Featured The KJV has been Preserved more Perfectly than Human Possibility.

Your sources lie about the Septuagint. Only KJVOnly does that. No one else on this planet does. Now if you have any reason, listen to the KJV Translators themselves for the truth.

The Translators to the Reader

. But, when the fulness of time drew near, that the Sun of righteousness, the Son of God should come into the world, whom God ordained to be a reconciliation through faith in his blood, not of the Jew only, but also of the Greek, yea, of all them that were scattered abroad; then lo, it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek Prince (Greek for descent and language) even of Ptolemy Philadelph King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek. This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal. For the Grecians being desirous of learning, were not wont to suffer books of worth to lie moulding in Kings' libraries, but had many of their servants, ready scribes, to copy them out, and so they were dispersed and made common. Again, the Greek tongue was well known and made familiar to most inhabitants in Asia, by reason of the conquest that there the Grecians had made, as also by the Colonies, which thither they had sent. For the same causes also it was well understood in many places of Europe, yea, and of Africa too. Therefore the word of God being set forth in Greek, becometh hereby like a candle set upon a candlestick, which giveth light to all that are in the house, or like a proclamation sounded forth in the market place, which most men presently take knowledge of; and therefore that language was fittest to contain the Scriptures, both for the first Preachers of the Gospel to appeal unto for witness, and for the learners also of those times to make search and trial by. It is certain, that that Translation was not so sound and so perfect, but that it needed in many places correction; and who had been so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or Apostolic men? Yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to them, to take that which they found, (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient) rather than by making a new, in that new world and green age of the Church, to expose themselves to many exceptions and cavillations, as though they made a Translation to serve their own turn, and therefore bearing witness to themselves, their witness not to be regarded. This may be supposed to be some cause, why the Translation of the Seventy was allowed to pass for current. Notwithstanding, though it was commended generally, yet it did not fully content the learned, no not of the Jews.

AND AGAIN

The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men do confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the word of God.

The Translators to the Reader

 

You continue to bear false witness and make false reports. Perhaps you blindly repeated the factually incorrect claims of Gail Riplinger. You should check out claims and accusations before you repeat them. The KJV is not the standard for which words are in the Hebrew Masoretic text or the Greek Textus Receptus texts.

The NKJV did not actually omit the word "God" 51 times where the Hebrew name for God or the Greek name for God was used. The NKJV accurately and faithfully translated the original-language words where the KJV had added the name God where it was not found in the Hebrew OT or in the Greek NT.

In response to this misleading and factually false charge by Gail Riplinger, Dr. 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).

The KJV has Jehovah (Exodus 6:3, Psalm 83:18, Isaiah 12:2, Isaiah 26:4), Jehovah-jireh (Genesis 22:14), Jehovah-nissi (Exodus 17:15), Jehovah-shalom (Judges 6:24), and JAH (Psalm 68:4). In the Hebrew Old Testament, this Hebrew name of God is actually found over 5,000 times and perhaps as many as 6,000 times. The NKJV was simply consistent with the way that the KJV translators usually translated this Hebrew name for God by using "LORD" or "GOD" to indicate it. If it is wrong for the NKJV to omit "Jehovah" those seven or eight times, it would also be wrong for the KJV not to translate it Jehovah the over 5,000 more times it was used in the Old Testament. You cannot have it both ways since use of double standards is wrong and unscriptural. In order for the NKJV to be wrong to translate this Hebrew name for God by "LORD," you would have to make the KJV wrong to for doing the same thing over 5,000 times.

 

In her tract attacking and misrepresenting the NKJV, Gail Riplinger claimed that the "NKJV copies Jehovah Witness Version" at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 by having the rendering "Joshua" instead of having the rendering "Jesus" as the KJV does. Part of this tract was also published in the Church Bus News (April-June, 1996, p. 26). Riplinger had earlier claimed that the “new versions use dynamic equivalencies frequently, such as translating ‘Jesus’ as “Joshua’ in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8” (New Age Bible Versions, p. 127).

Gail Riplinger, who claimed to have collated the pre-1611 English Bibles, did not share with her readers the fact that several of the early good English Bibles have this same rendering as the NKJV. At Hebrews 4:8, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's Duoglott, Great, Taverner's, and Whittingham's have "Joshua." At Acts 7:45, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Great Bibles have "Joshua." Were the majority of the earlier 1500's English Bibles which have "Joshua" at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 copying the 1950's Jehovah Witnesses' Version? Did the old Peshitta Syriac, which is on the KJV-only view's pure stream of Bibles, follow a Jehovah Witnesses' reading in these verses? The Peshitta even adds "the son of Nun" to make sure that it is clear that Joshua is referred to in Hebrews 4:8. All the editions of Luther's German Bible published during Luther's lifetime have "Josua" (Joshua) at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. Would Ruckman claim that William Tyndale and Martin Luther purposely mistranslated Acts 7:45?

The 1917 Scofield Reference Bible has the center column note "Joshua" at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. The 1657 Dutch Annotations has at Jesus at Acts 7:45 the following: “That is Joshua, the son of Nun, whereby we see that the names Joshua and Jesus are all one name.” Concerning Acts 7:45 in his commentary, David Sorenson asserted: “The Jesus mentioned in verse 45 is a reference to Joshua” (p. 365).

The fact should be obvious that a 1950's Jehovah Witnesses' Version did not even exist when the old Syriac, Luther's German Bible, and several of the early English Bibles had the reading "Joshua" in these verses. It is also interesting to note that Wally Beebe's 1975 Bus Worker's Edition of the KJV has "Joshua" in the text at Acts 7:45 and that it has a note listing "Joshua" as an alternative translation at the end of Hebrews 4:8. Would Riplinger claim that the edition of the KJV in Beebe's Bus Worker's Bible copied from the Jehovah Witnesses? The Liberty Annotated Study Bible [KJV], the Criswell Study Bible [KJV], and the Rice Reference Bible [KJV] also have "Joshua" in the text at Acts 7:45.

The evidence should be clear and overwhelming that it was wrong and false to claim that the NKJV copies the Jehovah Witnesses' Version at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. For Jesus at Acts 7:45, The Rock of Ages Study Bible [KJV] has this note: “Not our Lord, but Joshua, who succeeded Moses. Joshua is a shorter form of the Hebrew name Jehoshua. Jesus is the Greek name for Joshua, just as Henry is the English spelling of the German name Heinrich” (p. 1535). In his commentary on the Gospel of Luke, G. Campbell Morgan observed that "Jesus is merely the Anglicising of the Greek name; and the Greek name rendered Jesus is the Greek form of a very well-known and common Hebrew name, Joshua; and Joshua is really an abbreviation of the name Jehoshua" (p. 40). In his commentary on Acts, J. Vernon McGee noted about 7:45: "Jesus in this passage refers to Joshua. Joshua is the Hebrew name, and Jesus is the Greek" (p. 83). In his 1857 commentary on Acts, J. A. Alexander stated: "Jesus, the Septuagint form of Joshua, occurs also in Heb. 4:8, and in both cases creates some confusion in the minds of English readers" (p. 294). Bullinger maintained that “Jesus=Joshua, the son of Nun” at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 (Lexicon, pp. 422-423). In his commentary on Acts, H. A. Ironside wrote: "The word 'Jesus' here of course is really Joshua. It is the same name, but we somehow think of 'Jesus' as applying only to our blessed Saviour" (p. 173). Concerning this verse in the 1839 Baptist edition of the Comprehensive Commentary edited by William Jenks and Joseph Warne, this is stated: “The tabernacle was brought in by those who came with Jesus, that is, Joshua, as, for distinction-sake, and to prevent mistakes, it ought to be read, both here and Hebrews 4:8” (p. 38). The ABS’s Committee on Versions commented: “Thus in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8, we find the name Jesus, which the common reader will naturally refer only to the Saviour; while in reality it is simply the Greek form for Joshua, and should properly have been so written” (Statements, p. 7). It could also be noted that the New Testament used the name "Jesus" to refer to a man also called "Justus" (Col. 4:11).

Gail Riplinger's false claim, which seems to attempt to condemn the NKJV by associating it with a cult, is based on the ad hominem (poisoning the well) fallacy. Did Riplinger intend or desire to injure the good name and reputation of the NKJV translators by making these false, and perhaps even slanderous, or libelous statements concerning the NKJV? Does not Riplinger's claim "bear false witness" against the NKJV and its translators (Exod. 20:16, Prov. 6:19, 14:5, Rom. 13:9)? Riplinger wrote: "Anything based on a false premise will eventually have to resort to lies to defend itself" (Blind Guides, p. 58). Did Riplinger possibly assume or start with a false premise that the NKJV copied the Jehovah Witnesses' Version? Defending Riplinger, Waite wrote: "If she has made an error of fact or quotation, she is willing to admit it and correct it" (Foes, p. 55). Have these errors been corrected or are these false claims still being published in her tract?

 

This KJV-only chart does not present good information. It presents misleading and false accusations based on use of double standards. It bears false witness. It was soundly proven how several of his claims were not true.

 

It was already clearly proven that the NKJV did not remove the word "God" 51 times where it was found in the Hebrew Masoretic Text or in the Greek Textus Receptus texts. The makers of the KJV had added the word "God" when the Hebrew name for God was not in its underlying text or when the Greek name for God in the NT was not in its underlying text.

You refuse to learn the facts and correct bogus, false accusations. You merely repeat your false accusation that was already refuted.

My statements concerning the KJV and the NKJV are true while yours are not.
The truth remains that the NKJV is a genuine, real, sufficient, true English Bible translation in the same sense (univocally) as the KJV is a genuine, real, sufficient, true English Bible translation.

The NKJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the KJV is the word of God translated into English.
The NKJV is both a revision (of the KJV) and a Bible translation in the same way (univocally) that the KJV is both a revision (of the pre-1611 English Bibles) and a Bible translation.

 

Do you not even read the post? Do you just spam false witness? Here is Logos 1560's response to your false KJVOnly witness.

"The NKJV did not actually omit the word "God" 51 times where the Hebrew name for God or the Greek name for God was used. The NKJV accurately and faithfully translated the original-language words where the KJV had added the name God where it was not found in the Hebrew OT or in the Greek NT.

In response to this misleading and factually false charge by Gail Riplinger, Dr. 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)"

 

@Alan Gross,
What part of the term "God" being added to the word of God by the KJV translators where it is not in the Greek or Hebrew text, do you not understand?

 

Your question was already soundly answered. The name "God" was soundly "omitted" those times because God's preserved Book in the original languages did not have the Hebrew name for God or the Greek name for God in those places so instead of adding a word, the original-language words were faithfully and accurately translated. According to the Scriptures, adding words is just as wrong as omitting words. You repeat the same misleading and false accusation that has already been answered.

The KJV is an English Bible translation just as the NKJV is an English Bible translation. The preserved Scriptures in the original languages is the proper standard and authority for which words belong in a translation of them while another translation such as the KJV is not the correct standard and authority for which words belong in another translation such as the NKJV.

 

The NKJV is supposed to be a revision of the KJV, which it is, and it is supposed to be a translation of the same underlying original-language texts, which it is.

According to the first rule for the making of the KJV, the 1611 KJV is supposed to be the Bishops' Bible before it is revised. The makers of the KJV omitted many words that were found in the Bishops' Bible. According to a consistent, just application of your own stated reasoning, are you suggesting that the KJV is wrong to omit many English words found in the Bishops' Bible, of which the KJV is officially a revision?

At Matthew 28:9, Tyndale's 1526 New Testament and the 1535 Coverdale's Bible have "God speed you." The KJV translators corrected this addition of the word "God" although they kept it at 2 John 10 and 11.

The KJV removed the addition of the phrase "to God" at Galatians 5:12 in the earlier pre-1611 English Bibles ["I would to God"].

 

Where?