View Single Post
Old 12-06-2008, 03:48 AM
Manny Rodriguez Manny Rodriguez is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 76

Originally Posted by bibleprotector View Post
That would have been a seventeenth century method. But today, it would be diluting the pure (KJB) with "everything". The editor/scholar still has to choose the "best" rendering out of the holistic view of the evidence. That very thing resulted in the NKJV, because if you look at "all the evidence" yet have incorrect selection criteria, you will chose wrong even 0.0001% of the time.

The KJB does not have as much as an error in the punctuation.

Since the KJB is fully right, you don't have to take into account anything else now (i.e. Hebrew and Greek). It is the standard, which stands alone.

Invariably, going to the Hebrew or Greek to "help" (interpret/understand) is going to tend toward error now. The only thing the Hebrew and Greek are good for is what many good scholars had shown, viz., that the KJB presents the Word of God exactly. You can mine this kind of gold from Burgon, Hills, etc.

But the Word of God, self-contained, self-authenticating and in every whit whole is right there in the KJB.
Don't even try to compare what I am talking about to the NKJV. The New King James was an attempt to product an "easier-to-understand" translation, which we know turned out to be nothing but a watered down counterfeit. Besides, since the KJV is perfect it needs no revision anyways so the NKJV was nothing but a waste to begin with. What I'm talking about is something totally different. What I'm talking about is ACCURATE translations in foreign languages. It can be done so long as we have the KJV as our guide.

Last edited by Manny Rodriguez; 12-06-2008 at 03:59 AM.