS TEXT CREATED BY ORIGEN AND OTHERS THAT BECAME THE CATHOLIC BIBLE, THAT IS REFERRED TO AS THE "MINORITY TEXT". THE PROTESTANT BIBLE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE RECEIVED TEXT. THE CATHOLIC BIBLE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE MINORITY TEXT. THEN, AFTER WESTCOTT AND HORT PERFORMED THEIR “WORK”, THEY SWAPPED THE RECEIVED TEXT WITH THE MINORITY TEXT. SO TODAY, WHEN YOU PICK UP THE NIV OR THE NEWER VERSIONS, YOU MIGHT AS WELL HAVE A CATHOLIC BIBLE IN YOUR HANDS.”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Dear Cccchhhrrriiisss:

As the years have progressed, I believe that Satan is behind the modern translations. The once great soul winning denominations have been reduced to social clubs by means of modernist translations that question every important doctrine needed to get to heaven.

On this thread I have provided insight into the mindset of Westcott and Hort, who are responsible for the creation of “neutral” Textural Criticism, and in the process of their "Revision Committee" were responsible for swapping the Received Text found in the Protestant Bible for the Minority Text found in the Catholic Bible. Now, when a Protestant Christian opens the NIV, NASB, or any of the "newer" Bible versions, he is in effect opening up the Catholic Bible unawares.

The”analysis” made by you Ccchhhrrriiisss is flawed. We have a Bible, that has been handed down to us by the Disciples & Apostles. It was created in Koine Greek, and the language is a dead language. What does that mean? The meaning of the words are frozen in time. There is no confusion as to the meaning of the words-their meanings are cast in stone and frozen. Ccchhhrrriiisss's example of the Mexicans translating English (which is a living language, where the meaning of words are in a state of flux and change) to Spanish is absolutely absurd and has no relationship to the translation of the Received Texts and what transpired then. The Received Texts were written in Koine Greek, a language that became a "dead language" approximately 200 years after the Cannon was established,and were then translated into Latin & Greek by Erasmus, and then from there translated into English. This English that we find in the King James is 1611 English, and again is locked in time as of 1611. The English language was not changing dramatically at that time as it is today. England controlled much of the World then, and the language was stable. That is why if we pick up an 1828 Noah Websters American Dictionary of the English Language all of the meanings of words that appear in the King James at are not quite clear to us today, COME ALIVE TO US. Also, with the Strongs Concordance we can look up the meanings of the Koine Greek words that are found in the New Testament for further clarification.

What I have posted here documents how Origen and others actually changed the Sacred text to conform with their own heresies. This is the “source material” that created the Catholic Bible and is called the minority text.

The fact that Ccchhhrrriiisss has posted what he has (below my post) reveals to me (again) that he has not read or understood what I have posted. His response is like that of person who is deaf, that is not only trying to respond to a speech, but also telling others while standing on the rooftops that what they heard is wrong. YET, HE NEVER REFUTES WHAT HE THINKS THE OTHER PERSON SAYS, HE JUST SAYS, AS LOUD AS HE CAN THAT THE OTHER PERSON IS WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

Ccchhhrrrriiisss continues to believe that there are no doctrinal differences that really matter between the NIV and all of the other newer versions and the King James Bible. With him, it is all in the “original source material”. I am very well aware of that. To be very clear, I will state it one more time, without the textural proofs that I normally post to back it up---“THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE ORIGINAL SOURCE MATERIAL. THE RECEIVED TEXT IS THE TEXT “RECEIVED” FROM THE DISCIPLES & APOSTLES AND THE “CHURCH”, AND AMOUNTS TO THE VERY WORDS OF GOD. THE “MINORITY” TEXT IS TEXT CREATED BY ORIGEN AND OTHERS THAT BECAME THE CATHOLIC BIBLE. THE PROTESTANT BIBLE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE RECEIVED TEXT. THE CATHOLIC BIBLE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE MINORITY TEXT. THEN, AFTER WESTCOTT AND HORT PERFORMED THEIR “WORK”, THEY SWAPPED THE RECEIVED TEXT WITH THE MINORITY TEXT. SO TODAY, WHEN YOU PICK UP THE NIV OR THE NEWER VERSIONS, YOU MIGHT AS WELL HAVE A CATHOLIC BIBLE IN YOUR HANDS.”


I truly pray that this opens eyes and hearts in the understanding of this most important issue-Which Version. I have seen so much doctrinal error, even here on sermon index. 30 years ago, that was not the case. The error was always found with the Cults- the Latter Day Saints, JVH, and others. But today, even Christians are reading Bibles that water down sound Christian Doctrine, found in God's Word.

We do not serve a God who causes confusion by providing us with a different Bible (His WORD) that takes away from understanding his Majesty, and Power and will for our lives. We serve a God who provides us with HIS WORD that teaches us:
2 Timothy 1:6-7 KJV
"6. Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.
7. For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind."

God bless,

Steve

P.S. Ccchhhrrriiisss, I would be interested in a Scholarly debate of this issue. You are a College man that surely knows how to take two sides of the same issue, and be able to be either for or against the other side, no matter what your own internal bias is, don't you? Go back to my first post in this thread, as well as my first post on Philologos' thread of "Why would anyone still read the King James Bible", and refute what I have posted by documentation and source material, not adjectives. Not words like WRONG, UNWISE OR DISHONEST. Those very adjectives, without source material that can be verified, will provide you with a failing grade!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


long post snipped

 2006/5/12 1:27
Combat_Chuck
Member



Joined: 2006/1/27
Posts: 202


 Re:

Just out of curiousity, is 1 John 5:7 found in the textus receptus?

And is 1 John 5:7 found in the majority of the Byzantine manuscripts?

:-)

Thanks,
Adam


_________________
Combat Chuck

 2006/5/13 0:14Profile
letsgetbusy
Member



Joined: 2004/9/28
Posts: 957
Cleveland, Georgia

 Re:

This is not a timely post as far as the thread of conversation goes, but rather addresses the original question. I would highly recommend the Evidence Bible from Living Waters (not sure if someone has done this already). The "thee's" and "thou's" are replaced with you, etc, but the wordage used in the KJV is still there (words like nether, asunder, etc). It also addresses many issues within the pages, and has some absolutely thundering quotes from Spurgeon, Wesley, Booth, Reidhead, Ravenhill, etc.

Interesting read for the athiest or mature Christian.

I don't like the NKJV for the use of 'Coming One' (do a web search on that phrase and that should be enough). I know someone that went to a New Age conference, and they were taught about this coming spiritual leader who will be Jesus, but will also be the leader of all the other religions in the world. This coming leader will unite all religion, etc. I also don't like the NKJV's obvious relation to the Alexandrian texts.


_________________
Hal Bachman

 2006/5/13 0:58Profile









 Re: 1 John 5:7

Quote:

Combat_Chuck wrote:
Just out of curiousity, is 1 John 5:7 found in the textus receptus?

And is 1 John 5:7 found in the majority of the Byzantine manuscripts?

Thanks,

Adam :-)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Stever responds:

Here are some authorities in support of including 1 John 5:7 in the canon.


contestants for (pro) and against (contra) 1 John 5:7-8
----------------------------------------------

Edward F. Hills, ThD (1912-1981) pro
Dr. David O. Fuller (1903-1988) pro
Dr. Harold Bennett Sightler (1914-1995) pro
Dr. Curtis F. Hutson (1934-1995) pro
Dr. B. Myron Cedarholm (1915-1997) pro
Bruce M. Metzger, PhD (1914-) contra
R. J. Rushdooney (1916-) pro
Dr. M. James Hollowood (1916-) pro
Dr.* M. H. Reynolds, Jr. (1919-) pro
Timothy Tow, STM, DD (1920-) pro
Peter S. Ruckman, PhD* (1921-) pro [BJU]
Dr. Bruce D. Cummins (1924-) pro
Siang Hwa Tow, MD (1925-) pro
Ian R. K. Paisley (1926-) pro
Dr. Robert Gray (1926-) pro
Dr. Clinton Branine (1926-) pro
Dr. Allan Dickerson (1926-) pro
Dr.* Jack Hyles (1926-) pro
Robert G. Taylor, MD (1926-) pro
D. A. Waite, ThD, PhD (1927-) pro
Koa Keng Woo, BTh (1929-) pro
Dr. J. G. Tharp (1930-) pro
Stewart Custer, PhD* (1931-) contra [BJU]
Dr. Russel Dennis (1932-) pro
James V. Reynolds (1933-) pro
Dr.* Robert J. Barnett (1933-) pro
Wilbur N. Pickering, PhD (1934-) contra
Dr. Rodney Bell (1936-) pro
Floyd N. Jones, PhD*, ThD* (1936-) pro
C. Ken Johnson, MDiv, DMin (1936-) pro
James H. Sightler, MD (1937-) pro
Stephen Khoo, PhD (1938-) pro
David J. Engelsma, ThM (1939-) pro
Jack A. Moorman (1941-) pro
John M. Krinke, BA (1942-) pro
James Qurollo, ThD (1942-) pro
Harris D. Himes, J.D. (1942-) pro
Edward Paauwe, MDiv, STM (1942-) pro
Dr. Robert Hitchens (1942-) pro
Dr.* Gary E. La More, MA (1943-) pro
Curtis A. Pugh (1944-) pro
Dell G. Johnson, ThD (1944-) pro
Gerardus D. Bouw, PhD (1945-) pro
Thomas M. Strouse, PhD* (1945-) pro [BJU]
Dr.* Ron Tottingham (1945-) pro
Dr.* Gail Anne Riplinger, MA,MFA(1947-) pro
Dr. Thomas Cassidy (1947-) pro
Maurice A. Robinson, PhD (1947-) contra
David W. Cloud (1949-) pro
D. A. Waite, Jr., MLA (1949-) pro
John P. Thackway (1950-) pro
Samuel C. Gipp, ThD* (1950-) pro
Theodore P. Letis, MTS, PhD (1951-) pro
James E. Bearss, ThD, DMin (1951-) pro
Dr.* Kirk D. DiVietro (1952-) pro
J.D. Watson, D.R.E. (1953-) pro
Kevin R. James, BSME (1954-) pro
Quek Suan Yew, MDiv, STM (1955-) pro
Michael Maynard, MLS (1955-) pro
Mei Kang Tsai, PhD (1956-) pro
Thomas Holland, ThD* (1956-) pro
Lawrence M. Vance, ThD* (1962-) pro
James R. White, MA, ThM* (1962-) contra
Charles Seet, MDiv (1962-) pro
Dr.* John Cereghin (1964-) pro
Jeffrey Khoo, STM, PhD (1964-) pro
Jeffrey A. Young, PhD (1965-) pro
Prabhudas Koshy, MDiv, ThM (1965-) pro
Daniel S. Waite, MDiv (1965-) pro
[ed. of Monarch Standard] Nigel C. Harris (1965-) pro
Merrick J. Stemen, MS (1966-) pro

The year of birth for certain others (Joseph B. Chambers, William P. Grady, et al.) are not yet available to me.

List of contestants for and against 1 John v.7f. Note: Due to the trend for so many pastors to put "Dr." in front of their name, and due to so many issued from degree mills and institutions which are not even regionally accredited, the "Dr." becomes meaningless, without clairfication. Hence, to facilitate distinction, if the degree was earned, it is placed in the following list after the name. If the degree was granted as honorary, or if the doctorate is not specified as ThD, PhD, or DMin, then "Dr." is placed before the name. An asterick means that the degree came from a non regionally accredited institution. [The "ThM" of James White is from Faraston Theol. Seminary, which is a recognized "degree mill, period." (Name It and Frame It, 4th ed.[1995], p. 141). In a recent video of the Holland-White debate, White announced that he is working on a "doctorate of Christian philosophy"! ] It should be noted that degrees from certain non-accreditated institutions (e.g., Pensacola Christian College) are more respectable than those from regionally accredited schools with liberal teaching.

http://home.sprynet.com/~receptus/procon.htm

God bless,

Stever :-)

P.S. I really don't know that much about this debate, other than many that are on the list as against (Contra) also do not support the KJV.

So I guess that John Calvin, Theodore Beza, the Westminster Assembly, Francis Turretin, Matthew Poole, the 1689 Baptist Assembly, Matthew Henry, John Gill, John Brown of Haddington, Robert L. Dabney, and Edward F. Hills are all to be considered "outside the realm of meaningful scholarship" because they voted PRO when they did their work?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 2006/5/13 2:23









 Re: ERASMUS

Quote:

Combat_Chuck wrote:
Just out of curiousity, is 1 John 5:7 found in the textus receptus?

And is 1 John 5:7 found in the majority of the Byzantine manuscripts?

:-)

Thanks,
Adam


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Stever responds:

[b]It is the same old story, repeated over and over in these end times. When supporters of newer versions want others to doubt the KJV, they make up MYTHS to do so. Bruce Metzger is the one responsible for creating this lie. He has since recanted of it. The problem is that the lie is never recanted on the internet or in the books that have already been printed, so people continue to believe the lie! As soon as Metzger recanted of the lie, Humanist & Textural Critic Erika Rummel created a similar lie, but later she had to recant it as well. Why would supposed Christians find it necessary to lie about the KJV in order to support their position that the Newer versions- NIV, etc. are better?
Why does any Christian find it necessary to lie about anything?
[/b]

xxxxxxxxxxxx

The first two editions of Erasmus’ Greek New Testament in the early 16th century omitted the following words from 1 John 5:7-8 -- “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth.” This portion of Scripture containing a clear Trinitarian statement is called the Johannine Comma. It was added to the third edition of the Erasmus Greek New Testament and it was not again seriously questioned until the 19th century.

There are TWO POPULAR MYTHS regarding Erasmus and 1 John 5:7 that are PARROTED BY MODERNISTS, EVANGELICALS, AND EVEN FUNDAMENTALISTS TODAY WHO DEFEND THE MODERN VERSIONS AGAINST THE KJV.

The first MYTH is that Erasmus promised to insert the verse if a Greek manuscript were produced. This is stated as follows by Bruce Metzger: “Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was found--or made to order” (Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 1st and 2nd editions).

The second myth is that Erasmus challenged Edward Lee to find a Greek manuscript that included 1 John 5:7. This originated with Erika Rummel in 1986 in her book Erasmus’ Annotations and was repeated by James White in 1995 (The Truth about the KJV-Only Controversy).

In A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7,8, Michael Maynard records that H.J. de Jonge, the Dean of the Faculty of Theology at Rijksuniversiteit (Leiden, Netherlands), has refuted both myths. de Jonge, a recognized specialist in Erasmian studies, refuted the myth of a promise in 1980, stating that Metzger’s view on Erasmus’ promise “has no foundation in Erasmus’ work. Consequently it is highly improbable that he included the difficult passage because he considered himself bound by any such promise.”

De Jonge has also refuted the new myth of a challenge (which Rummel devised in reaction to the burial of the promise myth). In a letter of June 13, 1995, to Maynard, de Jonge wrote:
“I have checked again Erasmus’ words quoted by Erika Rummel and her comments on them in her book Erasmus’ Annotations. This is what Erasmus writes [on] in his Liber tertius quo respondet ... Ed. Lei: Erasmus first records that Lee had reproached him with neglect of the MSS. of 1 John because Er. (according to Lee) had consulted only one MS. Erasmus replies that he had certainly not used only one ms., but many copies, first in England, then in Brabant, and finally at Basle. He cannot accept, therefore, Lee’s reproach of negligence and impiety. ‘Is it negligence and impiety, if I did not consult manuscripts which were simply not within my reach? I have at least assembled whatever I could assemble. Let Lee produce a Greek MS. which contains what my edition does not contain and let him show that that manuscript was within my reach. Only then can he reproach me with negligence in sacred matters.’

“From this passage you can see that Erasmus does not challenge Lee to produce a manuscript etc. What Erasmus argues is that Lee may only reproach Erasmus with negligence of MSS if he demonstrates that Erasmus could have consulted any MS. in which the Comma Johanneum figured. Erasmus does not at all ask for a MS. containing the Comma Johanneum. He denies Lee the right to call him negligent and impious if the latter does not prove that Erasmus neglected a manuscript to which he had access.

“In short, Rummel’s interpretation is simply wrong. The passage she quotes has nothing to do with a challenge. Also, she cuts the quotation short, so that the real sense of the passage becomes unrecognizable. She is absolutely not justified in speaking of a challenge in this case or in the case of any other passage on the subject” (emphasis in original) (de Jonge, cited from Maynard, p. 383).

Jeffrey Khoo observes further: “YALE PROFESSOR ROLAND BAINTON, ANOTHER ERASMIAN EXPERT, AGREES WITH DE JONGE, FURNISHING PROOF FROM ERASMUS’ OWN WRITING THAT ERASMUS’ INCLUSION OF 1 JOHN 5:7F WAS NOT DUE TO A SO-CALLED ‘PROMISE’ BUT THE FACT THAT HE BELIEVED ‘THE VERSE WAS IN THE VULGATE AND MUST THEREFORE HAVE BEEN IN THE GREEK TEXT USED BY JEROME’” (Jeffrey Khoo, Kept Pure in All Ages, 2001, p. 88).

Edward F. Hills, who had a doctorate in textual criticism from Harvard, testifies: “... it was not trickery that was responsible for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma in the Textus Receptus, but the usage of the Latin speaking Church” (Hills, The King James Version Defended).

[b]IN THE 3RD EDITION OF THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BRUCE METZGER CORRECTED HIS FALSE ASSERTION (LIE) ABOUT ERASMUS [/b]as follows: “What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus’ promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H. J. DeJonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion” (Metzger, The Text of The New Testament, 3rd edition, p. 291, footnote 2).

[b]THE PROBLEM IS THAT THESE MYTHS CONTINUE TO BE PARADED AS TRUTH BY MODERN VERSION DEFENDERS.[/b]

A recommended resource for further study is Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8: a tracing of the longevity of the Comma Johanneum, with evaluations of arguments against its authenticity (Comma Publications, P.O. Box 1625, Tempe, AZ 85280-1625, [email protected]; a second edition is scheduled for publication sometime in late 2005).
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/mythsabout-erasmus.html


God bless,

Stever :-)

 2006/5/13 2:55
letsgetbusy
Member



Joined: 2004/9/28
Posts: 957
Cleveland, Georgia

 Re:

Outstanding info, Stever.


_________________
Hal Bachman

 2006/5/13 10:29Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy