Jump to content
Online Baptist

Thoughts on a Good NKJV study Bible


Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...
  • Members
On 4/12/2020 at 11:39 PM, Sophiearose said:

I am looking for a NKJV study Bible.  I have found MacAuthur’s and Jeremiah.  Does anyone have a good study Bible they love?

If can find it, Ryrie Nkjv, and the reformation study bible!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators
On 4/12/2020 at 11:39 PM, Sophiearose said:

I am looking for a NKJV study Bible.  I have found MacAuthur’s and Jeremiah.  Does anyone have a good study Bible they love?

Any particular reason why you are looking for a NKJV? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)

One Book Stands Alone: The New King James PerVersion (part 4 of 4)

Deals with the internal inconsistency of the NKJV word choices and the fact that it changes meanings and does not just update language and grammar of the KJV.

Edited by John Young
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
On 5/28/2020 at 10:40 PM, John Young said:

One Book Stands Alone: The New King James PerVersion (part 4 of 4)

Deals with the internal inconsistency of the NKJV word choices and the fact that it changes meanings and does not just update language and grammar of the KJV.

Would yoyu feel the same way then on the 21 century Kjv?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Quote

 

In contradiction to scriptural instructions to apply the same measures/standards justly, it should be evident that Doug Stauffer applies different measures to the word choices in one English Bible translation [the NKJV] than he would apply to the word choices in another English Bible translation [the KJV].  Would use of double standards be just and scriptural?

The makers of the KJV changed meanings in the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision, and they did not just update language and grammar in them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Tyndale said:

The makers of the KJV changed meanings in the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision, and they did not just update language and grammar in them.

That's why the KJV isn't called the New Bishops bible. It was meant to be an an authoritative revision of all those that came before it. Modern Critical text revisions by their very nature are not authoritative works as they exclude the tradition of those faithful works that came before them in favor of "new discoveries" of manuscripts not historically used and passed down in the churches. The NKJV while claiming authoritative lineage favors and inserts into its text critical text revisions of doubtful origin and therefor it is not a KJV nor faithful to the text it claims to merely "update".

Edited by John Young
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, John Young said:

. The NKJV while claiming authoritative lineage favors and inserts into its text critical text revisions of doubtful origin and therefor it is not a KJV nor faithful to the text it claims to merely "update".

That may be your opinion, but I do not think that it has not been soundly and justly proven to be true.   I have read Stauffer's book, and I do not think that he makes a convincing case based on use of the same measures/standards applied justly. 

From the evidence that I have seen and examined, the differences between the KJV and the NKJV fall into the same range of differences as those between the KJV and the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision.   There are by far greater textual differences between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV than any KJV-only advocate has claimed to find between the KJV and the NKJV.   Thus, I think that my point that the same measures/standards are not being applied justly still stands.   I have found a good number of places where the NKJV differs with the KJV that is in agreement with the 1560 Geneva Bible, which has been claimed by KJV-only authors to be basically the same Bible or practically identical to the KJV

The makers of the KJV made use of multiple, textually-varying sources including non-TR sources such as the Greek LXX and the Latin Vulgate.  The fact that the makers of the KJV borrowed a good number of renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament translated from an edition of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome [a non-Textus Receptus source] is also skipped over.   There is the first-hand testimony from one of the KJV translators themselves that acknowledges the use of the Rheims.

Edited by Tyndale
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

KJV defender David Norris acknowledged that the NKJV can “be classed largely as a revision rather than a retranslation” (Big Picture, p. 367). 

 

KJV defender David Sorenson admitted that the NKJV’s N. T. “is translated from the Textus Receptus” (Touch Not, p. 240).  David Sorenson also listed the NKJV as being “based upon the Received Text” (p. 10). 

 

Laurence Vance acknowledged that the NKJV’s “New Testament was based on the Received Text” (Brief History, p. 92).

 

Joe Gresham claimed that the NKJV “follows the same ancient manuscripts as the KJV” (Dealing with Devil’s Deception, p. 149). 

 

KJV-only author Samuel Gipp acknowledged that the NKJV “is based on the correct Antiochian manuscripts” (Answer Book, p. 104). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, DaChaser said:

Would yoyu feel the same way then on the 21 century Kjv?

 

1 hour ago, Tyndale said:

KJV defender David Norris acknowledged that the NKJV can “be classed largely as a revision rather than a retranslation” (Big Picture, p. 367). 

 

KJV defender David Sorenson admitted that the NKJV’s N. T. “is translated from the Textus Receptus” (Touch Not, p. 240).  David Sorenson also listed the NKJV as being “based upon the Received Text” (p. 10). 

 

Laurence Vance acknowledged that the NKJV’s “New Testament was based on the Received Text” (Brief History, p. 92).

 

Joe Gresham claimed that the NKJV “follows the same ancient manuscripts as the KJV” (Dealing with Devil’s Deception, p. 149). 

 

KJV-only author Samuel Gipp acknowledged that the NKJV “is based on the correct Antiochian manuscripts” (Answer Book, p. 104). 

Interesting.

Instead of commenting on the numerous, obvious, perversions, and corruptions of the NKJV text that Dr. Stauffer mentioned, and very clearly explained, both DaChaser and Tyndale just ignore them and will not quote the textual corruptions that Dr. Stauffer, mentioned. Nor, will they quote the examples of the NKJV perversions  that David Sorenson, Laurence Vance, Joe Gresham mentioned. Hmmm??? Interesting.

Why not look at the individual textual perversions that Dr. Stauffer mentioned instead of ignoring the verses mentioned?

Edited by Alan
doubled word spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Doug Stauffer asked:  ""Does your version reduce Jesus to God's servant rather than His Son in Acts 3:13, 3:26, 4:27, or 4:30" (One Book Stands, p. 297)? 

 

     This same Greek word found at Acts 4:27 and 30 was also used of Jesus at Matthew 12:18a where it was translated "servant" in the KJV.  However, it was translated "child" in Wycliffe's, 1534 Tyndale's, Matthew's, Great, and Bishops' Bibles and as "son" in 1526 Tyndale's.  Why is this difference important in Acts 4:27 and 30 but unimportant in Matthew 12:18?  Does the KJV’s rendering at Matthew 12:18 demonstrate that the NKJV translators used one of renderings which the Greek NT text would allow?  Would Stauffer suggest that the KJV reduced Jesus to God's servant at Matthew 12:18?  Does this demonstrate that Stauffer does not use the same measures/standards in allegations against the NKJV since he does not apply the same measures to the KJV's rendering at Matthew 12:18?

 

     The Companion Bible [KJV] has this note for "child" at Acts 4:27:  "child=servant, Greek pais, as in v. 25" (p. 1585).  The 1657 English edition of The Dutch Annotations has the following note for "thy holy child Jesus" at Acts 4:27:  "or servant, minister, See Acts 3:13, 26, see also Matthew 8:6 compared with Luke 7:2 and here verse 25."  Concerning Acts 3:13 in his 1851 commentary as edited by Alvah Hovey in the American Baptist Publication Society's American Commentary on the N. T., Horatio Hackett (1808-1875) wrote:  "pais, not son=huios, but servant=Heb. ebhedh, which was one of the prophetic appellations of the Messiah, especially in the second part of Isaiah.  (See Matt. 12:18, as compared with Isa. 42:1).  The term occurs again in this sense in v. 26; 4:27, 30" (pp. 59-60).  Concerning Acts 4:27, John Gill noted:  "Unless the word should rather be rendered  servant,  as it is in verse 25 and which is a character that belongs to Christ, and is often given him as Mediator, who, as such, is God's righteous servant" (Exposition, VIII, p. 176).      

 

 The KJV translated this Greek word pais as "servant" 10 times, "child" 7 times, and "son" 3 times. 

 

James D. Price explained that the real reason for this choice of rendering in the book of Acts in the NKJV is that the translators thought that in this context Peter was alluding to Isaiah 52:13, which identifies Christ as the Servant of the LORD (False Witness, p. 25). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)

Doug Stauffer alleged that the NKJV has "51 omissions of God", but he does not compare these places in both the KJV and the NKJV to the Hebrew Masoretic text and Textus Receptus from which the KJV is translated (One Book Stands Alone, p. 150).

In response to this misleading charge likely repeated from Gail Riplinger, James D. Price noted:  "The truth is that the KJV added the word "God" in fifty one or more places where the Hebrew or Greek text did not contain it--and that without using italics in most cases.  This was because the KJV used dynamic equivalence paraphrases such as "God forbid," "God save the king," or "God speed" instead of a more literal expression in good English.  In all these places the NKJV made the KJV more literal and more faithful to the Hebrew and Greek texts without undermining the place of God in the Bible" (False Witness of G. A. Riplinger's Death Certificate for the NKJV, p. 4).

Edited by Tyndale
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Wait a minute my friend Tyndale.

First of all, the NKJV states very clearly that it a new edition of the KJV and not a revised edition.

Dr. Stauffer is comparing the KJV with NKJV and has clearly shown that they are different in doctrinal issues. Therefore, Dr. Stauffer, through his clear examples of the corruption and perversion of NKJV has shown that, as  he mentioned in the video, the NKJV is "BLASPHEMOUS TRASH."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
10 hours ago, Alan said:

 

Interesting.

Instead of commenting on the numerous, obvious, perversions, and corruptions of the NKJV text that Dr. Stauffer mentioned, and very clearly explained, both DaChaser and Tyndale just ignore them and will not quote the textual corruptions that Dr. Stauffer, mentioned. Nor, will they quote the examples of the NKJV perversions  that David Sorenson, Laurence Vance, Joe Gresham mentioned. Hmmm??? Interesting.

Why not look at the individual textual perversions that Dr. Stauffer mentioned instead of ignoring the verses mentioned?

 

9 hours ago, Alan said:

Wait a minute my friend Tyndale.

First of all, the NKJV states very clearly that it a new edition of the KJV and not a revised edition.

Dr. Stauffer is comparing the KJV with NKJV and has clearly shown that they are different in doctrinal issues. Therefore, Dr. Stauffer, through his clear examples of the corruption and perversion of NKJV has shown that, as  he mentioned in the video, the NKJV is "BLASPHEMOUS TRASH."

 

Brethren,

In Dr. Stauffer's video he goes through Chapter 11, "They Call This New?" and Chapter 12, "No New Thing under the Sun," in his book, " One Book Stands Alone."

Dr. Stauffer very carefully examines numerous verses of the KJV Bible with the NKJV, the NWT, the NCV, and the CEV. Dr. Stauffer clearly, very clearly, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, the NKJV is comparable to the NIV, the NWT, the NCV and the CEV in numerous doctrinal and spiritual verses. The NKJV is not, repeat, is not, an updated King james Version. Dr. Stauffer states, "Thus began the "career" of one of the most insidious bibles ever to hit the market - the New King James Version," on page 167.  Dr. Stauffer is correct, the New King James Version (NKJV), is insidious.

As I stated before, our brother Tyndale ignores the comparison of these versions with the King James Version and tries other means to ignore Dr. Stauffer's par excellent teaching.

Brother John Young did us a great service in uploading the video by Dr. Stauffer. We need to carefully listen to the video, take notes, and I would encourage all of my brethren to purchase the book.

Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)

The title page of the 1611 edition of the KJV asserted [perhaps by the printer] that it is "newly translated out of the original tongues" while the translators in the 1611 preface suggested that the KJV is only a revision and not a new translation.

The fact is that the KJV can accurately be said to be both a revision and a translation [more a revision than a new translation since over 60% of the KJV's English comes from the pre-1611 English Bibles].

The NKJV is also both a revision [a revision of the KJV] and a translation of the same original-language texts used in making the KJV.

The terms "edition" and "revision" have been in effect used interchangeably by some KJV-only authors when sometimes it is suggested that the KJV is an edition of Tyndale's or another pre-1611 English and sometimes it is suggested that the KJV is a revision of Tyndale's or another pre-1611 English Bible.    Some will say that the 1769 Oxford is a revision of the 1611 edition while others will say that the 1769 Oxford is an edition.  Later editors/printers of the KJV made use of the original-language texts is making their revisions and changes to the 1611 edition just as the NKJV translators did in making their revisions to the KJV.  Some translating or re-translating was done in the making of changes and revisions to the 1611 edition.

David Cloud stated that the predecessors of the KJV were "the same basic Bibles."  He wrote:  "They were based upon the same Greek text and employed the same type of translation methodology" (For Love of the Bible, p. 48).  David Cloud referred to the Geneva Bible as "an edition of the Tyndale" and the KJV as "another edition of Tyndale" (Rome and the Bible, p. 106; Faith, p. 510; Glorious History of the KJB, p. 102).  Cloud also referred to the KJV as “a revision of the Tyndale Bible” (Faith, p. 577).  He also noted:  "Our Authorized English Bible is a direct descendant of Tyndale's faithful Version" (O Timothy, Vol. 14, Issue 5, 1997, p. 10).  Robert Sargent referred to the Geneva Bible as the "third revision of Tyndale's Bible" and to the Bishops' Bible as the "fourth revision of Tyndale's Bible" (English Bible, pp. 197, 198).  Edward F. Hills affirmed that the 1611 KJV "is mainly a revision of the Bishops' Bible, which in turn was a slightly revised edition of Tyndale's Bible" (KJV Defended, p. 215). 

 

It remains a fact that the same-type differences can be found between the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision and the KJV as can be found between the KJV and the NKJV.  I do not think that those same type-differences introduced in the KJV should be considered "insidious" and by the same exact measures/standards neither should they in the NKJV. 

 

 

Edited by Tyndale
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)

John 7:24

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Are some possibly jumping to wrong conclusions by judging merely according to the appearance instead of judging righteous judgment by applying the same exact measures/standards justly?   Would John 7:24 suggest that judging according to the appearance is excellent teaching?

13 hours ago, John Young said:

That's why the KJV isn't called the New Bishops bible.

The 1568 Bishops' Bible did not have the name Bishops' Bible on its title page, and the 1611 edition of the KJV did not have the name King James Version on its title page.

The first rule for the making of the KJV stated:  "The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit."

If a publisher today had first printed the KJV as a revision of the Bishops' Bible, that publisher may well have called it "the New Bishops' Bible."

Edited by Tyndale
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)

Could KJV-only allegations against the NKJV demonstrate that many KJV-only advocates do not approach the NKJV with the same attitude with which they would approach the 1560 Geneva Bible or the 1611 KJV?

 

 Do some seem to approach the NKJV as a Bible critic instead as a serious, seeking reader of a Bible translation?  While they may condemn anyone who approaches the KJV as a critic, are they perhaps guilty of the same thing in their approach to the NKJV?  

 

Do the Scriptures instruct believers to approach their reading of one English Bible translation differently than their reading of another one?  Do the Scriptures instruct believers to show respect to persons or to show partiality to the translating work of one exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611 over the translating work of another group of scholars?

 

  Evidently, some KJV-only advocates may come to inspect a mirror [the NKJV] (perhaps using a magnifying glass) instead of coming to see themselves in this mirror of the Scriptures translated into present-day English in the NKJV.  Do they only look inconsistently and critically at this mirror and refuse to look in it? 

 

Would they read the NKJV as the word of God translated into present-day English and with a willingness to obey and apply the scriptural truths in its verses to their own lives? 

 

Because they may come to the NKJV solely as a critic or because they may read against it, they may be unable to see that it would belong in the same family of Bible translations as the Geneva Bible and the KJV.  They do not respect, accept, or believe the NKJV as a good Bible translation which could communicate to them the words of God translated into English. 

 

Could KJV-only advocates suppose that they see errors in the NKJV because they had already assumed that they are there or because they have been told that they were there based on a superficial judgment according to appearance? 

Edited by Tyndale
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
On 5/30/2020 at 7:58 PM, Alan said:

 

Interesting.

Instead of commenting on the numerous, obvious, perversions, and corruptions of the NKJV text that Dr. Stauffer mentioned, and very clearly explained, both DaChaser and Tyndale just ignore them and will not quote the textual corruptions that Dr. Stauffer, mentioned. Nor, will they quote the examples of the NKJV perversions  that David Sorenson, Laurence Vance, Joe Gresham mentioned. Hmmm??? Interesting.

Why not look at the individual textual perversions that Dr. Stauffer mentioned instead of ignoring the verses mentioned?

You are assuming there there was a definite TR text that was perfect and pure, but Eramus had believe 6 he compiled, and there are instances in the 1611 Kjv when they did not even use any TR text, but took it in right from latin Vulgate!

The Nkjv is the best Translation is use for those who like the Kjv tradition!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, DaChaser said:

You are assuming there there was a definite TR text that was perfect and pure, but Eramus had believe 6 he compiled, and there are instances in the 1611 Kjv when they did not even use any TR text, but took it in right from latin Vulgate!

The Nkjv is the best Translation is use for those who like the Kjv tradition!

DaChaser and Tyndale,

John Young, and I, tried to show, politely and in Christian love and forbearance, the errors, corruption, and doctrinal changes of the NKJV, through the excellent video by Dr. Stauffer and we have been ignored by you and Tyndale. Instead of listening to the excellent teaching of Dr. Stauffer, and John Young and I, you and Tyndale have changed the subject and will not discuss the verses listed by Dr. Stauffer in Chapter 11 and 12 that he lists in the video.

It is my thoughts that you, and brother Tyndale,  came here on Online Baptist in order to create dissension and arguments and are not come on Online Baptist for honest, sincere Bible teaching. The apostle Paul stated, "For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would not: lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults."  2 Corinthians 12:20. Instead, you and Tyndale, thus far, are trying to cause the brethren here to doubt the veracity of the preservation of the scriptures, have a hatred towards the King James Version, disparage the those who use the KJV,  libel those who disagree, and both of you want to cause debates, strife and tumults among us brethren.

I have decided not to argue with either one of you. If you want to discuss, in an honest and Christian-like manner, my other Bible studies ( I have several here on Online Baptist), please do so. I would like to be your friend. But, I will not argue nor debate either one of you.

Regards,

Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Alan said:

DaChaser and Tyndale,

It is my thoughts that you, and brother Tyndale,  came here on Online Baptist in order to create dissension and arguments and are not come on Online Baptist for honest, sincere Bible teaching. The apostle Paul stated, "For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would not: lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults."  2 Corinthians 12:20. Instead, you and Tyndale, thus far, are trying to cause the brethren here to doubt the veracity of the preservation of the scriptures, have a hatred towards the King James Version, disparage the those who use the KJV,  libel those who disagree, and both of you want to cause debates, strife and tumults among us brethren.

Regards,

Alan

I believe in the preservation of the Scriptures.  I accept all that the Scriptures state and teach about preservation.   No one demonstrated from the Scriptures anything unscriptural in my scripturally-based points concerning the preservation of the Scriptures. 

I love the KJV and accept it as what it actually is.   I have read the KJV for over 50 years.   I do not disparage those who read and use the KJV as what it actually is.  Do you disobey a command of God as you bear false witness by falsely alleging that I supposedly hate the KJV?   You are wrong to question my honesty, and your incorrect allegations do not demonstrate Christian love and forbearance.  In agreement with scriptural truth, I correctly disagree with the making of misleading, unproven, or false claims concerning the KJV and concerning the NKJV.  

My purpose is to speak the truth just as the Scriptures teach.   I may have been more kind when I disagree with another poster than those who choose to make unproven and even untrue accusations against me.   You do not demonstrate that I supposedly libeled any one.  It is in agreement with clear scriptural truth that I soundly reject the use of unjust divers measures [double standards] in the making of misleading accusations against the NKJV. 

Evidently, you could not answer my sound questions concerning a negative approach to the word of God translated into present-day English.

Edited by Tyndale
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, Alan said:

DaChaser and Tyndale,

John Young, and I, tried to show, politely and in Christian love and forbearance, the errors, corruption, and doctrinal changes of the NKJV, through the excellent video by Dr. Stauffer and we have been ignored by you and Tyndale. Instead of listening to the excellent teaching of Dr. Stauffer, and John Young and I, you and Tyndale have changed the subject and will not discuss the verses listed by Dr. Stauffer in Chapter 11 and 12 that he lists in the video.

It is my thoughts that you, and brother Tyndale,  came here on Online Baptist in order to create dissension and arguments and are not come on Online Baptist for honest, sincere Bible teaching. The apostle Paul stated, "For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would not: lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults."  2 Corinthians 12:20. Instead, you and Tyndale, thus far, are trying to cause the brethren here to doubt the veracity of the preservation of the scriptures, have a hatred towards the King James Version, disparage the those who use the KJV,  libel those who disagree, and both of you want to cause debates, strife and tumults among us brethren.

I have decided not to argue with either one of you. If you want to discuss, in an honest and Christian-like manner, my other Bible studies ( I have several here on Online Baptist), please do so. I would like to be your friend. But, I will not argue nor debate either one of you.

Regards,

Alan

I do respect and use the Kjv, but do not see it as being perfect and infallible, as there were known mistakes and errors that have been corrected in the later editions of the Kjv!

Do you respect dean Burgeon as a text critic, as he was not holding to the TR nor the 1611 as being perfect!

And as far as I know, the Sources and materials used by the Nkjv team to translate were the same ones the 1611 team had access to and used!

Edited by DaChaser
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Alan

      Happy Birthday John Young! God Bless! 🍰
      · 1 reply
    • KJV ME!

      Now it is time for me to step out of my shell and let go... I AM STRICT KJV!... In scripture God said he would preserve his word... Well did he or didn't he?... If there is every translation under the sun, then he didn't but I KNOW HE DID!... The preserved word of God called the KJV is for the English people has been around for over 400 years and what is interesting to me, is the KJV was translated in 1611 and the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620... Coincidence?... A new book the preserved KJV word of God for the New World... So take that you KJV naysayers... I have been reading, studying and digging through the KJV for over 50 years... My belief is 100% Christ and scripture says so... Glad to be here and its time to take these shackles off!   
      John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
      I am... Brother Ramsey
       
      · 1 reply
    • stan1964stanssb

      Praise God I found such a powerhouse of the outpouring of His Spirit and unapologetic in regards of the defense of the KJV Bible. When I became a Christian back in 1984, I was told to get & read the KJV. It's been my choice all these years.
      · 0 replies
    • 1Timothy115  »  Ukulelemike

      Mike,
      RE: This is why I am here, why are you?
      Also, the land in Egypt wasn't land God gave them it was land Joseph through Pharaoh gave them. God gave them Canaan.
      Dave 
      · 1 reply
    • Alan

      Praise the Lord! Sherry and I, safe, tired, and joyful,  are back in Taiwan.
      · 0 replies
  • Popular Now

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      27,462
    • Total Posts
      279,254
  • Topics

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Alan

      Happy Birthday John Young! God Bless! 🍰
      · 1 reply
    • KJV ME!

      Now it is time for me to step out of my shell and let go... I AM STRICT KJV!... In scripture God said he would preserve his word... Well did he or didn't he?... If there is every translation under the sun, then he didn't but I KNOW HE DID!... The preserved word of God called the KJV is for the English people has been around for over 400 years and what is interesting to me, is the KJV was translated in 1611 and the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620... Coincidence?... A new book the preserved KJV word of God for the New World... So take that you KJV naysayers... I have been reading, studying and digging through the KJV for over 50 years... My belief is 100% Christ and scripture says so... Glad to be here and its time to take these shackles off!   
      John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
      I am... Brother Ramsey
       
      · 1 reply
    • stan1964stanssb

      Praise God I found such a powerhouse of the outpouring of His Spirit and unapologetic in regards of the defense of the KJV Bible. When I became a Christian back in 1984, I was told to get & read the KJV. It's been my choice all these years.
      · 0 replies
    • 1Timothy115  »  Ukulelemike

      Mike,
      RE: This is why I am here, why are you?
      Also, the land in Egypt wasn't land God gave them it was land Joseph through Pharaoh gave them. God gave them Canaan.
      Dave 
      · 1 reply
    • Alan

      Praise the Lord! Sherry and I, safe, tired, and joyful,  are back in Taiwan.
      · 0 replies
×
×
  • Create New...