King James Bible

What about the English speaking world 2,000 years ago? 2,500 years ago?

From a friend...

#2 The King James Bible was not translated during the apostate and lukewarm Laodicean church period, like the new translations. The Laodicean period is the last church period before the Second Coming of Christ. It is the last of the seven church periods in Revelation chapters two and three. One can clearly see that we are living in the Laodicean period today by simply comparing modern churches to the church of Revelation 3:14-22. This lukewarm period began toward the end of the 1800's and will continue until Christ returns. The new versions fit well into the lukewarm churches, because they are lukewarm "bibles."

The Authorized Version, however, was translated LONG BEFORE the Laodicean churches appeared. It was translated during the Philadelphia church period, which is the best church period of all. It was this church that the Lord Jesus COMMENDED for KEEPING HIS WORD( Rev. 3:8-10)!

In 1611, when the King James Bible was completed, the scourge of lukewarm Laodicea had not yet swept over the world. There was no "scientific" crowd around in 1611 to put pressure on the translators. There was no civil rights movement going on at this time to influence the work of these men. The women were not screaming for "equal rights," and the humanists and socialists had not yet taken control. The massive army of liberal and modernistic preachers had not yet been assembled. The open public denial of God's word and the Deity of Christ was practically unheard of among ministers. It wasn't until the twentieth century that professing Christianity became flooded with lukewarm preachers who would be willing to compromise the word of God for self gain.

The greatest missionary work in church history occurred between 1700 and 1900, so it makes perfect sense that God would have a Bible ready for this great work, and He did - the KJV. Unfortunately, the new translations appeared a bit LATE on the scene! Think about that.

Double talk .

For the record KJ is my favorite!

There was no such thing.

None, zip, nada during the new version Laodicea age. That's my point. The greatest world wide revival occurred between 1700-1900 including the greatest preachers we've ever had. They never compromised the word for gain like we see today.

And their great work collapsed into the luke warm age? Maybe their great work wasnt so great because it wasnt what Jesus commanded. And mayne that happened because they used the KJV to do it.

And their great work collapsed into the luke warm age? Maybe their great work wasnt so great because it wasnt what Jesus commanded. And maybe that happened because they used the KJV to do it.

Nope, when man tampers with the word of God, there is always consequences.

Dispensationalism deluded the Scriptures and continues to do so. . Some of Scofield's notes directly contradict the Word of God.

Pick a language....

I'll give you a for instance if you give me an instance where the NKJV follows the critical Greek text over the textus receptus.

Matthew 20:20- NKJV follows English critical translation for προσκυνέω proskuneō worship whereas NKJV has kneeling down per google translator we have such two Gk. words γονατίζω κάτω gonatízo káto. Such an example degrades Christ as being worshiped.

Greek concordance say kneeling as worship. I guess the idea is kneeling as a form of worship.

The problem is we will be having another greek word that is not from any Greek text if "kneeling down" is used. Worship is a correct translation for the Gr. proskuneo even google translator agree with the KJB.

Matthew 20:20- NKJV follows English critical translation for προσκυνέω proskuneō worship whereas NKJV has kneeling down per google translator we have such two Gk. words γονατίζω κάτω gonatízo káto. Such an example degrades Christ as being worshiped.

There's a difference between following a translation and following a Greek text. The Introduction to the NKJV says they used the TR. You'd have to have a NKJV interlinear to know for sure; but until I see otherwise I'll have to take their word for it.

To say that the NKJV "follows" the critical translation is a bit misleading. Rather than following these translations, did it ever occur to anyone that some of the NKJV translations follow more closely the modern versions because it's a better translation? It has nothing to do with the underlying Greek.

For example, Matthew 20:20. Notice that he NKJV hasn't "followed" any of these exactly but has its own translation:

NKJV
Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Him with her sons, kneeling down and asking something from Him.

NASB
Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Jesus with her sons, bowing down and making a request of Him.

NIV
Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him.

NLT
Then the mother of James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to Jesus with her sons. She knelt respectfully to ask a favor.

ESV
Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came up to him with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something.

Furthermore, the Greek name for Jesus (Iēsous) is nowhere in the Greek of this verse. The NKJV and the ESV are the only ones that translate the Greek autō correctly. The others have the gist of it right, but if we're going to quibble over words let's quibble.

Jesus is who him was.