Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: KJV - King James Version Roots

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8

    Default KJV - King James Version Roots

    Are there any translations that utilize the same original scripts as the KJV? I love KJV but find it hard at times. But I don't want a "heretical" version like NIV, NLT or something like that.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by majordude View Post
    Are there any translations that utilize the same original scripts as the KJV? I love KJV but find it hard at times. But I don't want a "heretical" version like NIV, NLT or something like that.
    As far as modern translations are concerned, the NKJV, which is included in BW, is probably the closest to what you are looking for. The NKJV is based primarily on the Textus Receptus, which is the same Greek Text that underlies the Reformation Bibles, including the KJV, although there are a number of places in the NKJV where it departs from the Textus Receptus and follows the NA/UBS Greek text.

    The NKJV also abandons the second person singular/plural distinctions in both the OT and the NT, distinctions which are uniformly preserved in the KJV.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Wow. I think I have to learn how to read the KJV! I like it the best (when I can understand it)!

    I'll look at the NKJV but those anomalies you mentioned are probably enough to keep me from adopting it as my version of choice.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by majordude View Post
    But I don't want a "heretical" version like NIV, NLT or something like that.
    Just curious. I've heard arguments calling the NIV into question, but I'm interested in hearing yours regarding the NLT? What's your basis?

    I thought maybe I'd found one. Someone mentioned in church this past Sunday that John 1:1 was evidence of a heretical translation. I'll admit, my old eyes just don't see it. No indefinite article. No lower case "g".

    NLT John 1:1 In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    Last edited by SCSaunders; 03-19-2007 at 12:43 PM. Reason: Stuttered my "QuotesQuotes" key

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8

    Default

    How is NLT heretical?
    • Deuteronomy - "sodomite" changed to "temple prostitute"
    • 1 Kings 14:24 - "sodomites" replaced with "shrine prostitutes"
    • 1 Kings 15:12 - "sodomites" replaced with "shrine prostitutes"
    • 1 Kings 22:46 - "sodomites" replaced with "shrine prostitutes"
    • 2 Kings 23:7 - "sodomites" replaced with "shrine prostitutes"
    • Matthew 17:21 - entire verse omitted
    • Matthew 18:11 - entire verse omitted
    • Matthew 19:9 - half of the verse is omitted
    • Matthew 23:14 - entire verse omitted
    • Mark 6:11 - half of the verse is omitted
    • Mark 7:16 - entire verse omitted
    • Mark 9:44, 46 - entire verses omitted
    • Mark 11:26 - entire verse omitted
    • Mark 15:28 - entire verse omitted
    • Mark 16:9-20 - entire passage is questioned by a footnote that says, "The most reliable early manuscripts conclude the Gospel of Mark at verse 8"
    • Luke 4:8 - "get thee behind me Satan" is omitted
    • Luke 17:36 - entire verse omitted
    • Luke 23:17 - entire verse omitted
    • John 1:10 - says God created everything "through" Jesus instead of "by" Jesus as the KJB teaches
    • John 1:41 - The NLT leaves out the phrase, "Which is by interpretation, a stone." Hence, the critical distinction between Peter as "the stone" (Petros), and Jesus as "The Rock" (Petra) is obscured. This was no doubt deliberate to pleases Catholics who falsely teach that Peter is the rock upon which the church is built. The Bible states in no uncertain terms, "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1st Corinthians 3:11).
    • John 3:16 - the all important word "begotten" is omitted, thus denying the deity of Christ
    • John 3:13 - "which is in heaven" is omitted John 5:4 - entire verse omitted
    • John 7:53 - 8:11 -- entire passage is questioned in a note which says, "The most ancient Greek manuscripts do not include John 7:53 - 8:11"
    • Acts 8:37 - entire verse omitted
    • Acts 12:4 - changes "Easter" to the incorrect "Passover" (See Numbers 28:16,17 and Acts 12:2 in the KJB)
    • Acts 17:29 - completely removes the "Godhead"
    • Acts 28:29 - entire verse omitted
    • Romans 1:20 - completely removes the "Godhead"
    • Romans 16:24 - entire verse omitted
    • Philippians 2:6 -removes the word "equal," thus denying Christ's deity
    • Colossians 1:16 - says God created everything "through" Jesus instead of "by" Jesus as the KJB teaches
    • Colossians 2:9 - completely removes the "Godhead"
    • 1 Timothy 3:16 - "God" is omitted, says "Christ appeared in the flesh, thus denying the deity of Christ
    • 1 Timothy 6:5 - "from such withdraw thyself" is omitted
    • Hebrews 1:3 - the all-important words "by himself" are omitted
    • 1 Peter 4:1 - "for us" is omitted
    • 1 Peter 4:14 - half of the verse is omitted
    • 1 John 3:16 -completely removes "the love of God"
    • 1 John 4:3 - the all-important words "Christ is come in the flesh" are omitted 1 John 5:7-8 -- Trinitarian clause omitted
    • 1 John 5:7 - half of the verse is omitted, thus denying the Godhead
    • 1 John 5:13 - half of the verse is omitted
    • Revelation 1:11 - first half of the verse is omitted
    • Revelation 5:14 - "him that liveth forever and ever" is omitted
    More...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,093

    Default

    I hesitate to even reply to this because this doesn't really belong in this forum. I'm not defending the translation of the NLT, but it is appropriate to at least properly characterize your arguments. Many of the issues you raise concerning the NLT is not so much a matter of the NLT writers being heretical as it is the fact that the NLT and KJV are translated from a very different Greek text, i.e. the Majority Text vs. the Nestle-Aland tradition. Thus for instance many of those parts where "whole parts" are missing or verses are dropped is not so much because the NLT people just felt like throwing things out but because they were translating from the text in the Nestle-Aland.

    That having been said there are still things not to like about the NLT, if that's your position. One can put it quite concisely, and neutrally, to say that the KJV translation and NLT translation are based on very different translation techniques.
    Michael Hanel
    PhD candidate Classics Univ. of Cincinnati
    MDiv Concordia Seminary
    MA Classics Washington University
    Unofficial BibleWorks Blog
    LibraryThing!

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Hanel View Post
    I'm not defending the translation of the NLT, but it is appropriate to at least properly characterize your arguments.
    That's what I was seeking to understand.

    I've heard and read the arguments against the NIV. Folks of no small stature have taken it to task. I still use it. Gave my kids NIVs.

    In the same way, I was curious about claims against the NLV. Text-based? Dynamic Equivalence? Theological bent? A new wind blowing through Mars Hill? What exactly? Just curious.

    I wasn't going to respond originally. If it talks like a Troll. But when several days later I heard a similar claim, well ... thought I would find out what three questions got raised.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    536

    Default Please take this discussion elsewhere

    This forum is for questions about how to use BibleWorks. It is not for broader discussions such as are being discussed. Please move this discussion elsewhere.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn Weaver View Post
    This forum is for questions about how to use BibleWorks. It is not for broader discussions such as are being discussed. Please move this discussion elsewhere.
    10-4 Glenn!

    I'm on a new quest anyway. My daughters asked me last night, "Daddy, why does Sanjaya sort of look like a girl?" So, first order of business, "What's a 'Sanjaya'?"

    MajorDude, whatever differing translations we use on our BW7 platforms, Christ has thrown us together as brothers. My apologies if I offended you.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Offended? No way, brother!


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •