Bob Enyart on Bible Versions?

[michaelwmoss]

The KJV is not "the oldest version possible." Just on my own bookshelves I've got a copy of the 1599 Geneva Bible. And HERE is some excerpts from the 1560 version. These predate the KJV.

Interesting Thanks for the reference. Learned something new today

These would make a great podcast

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Wow thanks for the links. Bob is against the Critical Text so Im cool with that. I think the KJV is superior to the NKJV. But at least the NKJV is from the TR. I just wish they had left out all the faith damaging footnotes, and they updated some words for the worst. The NKJV beats the NIV, ESV, NASB to death in round 1 though.

I know this won't be popular, but after careful review I think the Alexandrian and Latin texts together are every bit as valid as Biblical text as the Byzantine. They are older texts. The Byzantine texts are more numerous because that empire continued to use Greek even after the rest of the world switched to Latin.

The “Westcott and Hort texts” are not perfect, but honest works which deserve consideration. The attacks on their character are completely lies as anyone who researches their writings will uncover. Westcott and Hort were “baby sprinklers”, it’s true. They were devout Anglicans. However, so were most of the KJV translators! They were Anglicans too, and would have also been "baby sprinklers". Neither Westcott nor Hort were involved in Satan worship, and from their own writings it appears that both men were Christians.

There was a homosexual consulted during the making of the NIV (often brought up by Bob), was consulted purely for an English phrasing. The homosexuaity was not made known until after her involvement with the NIV. When asked about it the President of the NIV said that if they had known, they would not have consulted with her, and nothing from her opinions were used by themselves anyway.

On the mater of questionable texts (like the end of the book of Mark), I believe the NKJV handles it the best. While I believe that they are inspired and should be in the Bible, there should be footnotes to let people know that it is quite possible they are not authentic. (Incidently, the 1611 AV Bible took this same approach.)

The arguments of the KJV Only crowd are hopeful that you will be ignorant on the subject. They are filled with brazen lies, such that even men like Bob Enyart appear to have been led to think there must be fire behind all that smoke and suggests that there must be something wrong with the Alexandrian texts for all these people to be saying these things. However if anyone were to look up most of these claims they would discover, as I have, that most of their arguments are based totally on falsehoods, quotes taken out of context and portrayed deceptively to push an agenda of KJV Onlyism.

 

[michaelwmoss]

I have to ask what the term "Baby Sprinklers" means in your response. This is an interesting analysis

 

[Delmar]

I have to ask what the term "Baby Sprinklers" means in your response. This is an interesting analysis

Infant baptism.

 

[michaelwmoss]

Infant baptism.

Thanks. We did not have our children Baptised when they were infants. We have decided to Baptize them when they come to the realization on their own about giving their life to Christ. We had both of our children Dedicated though.