KJVOs and Other versions from the TR

[Ransom]

This stands in the face of those that say salvation is a process.

In terms of soteriology, I believe in the process involving justification, sanctification, and glorification.

It's the Amazing Self-Refuting Newbie.

 

[The Parson]

It's the Amazing Self-Refuting Newbie.

Hardly. Actually not at all.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Together, these three aspects, justification, sanctification, and glorification, encompass the entirety around our salvation, but in no ways complete our salvation, it was a done deal when I asked for it.

You completed your salvation?

 

[Ransom]

Hardly. Actually not at all.

You said the KJV correctly denied salvation was a process. Then you said salvation was a process. Make up your mind.

 

[The Parson]

Thank you for pointing out my shortcomings my friend. However to clarify my stance: Salvation is indeed a comprehensive and transformative process that includes justification, sanctification, and glorification. Salvation also is a done deal. If I died before the sanctification process, I'm not lost. The loss of salvation (which is God's and not mine) is impossible. Therefore, a done deal. It's not an oxymoron to believe this way. It's a spiritual reality.

• Justification: This is the initial act where we are declared righteous before God through faith in Jesus Christ. It is a one-time event, ensuring our standing in God’s grace.
• Sanctification: This is the ongoing process where the Holy Spirit works within us, transforming our character and actions to align more closely with Christ's example. It happens throughout a believer’s life.
• Glorification: This occurs when believers receive their glorified bodies at Christ's return, marking the completion of their salvation and full transformation.

Basically, while justification and glorification are finalized acts, sanctification is continuous. Together, they illustrate the full scope of salvation, which starts at the moment I call on the Lord and ask His forgiveness, confessing my sin to Him and it continues to its ultimate fulfillment. Therefore, we "are saved" and not "being saved".

Thanks bunches for your kind attention. Wow, do you greet all new brethren in such a way that do not agree with your newer versions?

 

[abcaines]

Thanks bunches for your kind attention. Wow, do you greet all new brethren in such a way that do not agree with your newer versions?

This is the FIGHTING fundamentalist forum. IMO, There should a disclaimer for all who join stating that they need to have thick skin in order to participate.

 

[The Parson]

Yeah, I see that. Turtle back preacher here.

 

[Ransom]

Basically, while justification and glorification are finalized acts, sanctification is continuous.

And when 1 Cor. 1:18 says we are "being saved," how do you know it is supposed to be talking about salvation as a done deal, instead of the "ongoing process" of sanctification that lies between our justification and glorification?

I require rigorous exegesis, please. Show your work.

 

[The Parson]

Well, do you believe that the saint is eternally secure, or don't you. That would be at the core of my explanation.

 

[Ransom]

Well, do you believe that the saint is eternally secure, or don't you. That would be at the core of my explanation.

Rhetorical questions aren't exegesis.

 

[The Parson]

You're avoiding a direct question sir. Why is that?

 

[Ransom]

You're avoiding a direct question sir. Why is that?

I asked you to support your opinion with exegesis. Your question is just an evasion. You are the one who said 1 Cor. 1:18 in the NKV is wrong, so the onus is on you to justify your opinion.

Until you do so, your opinion is just that, nothing more.

 

[The Parson]

And will you answer the question directly if I do?

 

[Ransom]

And will you answer the question directly if I do?

Are you going to support your assertion about 1 Cor. 1:18 with biblical exegesis, or aren't you? Quit weaselling.

 

[ALAYMAN]

And will you answer the question directly if I do?

He is a firm proponent of the doctrine of eternal security. Your question to him is irrelevant to the discussion of how you would exegete the passage in question.

 

[The Parson]

No, that's fine. Almost done with it. forgive the brevity but this is what the rascal want's, that's what he'll get.

 

[Ransom]

He is a firm proponent of the doctrine of eternal security. Your question to him is irrelevant to the discussion of how you would exegete the passage in question.

Exactly. It's a distraction.

 

[The Parson]

Received Text (Textus Receptus) vs. Nestle-Aland​

1. Textus Receptus (KJV)
   • The New Testament of the King James Version (KJV) is based on the Textus Receptus, a collection of Greek texts compiled by Erasmus in the 16th century. This text was the foundation for many of the early Protestant and even Anabaptist translations, including the KJV. The Textus Receptus is viewed by many as maintaining the traditional text used during the Reformation period, giving the KJV a strong historical and theological continuity. The King James Version (KJV) translators also referenced the Waldensian Bible (Old Italia) as part of their textual comparison. The Waldensian Bible, preserved by the Waldensian community, provided additional textual variants that helped the translators ensure the accuracy and fidelity of their translation. While the primary source was the Textus Receptus, the inclusion of the Waldensian Bible contributed to a more comprehensive examination of the New Testament text
     
     
2. Nestle-Aland (NKJV)
   • While the New King James Version (NKJV) seeks to preserve the linguistic style of the KJV, it incorporates findings from modern textual criticism and a broader manuscript tradition, including the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece. This text is based on a larger and more diverse collection of manuscripts, reflecting more recent scholarly research and discoveries. As a result, the NKJV can differ significantly from the KJV in certain textual nuances and interpretations.
     
     
   • As someone who values the historical and theological consistency of the KJV, I find the introduction of the Nestle-Aland text into the NKJV to be a departure from the original intent of the translation. The Nestle-Aland text represents a shift towards modern textual criticism, which, in my view, undermines the traditional foundation of the received text.
     

Theological and Textual Differences​

• Theological Implications:
  • The KJV’s reliance on the Textus Receptus aligns with a more traditional textual foundation, reflecting the Reformation-era understanding of scripture.
  • The NKJV, by incorporating the Nestle-Aland text, reflects a commitment to modern textual criticism, which can lead to different theological emphases based on the expanded manuscript evidence, although skewed by Westcott and Hort.
• Textual Variations:
  • These foundational differences can result in distinct translation choices, such as "are saved" in the KJV versus "being saved" in the NKJV. The choice of manuscripts affects translators' understanding of verb tenses and theological messages.

Exegesis of "are saved" vs. "being saved"​

1. King James Version (KJV): "are saved"
   • In passages such as Ephesians 2:8, the KJV states, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God." This phrase implies a completed action, aligning with the traditional view of justification as a definitive event where salvation is already secured through faith in Jesus Christ.
     
     
2. New King James Version (NKJV): "being saved"
   • In passages like 1 Corinthians 1:18, the NKJV states, "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." The use of "being saved" suggests an ongoing process, to many it would suggest that salvation might or could be lost in some way, but “seemingly” trying to reflect a broader view of salvation that includes both justification and sanctification, an ongoing journey of being made holy.
     

In Conclusion​

The difference between "are saved" and "being saved" highlights the theological and textual distinctions between the KJV and the NKJV. The KJV, rooted in the Textus Receptus, emphasizes the completed work of salvation at the moment of faith. In contrast, the NKJV, influenced by the broader manuscript tradition of the Nestle-Aland text, reflects an ongoing process of salvation, acknowledging continuous growth and transformation in the believer's life.

While some may appreciate the scholarly advancements and broader manuscript evidence in the Nestle-Aland text, others, like myself, find it to be a departure from the historical and theological consistency offered by the Textus Receptus. This divergence underscores the importance of understanding the textual basis and theological implications of the translations we choose to study and rely upon.


Would you like to hear my character assassination of Westcott and Hort now?

 

[Ransom]

Received Text (Textus Receptus) vs. Nestle-Aland​

Comparing the Nestle-Aland 28th edition with Stephanus's Greek text of 1550, there are no textual variants of note in 1 Corinthians 1:18--a few accents only. So this section is irrelevant and can be ignored...

Theological and Textual Differences​

...as can this...

Would you like to hear my character assassination of Westcott and Hort now?

...and this.

Gosh. I hope you didn't waste a whole lot of time typing up that red herring.

In passages such as Ephesians 2:8, the KJV states ... This phrase implies a completed action, aligning with the traditional view of justification as a definitive event where salvation is already secured through faith in Jesus Christ.

Correct. In Eph. 2:8, the term σεσῳσμένοι is a perfect participle, indicating a completed action. Of course, the NIV also gets this correct: "by grace you have been saved," also indicating a completed action.

In passages like 1 Corinthians 1:18, the NKJV states, "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." The use of "being saved" suggests an ongoing process, to many it would suggest that salvation might or could be lost in some way,

And in 1 Cor. 1:18, the term σῳζομένοις is a present participle, meaning it indicates an action that is presently ongoing. Sanctification is a present reality, now: if you are in between being justified (a past, completed action) and being glorified (a future action yet to be taken), then you are, right now, being saved--sanctified--because the Holy Spirit is actively working within you to rescue you from the power of sin and make you more Christ-like.

This is why I called you the Amazing Self-Refuting Newbie. On one hand, you affirm that sanctification is an "ongoing process." On the other, you are asserting that 1 Cor. 1:18 can't be talking about sanctification. I wanted to know why not. That's why I asked for you to exegete the verse rigorously. You provided no exegesis at all, let alone rigour. You did nothing but appeal to your own presuppositions, which remain unsupported by any textual evidence.

In Conclusion​

And then you return to the TR vs. NA debate, so your "conclusion" is also irrelevant.

Want to know my conclusion? You have no idea what you're talking about, and you're so intellectually lazy you couldn't be bothered to look up first principles: whether the differences between the KJV and NIV in 1 Cor. 1:18 are due to translation or transmission. You guessed. And you guessed wrong.

Well, so much for you.

 

[ALAYMAN]

For those interested in the textual issue of this passage., a fairly lengthy discussion from our one-time message board rival...

Baptist Board