Why would you be this?

Beware~actually the New King James is probably THE most deceiving of any, simply because it carries the name KingJames...undiscerning folks will think, "hmmm, a (new) KJBible". The NKJV text is a hybrid-mix which mingles many word changes identical with or similar to other so-called 'MVs'. Late editions contain changes in text and footnote from that of the first editions and further changes are being contemplated.

[ July 19, 2002, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: GrannyGumbo ]

 

Actually the New King James has as much right to be called a 1611 KJV as the current King James. The King James most people use is the 1769 revision and the 3rd edition of the KJV. The original 1611 KJV you can still buy but it is almost impossible to read because of the archaic English and it also has the Apocrypha in it. The 1769 KJV that KJV only's call the 1611 is a third edition while the NKJV is the 4th edition. The NKJV actually probably is the only hope for KJV lovers to keep the KJV's rich tradition alive.

 

The preservation of God's divinely inspired Word is clearly set forth in Psalm 12:6,7, "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever. " God has fulfilled His promise through the Textus Receptus and the King James Version. Those who replace the KJV with the NKJV will have been duped into accepting a Bible which still bears a respected name but one which has placed "readability" above purity.

The translators of the original King James Bible had a distinct advantage. They were able to use their vast knowledge of ancient languages and translation abilities prior to the time when the deadly virus of so-called "Higher Criticism" infected the whole field of scholarship. False teachers boldly dissected God's Word with the "tools of scholarship" in order to reconstruct it according to their own speculations and presumptions. The result is a pseudo-intellectual aura in which no one can be sure of anything. It's time to get back to the pure Word of God where faith prevails and doubt is vanquished!

Believers who will take the time to compare the KJV with the NKJV and then with other modern versions will see for themselves why the NKJV should be exposed and repudiated as a polluted version. And, those who will take time to carefully look at the NKJV footnotes will be doubly concerned and will join in warning others about it.

Our plea to God's people is to reject the NKJV Bible and continue preaching, teaching, memorizing and meditating upon the pure, unadulterated, Divinely preserved milk and meat of God's Holy Word-The King James Authorized Version of 1611 upon which God has placed His stamp of approval over a span of nearly four centuries. Nothing is more important than the purity of God's Holy Word.

-M. H. REYNOLDS, EDITOR, FOUNDATION MAGAZINE

 

One thing you need to know is the KJV and the NKJV originate from two totally different set of manuscripts. Therefore, they are not the same. You are not comparing apples to apples.

One thing I personally have a hard time understanding is this: We know that Satan has produced a counterfeit for everything that God has given us. Counterfeit churches, preachers, music, etc... Why is it so hard for some to think that Satan wouldn't slip a counterfeit bible in the works somewhere? A bible that is so "close" that we would readily accept it?

I, and others like me, yend to believe the bibles that originate from the Westcott/Hort Text are the counterfeits. They would include the NIV, NASV, NKJV, ASV, and all the other modern versions.

 

No, not "totally" different manuscripts. They are basically based off the same text. The NKJV simply also took into account some information not available at the time the KJV was produced.

I believe he has. Any version that totally removes Christ's deity, etc., would be such a counterfeit. E.g. the NWT (not because of the texts it is based from, but because how the translation was done). But a translation contains accurate doctrine about Christ, and proclaims the gospel so that people are saved, helps them grow spiritually, and proclaims Christ as Lord cannot be a "counterfeit". Mark 3:24-26 (KJV) "And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. [25] And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. [26] And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end." (Think about the context of where this passage comes from - the principle is the same). If the NIV, NASB, etc, are "Satanic counterfeits", Satan sure shot himself in the foot.

I respect your right to believe the KJV is "perfect", but I believe you are on very dangerous ground the minute you ascribe the word of God in another version as Satan's work.

 

Brian,
Even a casual look at the King James translators compared to Dr.s Westcott and Hort will reveal who had God on their side. The KJ men had no other motive than to produce and English version of God's Word that was true to the originals.

"There are 2,864 cursive and unical manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part. It has been acknowledged, even by some enemies, that nineteen-twentieths of these manuscripts are in accord with the Received Texts. Yet Westcott and Hort turned away from all this testimony, and elevated the Vaticanus and Sinaticus to the chair of authority. Evidently this is the reason why the Greek text of Westcott and Hort contains 5,337 changes from the reading of the Greek Textus Receptus which is the basis for the King James Version Bible."

Quoted from: God Only Wrote One Bible by Jasper James Ray, 1955

Brian, I did not acribe any work of God to Satan. I simply made the suggestion that Satan would slip in a counterfeit. Of course we would reject a counterfeit that eliminated the Deity of Christ. Satan is much more subtle than that. He'll give us something so close to the real thing that we'll have a hard time seeing the difference.

 

Hey,BrianT! I thought of you today when I read this verse out of Amos 8: (v.12)And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it.

May God continue to lead you to Truth and give you peace. [remember~God leads, satan pushes]

 

I agree. Both.

Did you not even consider the principle of Satan casting out Satan?

Granny, why do ye not understand my speech? I've found the word of God. Get it?

 

Pastor Bob 63... I also would like to add just a little side note... I believe all the ancestors of the King James Version was also the Word of God!... Brother Glen

[ July 19, 2002, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

Even where they disagree with the KJV? Even where they disagree with the KJV but agree with "modern versions"? Interesting. Why are "differences" acceptable in your view of preservation, but not mine?

[ July 19, 2002, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

Granny, why do ye not understand my speech? I've found the word of God. Get it? [BrianT]

Oh, ye of little faith, WHICH one would that be?

 

Even where they disagree with the KJV? Even where they disagree with the KJV but agree with "modern versions"? Interesting. Why are "differences" acceptable in your view of preservation, but not mine?</font>[/QUOTE]Brian,
Do you speak of differences or changes? I can live with a difference as long as it does not change the meaning or context of the passage. For example, when the Westcott/Hort text omits Matthew 18:11 "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost." I consider that to be a major change and one that I am not willing to overlook.

There are so many heretical quotes by both Westcott and Hort that I just can't condone a product of their text.

 

I've repeatedly answered this. But thanks for the spiritual condescension, that was a nice touch.

I'm talking about either. Both occur when comparing the KJV to previous versions, and I can provide examples.

How do you know this was an omission in W/H and not an addition in the TR?

Why do you overlook where the TR "omits" things like "through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages" in Jude 1:25, or "by the Holy Spirit" in Acts 4:25?

If you want to discuss some of them, I think a new thread would be great to devote to this subject. So many of their quotes have been taken out of context and doctored by KJV-only authors, that KJV-only supporters have a completely false picture of them. I have studied their quotes in some detail, and would be extremely surprised to find something truly "heretical" (ie. at least more "heretical" than what we can read from Erasmus or the history of the KJV translators)

God bless,
Brian

 

I'm sorry, BrianT, if you thought I was referring to your spiritual faith~no son, that was just a little humor thrown at ya because ye lack faith in the grand old Book as being the Bible that God would have us today, that's all. I meant no harm & I hope you'll forgive me.

 

I knew exactly what you meant, and didn't find it humorous. I ask you questions about your faith in this, but I have never mocked it.

What is the greater faith: the faith that says only a 17th century translation is God's word, or the faith that says more than one version, even despite textual differences, can be called God's word?

 

Pastor Larry, speaking of "sanctification"...have you read Jude 1 in the NASBook? It seems the scholarly translators didn't think much about sanctification...or, maybe they thought that us plain common folk couldn't understand such a big word! "JUDE, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God and the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:" Jude 1 (KJBible)

[ July 20, 2002, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: Farmer's Wife ]

 

It really bothers me when a statement is made like this. Your statements are so obviously untrue, since they did use the term many other places. You take one *specific* *textual* issue, and turn it into a *general* *personal* attack of the translators. Why do KJV-only supporters do this so often? Do you not think this is a dishonest approach to the issue?

Speaking of Jude, verse 25 in the NASB includes "through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages". Would it be fair or honest if I said "It seems the KJV translators didn't think much about 'Jesus Christ'...or, maybe they thought that us plain common folk couldn't understand such a concept as 'before all ages'!"?

[ July 20, 2002, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

It really bothers me when a statement is made like this. Your statements are so obviously untrue, since they did use the term many other places. You take one *specific* *textual* issue, and turn it into a *general* *personal* attack of the translators. Why do KJV-only supporters do this so often? Do you not think this is a dishonest approach to the issue?

Speaking of Jude, verse 25 in the NASB includes "through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages". Would it be fair or honest if I said "It seems the KJV translators didn't think much about 'Jesus Christ'...or, maybe they thought that us plain common folk couldn't understand such a concept as 'before all ages'!"?[/QUOTE]

No, I do not think it's a dishonest approach. I am not a scholar and I don't know the Greek and Hebrew as most of y'all do...but I don't believe we have to have all of that so-called 'knowledge' to understand God's Word!

The KJBible is the perfect true Word of God. Therefore, I do not try to make it line up with the other so-called versions of the Bible.

I'm sorry that y'all don't believe God preserved His Word as He promised in Psalms 12 (KJBible). I couldn't figure out how Pastor Larry got the idea verses 6 and 7 was talking about "God's man" instead of preserving "His Word"...but after doing a side by side comparison with the KJBible and the NASBook, I no longer see through that glass darkly! Things that are different are NOT the same.

Since I've been reading all these discussions concerning the True Word of God...I can't help but wonder...Did 'they' have these discussions before all these new so-called versions were published and before all these seminaries were built?.

 

You do not need to know Greek and Hebrew to see if the NASB used the term elsewhere.

Neither do I.

I see. So you're judging other versions by a method you do not allow the KJV to be judged. That seems fair.

We do. Please don't tell us what we believe.

You would have found it sooner if you were looking at a 1611 KJV. This is not a new concept, and is how the Hebrew reads. The words of the KJV are correct here, but your interpretation is wrong. "them" refers to the people, not the words.

Except when comparing 1611 KJVs to 1789 KJVs, right?

No, because KJV-onlyism is a new doctrine. But discussions about textual differences go back to the early centuries.

 

KJV-onlyism is a new doctrine[BrianT]

"It HAS to be really new, 'cause I'd never heard of such a thing until coming on Board here!