Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Jordan Kurecki

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Jordan Kurecki

  1. If you want to play that game, in the New Testament people sold ALL that they had and laid it at the Apostles feet. Go to your church this Sunday and give literally every dollar you own, and then I will respect your consistency, after all, did God ever tell anyone not to give everything they have to the church?
  2. Where in the Old Testament was Abraham COMMANDED by God to tithe? You seem to confuse descriptive history with it being “instituted by God”. Just because Abraham tithed, does not mean he did it because God “instituted” a tithe on him. The Old Testament is full of people giving things to God that he did not require, but simply because they CHOSE to in order to worship and honor God.
  3. The canons of textual criticism are pretty much just opinion and conjecture passed off as science in my opinion, I want to know what experiments they have done to prove their different canons. Like was there some study done that demonstrates when people are asked to copy something that they are more likely to add things than to omit them? IMO it's much easier to omit something than to add something not there.
  4. I am not asking you to prove the KJVO position, nor did I anywhere state my position, nor did I attack the KJV. I simply asked you to give one example to substantiate a very specific claim. If your not willing to do that, nor if you are desiring to discuss the differences between the KJV and the NKJV, then why did YOU bring it up? You are the one that brought up this oft repeated talking point. I find it rather disingenuous that now you are saying you don't wish to discuss that point. You are on a public forum and you made an assertion, I simply asked for one example, if the examples are so clear and obvious, I don't understand why you would not take the opportunity to give concrete evidence?
  5. Jerry, just wanted to clarify, what you are saying here is simply untrue. The Modern English version for example is also based on the Hebrew Masoretic Text/Greek Textus Receptus, and so is the NKJV, regardless of what you are asserting. Just because the NKJV differs in translation choice from the KJV, does not mean it's based on a different Greek text, anymore than the KJV is from different text than the previous Geneva Bible and Bishops Bible (of which the KJV was a officially a revision of) If you could demonstrate one example of where the NKJV follows the critical text, I would be interested to see it. If you want to reject the NKJV for it's translational choices, there are some legitimate criticisms to be made there, but to say it's based on a different text is patently false. Even if you still wrote off the NKJV as being " based on the critical text" (even though it's not), the MEV exists and entire churches even use it, Also the Geneva Bible is based on the Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus, and there are individuals today still using it, in fact there is even a "Modernized Geneva Bible" with modern spelling of words (No word changes), therefore the charge the the KJV "is the only current English translation in use that is based on the preserved Textus Receptus Greek Text and the Hebrew Masoretic Text" is simply not true. Can you please provide a source for this statement, I have never been able to find any law that actually states this but would be glad to see it.
  6. Totally agree with your philosophy. It certainly would cost both local churches and missionaries less money in the long run, and also would make furloughs easier. Also makes it easier for your church to actually mentally keep up with your supported missionaries. a lot easier to keep up with 5 missionaries at say 300 a month than 20 missionaries at 75 a month.
  7. Sorry, I interpreted your question as somewhat of a rhetorical question.
  8. I highly doubt it's motivated by $, they probably just feel like the NASB has some deficiencies and wished to correct them. I would be hesitant to ascribe ill motives when we don't know them.
  9. What he said, basically just a revision of the NASB.
  10. I just went back and read through the NKJV preface, they do admit to CONSULTING the LXX and the Latin Vulgate, but they also claim the KJV translators at times followed the LXX and Latin Vulgate at times over the Hebrew text! Doing some research, it's at least agreed upon that the KJV translators 100% consulted other texts like the LXX. In fact in Genesis there is a marginal note in the KJV that references the LXX. There is a quite a bit of phraseology and words that the KJV borrowed and carried over from the Latin Vulgate into English. The Latin Vulgate seemed to have strong influence on the style of the KJV in some places. You can do research and google it yourself and find tons of influence that the Latin Vulgate had on the KJV.. The KJV translators absolutely consulted and looked at other Ancient Translations and even earlier English translations as well. Dr. Price, the executive editor of the NKJV, on his personal website answered an accusation by D.A. Waite that the NKJV used a different OT text than the KJV and stated: “As former executive editor of the NKJV Old Testament, I can confidently assure you that the NKJV fol­lowed, as carefully as possible, the Bomberg 1524-25 Ben Chayyim edition that the KJV 1611 translators used--I personally made sure.” Here is the source from Dr. Price's website where you can read it for yourself: https://www.jamesdprice.com/newkingjamesversion.html Arthur Farstad the executive editor of the NKJV has stated “Most current New Testaments use some modification of the Westcott-Hort text, such as an eclectic one not too far removed from that text. Seminary and college professors especially are surprised that the NKJV used such a conservative text as the Textus Receptus..the NKJV is an update of an historic version translated from a specific type of text. We felt it was unwise to change the base from which it was made. As noted earlier, the translators of the English Revised Version of the New Testament (1881) were soundly criticized for slipping in the Westcott-Hort Greek text when it was not part of their mandate from the church.” The KJV translators themselves included textual variants and references to other manuscripts in the original marginal notes. For example the margin in Matthew 26:26 says “Many Greek copies have, gave thanks”. There are marginal notes of this nature in Matthew 1:11, Luke 10:22, Luke 17:36, and other places as well... There is a whole segment on this link with these kinds of examples:https://bloggingtheword.com/the-blog/the-types-of-marginal-notes-in-the-1611-kjv According to Scrivener there were 67 marginal notes of a textual nature in the original KJV. Does, to use your own words, a "simple look at the translator/marginal notes show that" the KJV translators "made translational choices based on other manuscripts"? Dr. Price said in response to D.A. Waite: "So it is quite obvious that the KJV translators used marginal notes to identify variant readings in the Hebrew and Greek text, and they also referred to the ancient versions and church fathers in these notes. Usually their notes did not identify specific sources, yet Waite criticizes the NKJV for giving the same kind of marginal notes with more specific information.".. The NKJV Preface states: "The notes in the present edition make no evaluation of the readings (and so terms such as "better manuscripts" are avoided), but they do clearly indicate the sources of the readings that diverge from the traditional text." Price went on to say "By the very nature of a translation it is understood that the words in the main body of a translation represent the content of the traditional text being followed, and that the alter­nate words in the marginal note represent the alternate readings found in the non-traditional texts. The fact that no evaluations were made, as are made in some modern versions, indicates that the editors were not suggesting that any alternate readings were necessarily better than the readings of the traditional text. Thus they do not express nor imply any lack of confidence in the tradi­tional text." The NKJV has plenty of places in the OT where it lists the LXX or Latin Vulgate as places to SUPPORT it's following of the Masoretic text. For example in 1 Samuel 10:1 there is a marginal note that says "so with the MT (Masoretic text), Tg (Targum), Vg (Vulgate); LXX reads...." As you can see, the NKJV REFERENCES the Vulgate and Targum to SUPPORT it's FOLLOWING of the Masoretic text but does mention a variant in the LXX. Can you show me ONE single example where the NKJV disagrees with the KJV in the OT and has a marginal note stating that it followed something other than the Masoretic text? If you can I will gladly admit that I am mistaken and I will stop saying that the NKJV is based on the Masoretic text like the KJV. D.A. Waite in his criticism of the NKJV, criticized it for having a marginal note in Neh 3:20 that says "Zabbai".. Ironically the KJV has the same marginal note! So by criticizing the NKJV, he unintentionally criticizes the KJV! If your accusation is that the NKJV is to be rejected because they fail your criteria of having consulted and looked at other manuscripts/translations than the Masoretic text, to be consistent you would need to also reject the KJV by your own standard that you have put forth.
  11. I use to say in the past that the NKJV was based on different manuscripts than the KJV. I said that based on what I had heard and read online and I have come to believe that it is NOT true that the NKJV only partly uses the same underlying manuscripts as the KJV. While I agree that the NKJV is a new translation and not simply an updated KJV, I do not believe it's factual that it only "partly uses the same underlying manuscripts", the NKJV is based on the same Hebrew and Greek texts as the KJV. As part of my study for my Master of Theology in Biblical Languages, I have spent the last 7 months studying, comparing, noting differences and annotating several chapters in depth in the KJV, NKJV and MEV (Modern English Version) with the Hebrew Masoretic Text, In addition to my work in the OT, At this point I have looked at every verse in the NT of the NKJV except Revelation, and so far I have not found a single place where the NKJV departed from the Hebrew Masoretic Text or the Greek Textus Receptus. Every example I have seen cited in articles online where an accusation is made of the NKJV being based on a different text, I found after honesty study and and inquired of the specific cited examples that the issues were simply a differences of translation choices but differences which could somewhat reasonably be considered justifiable/allowable by the Hebrew/Greek. Many of the places I have looked at where people have accused the NKJV of following the Critical Text, the Critical Text has had the same Greek wording as the TR. Now, don't misunderstand me, one can certainly make a legitimate case for places in the NKJV where certain translational choices are unhelpful, subpar, or even erroneous; I have found myself disagreeing with translational choices that the NKJV has made in several places, however, claiming that the NKJV is based on different manuscripts than the KJV is an accusation that seems to be made without basis in truth. I have heard several people over the last few months claim that "Only the KJV is based on the right Hebrew and Greek texts and EVERY other translation is based on corrupt Hebrew and Greek texts", and as far as I can tell, this claim is NOT factually accurate. If any claim is not true, then it should stop being repeated. Whenever false information is repeated, there are always people who eventually realize that the information was wrong, and eventually those people often throw the baby out with the bath water because of it. When they find something they were told about the KJV or other translations is false, then they will begin to question everything or to reject many if not all of the things they are told about the translation issue. I cannot tell you how many people I have met who were propelled into embracing a full on critical text position because of things they were taught about the Bible Translation issue that were false. There are many people who realize that popular KJV defenders like Gail Riplinger, and Sam Gipp tell false information, misleading information, and even outright lies, and sadly that often propels them to someone like James White who also gives false and misleading information. You can't blindly trust everything people say just because they happen to agree with your position, you also can't blindly trust someone just because you respect them and they have godly character. We need to be discerning, and discernment does not mean you only use discernment with those OUTSIDE your church, circle, family, etc... True discernment means you are careful about EVERYTHING you hear and are taught. 1 Th 5:21 says "prove all things, hold fast that which is good"
  12. It's not 100% true that the differences between editions were only corrections in printing errors and spelling changes. Honestly none of us have any real way of knowing why there were changes because it's not like we have a written record given by the people who did the slight revisions on why they made their changes. With that being said, the differences between the different editions of the KJV are MASSIVELY minuscule. I believe the point and reason why people say that is because people who are King James Only commonly are claiming 100%, every word perfection and accuracy for their text, yet in any given church, depending upon if you have an Oxford or Cambridge, there will be actual substantial differences in some places, for some example there is a passage in Jeremiah 34:16 that has "he" in one edition and "ye" in another edition, or in a list of Joshua one edition may say "or sheba" and another edition may say "and sheba" It's a fair question to ask, which edition today is correct? The Cambridge or Oxford? And upon what authority does anyone declare which one to be correct? In reaction to this point, there is a charismatic pentecostal in Australia that claims "God" audibly spoke to him and told him that a specific edition he calls the "Pure Cambridge Edition" is the perfect KJV edition. Another fair question is, if the 1611 and other editions had certain printing errors, how do we know that whatever current 1769 edition that we have now, does not also have some printing errors yet to be corrected? The reason why people bring this up is because the original 1611 edition of the KJV does have some differences of substance, though minor, from most of the editions that people are carrying and using today. You can say all the differences are "just printing change and spelling changes".. but honestly nobody really knows if that's true. in 1769 when Blayney did his revision, none of the translators of the KJV were alive anymore, had he "corrected" printing errors, he would have technically had to do "textual criticism" on the English editions of the KJV available to him in that day in order to do that. Because KJVOist present the KJV as a 100% every word perfect text, pointing out that the text has changed in different editions, even though extremely minor, is an attempt to point out an inconsistency. Personally the substantial differences between KJV editions to me is really a non issue because the differences are so massively minor. Most KJVO people are unaware that there are different editions of the KJV text floating around out there, in any church that is KJVO its not uncommon for people to unknowingly have different editions amongst the congregation, albeit again the differences are so minor no one probably even notices. To be fair, most KJV people would NOT be willing to pardon the kind of differences seen between the different editions of the KJV, if those same kinds of differences were differences between say, the KJV and the NKJV. For example in 1 John 5:12 the 1611 KJV is missing a phrase like "of God" which is now currently found in pretty much all current editions: If a modern translation removed "of God" from that verse, many people would be ranting and raving about the modern translation for "removing God".
  13. You probably did not actually have to reset your password, you may have clicked on a link that someone used to get your information which you gave them. One common tactic for scammers is to get you to click on a link or cause a link to pop up that makes it look like you need to reset your password so that you freely give away your information. You better change the password for whatever you gave your information when you "reset" your password.
  14. The high contrast paper though and premium TN font thought might make it easier to read even though its smaller. The paper having high opacity does wonders for readability.
  15. Matt, I have probably spent way too much time researching bibles and I have personally owned many many different bibles over the years. For just a preaching bible, I would 100% recommend the Thomas Nelson Preaching Bible, the cover is a durable genuine leather, the paper is premium quality, and the typography and layout are superb. https://biblebuyingguide.com/thomas-nelson-kjv-preaching-bible-review/ The Maclaren is a slightly cheaper less premium edition of the preaching bible above: https://biblebuyingguide.com/thomas-nelson-kjv-maclaren-series-bible-review/ Also good is the Thomas Nelson Sovereign Collection, this one is smaller, compact, but has an amazing typographical layout. https://biblebuyingguide.com/thomas-nelson-kjv-sovereign-collection-bible-review/ I really am partial to anything published by Thomas Nelson, in my opinion lately their layouts and typography are incredible. I also really like their cross reference system because it has synonyms for archaic words in the margins. I do NOT recommend anything from Local Church Bible Publishers or Church Bible Publishers, the only thing they have going for them is that they use nice leather, but their paper quality is seriously subpar, their bibles usually have bad ghosting, and the typography in my opinion is just ugly and the fonts they use are ugly. Some people like that old classic look but I can’t stand it. As for Leather, Typically Genuine Leather/Cowhide and Goatskin are them out durable, Lambskin is super soft but it’s really not that durable. If your looking for recommendations for a study Bible, Ryrie is the one I would recommend, he is very balanced and his has a really nice layout where cross references are in the outer margins, he was Baptistic and Dispensational. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGdwuDYtWew&t=3s The other Study Bible I would recommend is the Thomas Nelson King James Study Bible, the genuine leather is high quality, and the notes are from an Independent Baptist perspective (was published by Liberty University in the 70s) The typography and layout is amazing and it has full color pictures, charts, etc. The only negative is it’s pretty large. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT0X2uDD2xs If your just looking for something to preach from, I recommend the Thomas Nelson Preaching Bible. Or alternatively anything from the Thomas Nelson Premier Collection. Anything in the Thomas Nelson Premier Collection has high quality leather, paper, and typography. Once you start using one of the New Thomas Nelson’s you won’t want to use anything else. This bible has Ruckmanite notes in it.
  16. Hey Matt, I just happened to look at this verse yesterday and spent a considerable amount of time studying and reflecting on the Hebrew word "sheol" [Hell in Jonah 2:2] I believe that many have a very narrow understanding of the English word "Hell". Many think "Hell" only refers to a place of punishment, Webster 1828 defines "Hell" as "the place of the dead", which is much more in line with the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades. I have a theory that "hell" in English has changed in meaning over the years and come to be more specific than the word originally was. In Luke 16 both the Rich man and Lazarus seems to be in "Hades". It seems that at least prior to the death of Christ, all people both righteous and unrighteous went to "Sheol" and "Hades", though the experience in "Sheol" and "Hades" would be different for the righteous vs the unrighteous. Consider the UBS Translators Handbook comments on Jonah 2:2: "The prayer is described as coming from deep in the world of the dead, or “out of the belly of Sheol” (neb). In other words the worshiper is pictured as having “one foot in the grave,” to use an English idiom, or in “the jaws of death,” as Luther expresses it" Price, B. F., & Nida, E. A. (1978). A translators’ handbook on the Book of Jonah (p. 77). Stuttgart: United Bible Societies. The NET Notes also are helpful in understanding this: Sheol was a name for the place of residence of the dead, the underworld (see Job 7:9–10; Isa 38:17–18). Jonah pictures himself in the belly of Sheol, its very center—in other words he is as good as dead. Biblical Studies Press. (2006). The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Jon 2:1–2). Biblical Studies Press. I believe Jonah's language was figurative. Jonah being in the belly of the fish was a picture of Christ being dead. You could say Jonah was a type. I don't see how Jonah could cry out to God if he had already died and actually went to Sheol, unless God answered Jonah's prayer while he was actually in Sheol.
  17. If you're talking about the JW New World Translation, then you would be wrong. The NWT was translated from Wescott and Hort's text.
  18. I think this is getting away from the original topic. If you make another thread I would be willing to engage you on this more.
  19. Also personal revelation would be God in no uncertain way declaring to you infallible truth. Revelation is infalible whereas ones personal convictions can be based on a number of things such as application of scriptural principle, logic, knowledge, etc. Revelation is not fallible while ones convictions certainly are fallible.
  20. There is a big difference between what you personally feel God wants you to do as an individual, and someone claiming an objective fact based on their own “conviction”. I suppose the important question is what is ones “conviction” based on. Ones “convictions” might not necessarily correlate with reality always. Just because someone has a “conviction” does not make something factually true. Often peoples “convictions” are based on the current (and sometimes false or misleading) knowledge that we have. There are many people who have “convictions” that are nothing more than them adopting and following the examples they have seen modeled or taught to them by a respected source. These sources may or may not be correct at times. In other words we ought to be careful what we base our convictions on. I guess my point is personal convictions have no bearing on what is or is not true. I mean you having a conviction about something has zero binding authority on any one else nor does your conviction necessarily determine reality. There is a huge difference between having a conviction that you should personally use the KJV and the KJV is perfect. You feeling like you should exclusively use the KJV is not making a declaration about truth or reality for others. I have zero problems with that. Its quite different to assert that the KJV is perfect based on a conviction and to state that conviction as if it has any kind of authority to declare reality or determine truth.
  21. To be clear, I have no problem with the KJV, and I think it's an excellent translation of what I consider to be the reliable texts of the Hebrew/Aramaic Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. What I am concerned about is what seems to be almost a blind mysticism and adherence to a tradition of men that's devoid of basis in actual promises of God or in actual personal investigatory evaluation by individuals with any sort of training/education in Greek or Hebrew. In theory there are only 3 possible ways in which one could know the KJV is perfect: 1. There would have to be a promise in God's word: Which I demonstrated above why I think that is not the case. 2. God would have to supernaturally reveal that to an individual, There are some Charismatics who claim this about the KJV. But this is impossible for anyone else to confirm or deny as it rests on a supposed personal revelation. 3. Someone would have to have Hebrew and Greek training/education and would have to actually have looked at every word in the KJV and compare it to every word the Hebrew and Greek texts, and even if said person declared that every translation choice was completely accurate, they could still possibly be mistaken or wrong. Therefore even this possibility is rather impossible.
  22. I see many people make claims about the KJV as being perfect because "God promised to preserve his word". The argument seems to go 1. God Promised to Preserve his Word 2. God Promising to Preserve his word means perfect translation in front of me 3. The KJV is that perfect translation. Here is the dilemma that I see that people don't want to seem to acknowledge: To start, I think we need to agree that God's promises do not change. That means God's promises to preserve his word mean the same thing in 2021, as they did when the originally writers under Inspiration wrote them, and this means they meant the same thing in 1610, as they did in 1611, and they still meant the same thing in 1769. So, if in 2020 God's promise to preserve his word=perfect translation in my language in front of me. Then in 1610 God's promise to preserve his word also should= perfect Translation in front of me. Yet no one seems to acknowledge that any of the pre 1611 KJV Bible's are perfect. When I was in Bible College I asked one of the professors how we know the KJV is God's perfect Bible over the Geneva Bible, the answer I got was really non substantial. if I lived in 1599 in Europe and I hold the Geneva Bible 1599 in my hand, I could open it to passages as the following: Matthew 5:18 For truely I say unto you, Til heaven, and earth perish, one jote, or one title of the Law shal not escape, til all things be fulfilled. Psalm 33:11 The counsel of the Lord shal stand for ever, & the thoghts of his heart through out all ages. Is 40:8 The grasse withereth, yͤ floure fadeth: but the worde of our God shal stãd for ever. Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth shal passe away, but my wordes shal not passe away. So here's the question I have: What is the difference ,in principle, between holding the Geneva Bible in 1599 and claiming its perfect based on its promises and holding a KJV in 2020 and claiming its perfect based on its promises? Did God's promises of preservation change in meaning in 1611 or 1769? God's promises do not change in their meaning based on time, Therefore God's promise of preservation has to mean the same thing before 1611 as it does in 2020. By nature claiming that the KJV is God's perfect preserved word, you have to also admit that the prior 1611 English Bibles were not perfect, But by also doing that, you have created a contradiction. Remember God's promise to preserve his word has to mean the same thing in 2020 as it does in 1610. It cannot mean perfect bible translation in 2020 but imperfect Bible translations before 1611. So here's my question, is the belief in the KJV as a perfect translation really simply a matter of believing in God's actual promises, especially if we are inconsistent in it's application and in light of historical reality. For example, My Lugbara friends over in Uganda have a critical text dynamic translation of the Bible, they do not have a formal textus receptus translation, yet their bible has many of the same promises as yours do about preservation of the word, What if they held their translation up, and claimed it was perfect based on those promises and told you that your English KJV is corrupt because it differs from their translation. How would their methodology and philosophy be any different than the current view of the KJV amongst many IFB? I will be the first to grant you that I don't think the critical text based Lugbara Bible is a fully accurate Bible, but what about God's promise of preservation? If in 2020 that means we have to have a perfect English Translation, then surely that promise must mean the same thing for the Lugbara person in Uganda? And yet the Lugbara do not have what any TR or KJV Only advocate would argue is a perfect Bible. And there are hundreds of languages that do not have the a translation that is the equivalent of the KJV in their language. Did God's promise of preservation fail all of these people who speak these languages? Or is it more likely that our understanding and application of God's promises of preservation are inconsistent and erroneous? I have to ask, is there any Biblical reason for giving primacy to English? and at that to a particular translation in 1611? [technically 1769 is the edition of the KJV most used] People make arguments about English being a popular language today and that God knew that, But God inspired his word in Hebrew and Hebrew never did become a dominate world language. This is an argument based on opinion and supposition rather than actual promise Good made. People make arguments about the superiority of the KJV translators using the correct text, (Which by the way I happen to agree with) but just because they used the right text, does not necessitate that their translation is perfect. People make arguments about the superior skills of the KJV translators, and while I agree they were great scholars, that still doesn't somehow mean 100% perfect translation. I guess my point is, from my point of view, believing in the KJV as being perfect really does not seem to based on a sound, and consistent application of God's promise to preserve his word, Belief in the KJV has being perfect seems to stem more from a predetermined position and then that presupposition forced back onto God's promises. I have yet to hear a convincing argument that explains how or why God's promise of preservation changed in 1611 and came to mean some different today in 2020 than it would have in 1610. If the KJV was perfect, and I am not saying that it is or isn't, Its impossible to prove that based on what the Bible says alone, because if I can't claim the Geneva Bible is perfect in 1599 based on God's promise of preservation, then I really have no consistency to claim the KJV is perfect in 2020 based on God's promise of preservation. The issue I see is people turn the KJV being perfect into a "faith" issue, but faith is believing what God actually promised, not what we presuppose he promised. unfortunately we have a tendency to misunderstand God's promises and to put words in God's mouth that he did not say. God promise his words would be preserved for all generations, he did NOT promise a perfect translation of that word for every language or for any particular language. There are a little less than 4000 languages without a printed translation of God's word, did God fail here? Or maybe have we misunderstand his promises? An interesting side note and food for thought HERE: When Jesus said his words would not pass away in Luke 21:33, what was he talking about? Was he talking about printed words in a perfect manuscript or translation? As far as I know it would have been around 20-30 years before those words actually would have been written down by any of the Gospel writers? Was the church totally without the words of Jesus for those 20-30 years between when he said that statement and when the Gospel writers wrote them down?
  • Create New...