1611 KJV only and anger

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

They have been assured by translators and publishers that the NKJV is based upon the same Hebrew and Greek texts used by the KJV translators. However, as already mentioned, such a claim is simply not true and can be easily documented by comparing the wording of the NKJV with the NIV, NASV, RSV and other versions whose translators admittedly used other Hebrew and Greek texts.

You do notice that the writer does not use the Greek text as a standard of comparison but other translations. That is extremely deceptive. This seems to be a key tactic since no one has been able to prove that the NKJV did not use the same text body as the KJV.

The litmus test is to show where the KJV chooses a CT rendering over a Majority Text rendering.

 

[Rippon]

"The New King James Bible was first published in 1979. It is a deadly version

Here we go..

That it's based on the Textus Receptus (which is only a partial truth).

It's the whole truth --not partially true.

Riplinger states...

That's all I need to hear. She's a crackpot. She's not trustworthy to say the least.

Thomas Nelson Publishers is both corrupting and peddling God's Word.

Do you believe the bunk this guy is peddling?

2 TIMOTHY 2:15

KJV reads, "Study NKJV and NASV change "study" to "be diligent." NIV and RSV change "study" to "DO YOUR BEST."

"Do your best" is best. :laugh:

the NKJV is a fraud..

I'm not even a fan of the NKJV but I recognize that it is perfect nonsense you are parroting from the likes of G.A.R.

 

[Rippon]

The litmus test is to show where the KJV chooses a CT rendering over a Majority Text rendering.

The KJV and NKJV used the TR primarily. The Majority Text really has nothing to do with the claims of the new guy.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The KJV and NKJV used the TR primarily. The Majority Text really has nothing to do with the claims of the new guy.

Primarily being the operative word, but I will accede to your statement.

 

[David Lamb]

IN THE "NEW KJV," THERE ARE

22 omissions of "hell",
23 omissions of "blood",
44 omissions of "repent",
50 omissions of "heaven",
51 omissions of "God",
66 omissions of "Lord".

For the sake of accuracy, surely they are not omissions. Take your first example, the English word "hell". The Authorized Version (KJV as you call it in America) uses that English word 54 times. But it uses the same English word "hell" to translate one Hebrew and three Greek words: Sheol, Gehenna, hades and tartaros (which occurs only once). I'm no expert on the original languages (far from it! ), but I understand the Greek words words do differ in their meanings. The KJV translates them all as "hell". The NKJV translates "Gehenna" and "tartaros" as "hell", leaves "Hades" untranslated, sometimes leaves "Sheol" untranslated, and sometimes translates it as "hell".

It won't do to argue that the different translations of "Sheol" in the NKJV are an example of inconsistency, because the KJV itself translates the same word, "Sheol", in three ways: "hell", "the grave", and "the pit".

The same (or very similar) reasoning can be applied to your other examples.

In order for your arguement about omissions to be correct, you have to assume that one particular translation of the Scriptures into English is the standard against which all others must be measured. But why should that be? The translators of the KJV themselves cerftainly did not claim that theirs was the only valid translation, or that it it should be usede as the standard by which all other translations into English must be measured.

It would be helpful if you were to provide a few examples of what you say are "omissions" in the NKJV. Just saying that (for example) it omits "God" 51 times means very little. What does it say instead? (I'm sure you are not suggesting that the NKJV just leaves a blank space in those 51 places). What does the original language say at that point?

 

[Mexdeaf]

Have I become your enemy by pointing what I believe to be gross negligence on the part of the MV er's?..God is not much bigger than his word....HE IS THE WORD! Gospel of John chapter 1..your making this a he said, he said argument when in fact it is much bigger than that...the difference between old time fundamentalist doctrine and what will be eventually a complete apostate church...where the word is not that important( your words, "He is much bigger than the KJV. The world is much bigger than the KJV")..where do you think its going?...and no one here has commented on the different wording (KJV vs NKJV)...why the changes? do you not see what they(modern translators) do to the doctrine of salvation? and others?.. answer the question!....your answer will tell me a lot about where you stand...BTW...you call it "sniping"..I call it debate...their has been no personal attacks from me..dont you think this is a worthy issue?..I certainly do...

God is not the KJV or any other translation. He indeed is bigger than your KJV- or my ESV- or ....

Yes, it is 'sniping' when you apply unfair standards to (so-called) MV's that you won't apply to the KJV. If you wanted to be fair about it, go back to the Greek and Hebrew (yes in fact they do still exist) and compare all of the versions with them. TR, MT, or CT- not a one of them makes a difference doctrinally.


And no this issue is NOT worth the ink, time, blood or dollars spent on it when, as I stated earlier, there are BILLIONS who do not read English, who have never heard of Christ, who have no Bible in their own language. IO truly believe that if Almighty God were to come down here right now he would be furious that we are wasting so much of His resources on this silly issue.

 

[Amy.G]

...and no one here has commented on the different wording (KJV vs NKJV)...why the changes?

Tyndale's bible uses the word "ester" (Easter) 24 times compared to the KJV1611's use of one time. Why the changes?



Why is Easter used at all? The Greek word is pasca pascha pas'-khah and always means "passover", yet the KJV has this word translated as Easter in Acts 12:4, which is not true to the original language.

I'm not bashing the KJV, but you have to compare versions to the original languages, not to one another, in order to determine accuracy. I don't have to be a Greek/Hebrew scholar to know that. It's just common sense.

 

[preacher4truth]

Tyndale's bible uses the word "ester" (Easter) 24 times compared to the KJV1611's use of one time. Why the changes?



Why is Easter used at all? The Greek word is pasca pascha pas'-khah and always means "passover", yet the KJV has this word translated as Easter in Acts 12:4, which is not true to the original language.

I'm not bashing the KJV, but you have to compare versions to the original languages, not to one another, in order to determine accuracy. I don't have to be a Greek/Hebrew scholar to know that. It's just common sense.

Oh, they have an answer for that too. One fellow shared with me a website showing that the word easter should be there. Of course this was an extreme KJVOnlyism site.

No, I cannot recall this site or address, it's been a while back.

 

[annsni]

You do notice that the writer does not use the Greek text as a standard of comparison but other translations. That is extremely deceptive. This seems to be a key tactic since no one has been able to prove that the NKJV did not use the same text body as the KJV.

The litmus test is to show where the KJV chooses a CT rendering over a Majority Text rendering.

Agreed. :thumbs:

 

[annsni]

"The New King James Bible was first published in 1979. It is a deadly version because its editors have succeeded in deceiving the body of Christ on two main points:

(1) That it's a King James Bible (which is a lie), and
(2) That it's based on the Textus Receptus (which is only a partial truth).

It is essential to know that many of the word changes between the original KJV and the NKJV are not changes which result from removing archaisms, etc. Instead, many are changes which clearly reveal that, contrary to their agreed basis, the NKJV translators departed from the original KJV and its underlying Greek text, the Textus Receptus, in favor of the very same wording found in versions translated from corrupted Greek texts.

There's nothing "new" about the NKJV logo. It is a "666" symbol of the pagan trinity which was used in the ancient Egyptian mysteries. It was also used by Satanist Aleister Crowley around the turn of this century. The symbol can be seen on the New King James Bible, on certain rock albums (like Led Zepplin's), or you can see it on the cover of such New Age books as The Aquarian Conspiracy.

Riplinger states that this same tri-part symbol is found concealed in the tail of the Green Dragon, illustrated in Harry E. Wedeck's occult classic volume, Treasury of Witchcraft.

Moreover, it is similar to the logo of the immense Krupp Works, the German manufacturing giant that was one of the most important producers for Adolf Hitler's Nazi war machine.

While passing off as being true to the Textus Receptus, the NKJV IGNORES the Receptus over 1,200 times.

IN THE "NEW KJV," THERE ARE

22 omissions of "hell",
23 omissions of "blood",
44 omissions of "repent",
50 omissions of "heaven",
51 omissions of "God",
66 omissions of "Lord".

The term "JEHOVAH" is completely omitted.

The NKJV makes a very serious doctrinal error when dealing with the word "JEHOVAH" in Exodus 6:3. They change the word "JEHOVAH" to "LORD" thus making the Bible to contradict itself. Even the corrupt "New World Translation" (Jehovah's Witnesses Bible) has a better rendering of this passage.

So what does Exodus 6:3 say? Please read carefully - "And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them." (KJV)

Now please note what the NKJV says - "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, LORD, I was not known to them." (NKJV)

If you will take a concordance and go back to Genesis 1 and go through to Exodus 6:3 you will notice that the word "LORD" is mentioned 242 times.

Did anyone before Exodus know God by the name of "LORD" before Exodus 6:3. The answer is a resounding, YES! Don't just sit there, look it up for yourself.

Adam & Eve knew - Genesis 4:1
Enos knew - Genesis 4: 26
Noah knew - Genesis 8: 20
Shem knew - Genesis 9:26
Nimrod knew - Genesis 10:9
Abraham knew - Genesis 12:7-8
King of Sodom knew - Genesis 14:22
Sarah knew - Genesis 16:2; 18:14
Hagar knew - Genesis 16:11
Lot knew - Genesis 19:14
Abimelech knew - Genesis 20:4
Eliezor knew - Genesis 24:3-12
Rebekah knew - Genesis 24:18
Laban and Bethuel knew - Genesis 24:50
Isaac knew - Genesis 25:21
Abimelech, Ahuzzath, & Phichol knew - Genesis 26:28
Jacob knew - Genesis 27:20
Leah knew - Genesis 29:32
Rachel knew - Genesis 30:24
Laban knew - Genesis 30:27
Joseph knew - Genesis 39:2-3
Pharaoh knew - Exodus 3:18
Moses & Aaron knew - Exodus 5:1

So to eliminate the word "JEHOVAH" is not only poor scholarship but also perverts and damages the text making it contradictory. It is a key passage that shows God as He reveals Himself BY ANOTHER NAME to mankind. Someone on the translation committee evidently does not like the name, "JEHOVAH."

The term "NEW TESTAMENT", is completely omitted.

It is interesting to note that Hebrews 9:15-20 in the NKJV lines up with the New World Translation (Jehovah's Witnesses Bible).

DOCTRINAL PROBLEMS
DEALING WITH SALVATION

The NKJV confuses people about salvation. In Hebrews 10:14 it replaces "are sanctified" with "ARE BEING SANCTIFIED", and it replaces "are saved" with "ARE BEING SAVED."

In I Corinthians 1:18 and II Corinthians 2:15. The words "may believe" have been replaced with "MAY CONTINUE TO BELIEVE" in I John 5:13.

The old straight and "narrow" way of Matthew 7:14 has become the "DIFFICULT" way in the NKJV.

In II Corinthians 10:5 the KJV reads "casting down imaginations", but the NKJV reads "CASTING DOWN ARGUMENTS". The word "thought", which occurs later in the verse, matches "imaginations", not "arguments". This change weakens the verse.

The KJV tells us to reject a "heretick" after the second admonition in Titus 3:10. The NKJV tells us to reject a " DIVISIVE MAN". How nice! Now the Alexandrians and Ecumenicals have justification for rejecting anyone they wish to label as "divisive men".

According to the NKJV, no one would stoop so low as to "corrupt" God's word. No, they just "PEDDLE" it (II Cor. 2:17). The reading matches the Alexandrian versions.

The KJV correctly says, "For we are not as many, which corrupt the Word of God .... "But the NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV, change "corrupt" to "peddling." Is there any great difference between peddling (selling, or making a gain of) the Word of God and corrupting (adulterating) it? Of course there is, and one does not have to be a Greek scholar to decide which word is correct. When this warning was given in the 1st Century, was there any way for people to peddle (make a gain of) God's Word? Of course not -- they were suffering for it. The warning clearly refers to corrupting God's Word, something that was common then as it is now. Only in our day has it ever been possible to peddle (make a gain of) the Bible. With its huge profits from the sale of many different Bible versions, the Thomas Nelson Publishers is both corrupting and peddling God's Word.

The NKJV gives us no command to "study" God's word in II Timothy 2:15.

2 TIMOTHY 2:15

KJV reads, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God." NKJV and NASV change "study" to "be diligent." NIV and RSV change "study" to "DO YOUR BEST."

MATTHEW 7:14

KJV - "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life..."

NKJV - "Because narrow is the gate and DIFFICULT is the way which leads to life,"

Is the way unto eternal life difficult? No, that is false teaching. The way unto eternal life is "strait," as the KJV says, meaning "constricted, restricted, distressed, narrow, restrained."



...please forgive the copy and paste routine here...but evidently you MV apologists do not want to address the stark changes and contrasts between the KJV and the NKJV...here it is in black and white..please save the "the author is wrong" routine...it does not fly in the face of this evidence..the differences are of a severe nature..like the author says...the NKJV is a fraud..

The stark contrast is easy to deal with. So easy to deal with that I believe that those who believe this drivel are willfully ignorant and therefore creating an idol of lies. Even my children could easily address this.

First off, give me one point to address and I will. I don't have time to go through a whole post and address each one. Try to stump us "MV apologists" and watch how fast we can punch down the paper idols.

 

[JesusFan]

Here we go..

Right down the looking glass, yellow brick road!

It's the whole truth --not partially true.

Thought the NKJV used exact same texts as KJV, its just they consulted CT/MT also?

That's all I need to hear. She's a crackpot. She's not trustworthy to say the least.

She has no basis for her wild claims against modern version, as evidenced books by D A carson and James White on the subject!

Do you believe the bunk this guy is peddling?




"Do your best" is best. :laugh:




I'm not even a fan of the NKJV but I recognize that it is perfect nonsense you are parroting from the likes of G.A.R.

Isn't it the truth that those who were on the commitee to translate the Bible as NKJV belived in the superority of the TR text?

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Did anyone before Exodus know God by the name of "LORD" before Exodus 6:3. The answer is a resounding, YES! Don't just sit there, look it up for yourself. ...

It is difficult for me to understand how any one could be taken in by this ridiculous argument. The answer is actually a resounding, NO! I didn't just sit here, I did look it up for myself.

First, no person at all in the biblical period of Genesis-Exodus knew God by the English term "LORD". Since these inspired scriptures are only recorded in Hebrew we can only presume that the name(s) by which those people knew God were Hebraic words.

Aside #1: "LORD" is an English translation of one of a couple of Hebrew words. The personal name for the one true God (the four Hebrew letters YHWH) is translated "LORD" (Strong's #3068) 6,510 times in the KJV; it is rendered as "Jehovah" only 4 times in the KJV (Exodus 6:3, once in Psalm 83, and twice in the book of Isaiah). The reasons the KJV translators chose to put "Jehovah" in their text so very few times is open to speculation. The first occurrence of the nomen tetragrammaton is in Genesis 2:4; it then appears over 100 times in rest of that book, and another 20+ times in Exodus before 6:3.

Aside #2: "Yahweh" is now the preferred form of the sacred name; "Jehovah" was probably not the way the Hebrews would have pronounced 'The Name' (had they ever dared to speak it), although no one can say for sure.

But second, the real question is: Did any one know God by His sacred name (YHWH) before Moses? Well, here are just a few sample verses that quote speech (by Noah, Abram, Leah, Laban, and Jacob) where the word "LORD" in our translation is actually Yehovah in the underlying Hebrew text --

And he said, Blessed [be] the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. (Gen. 9:26)

And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth, (Gen. 14:22)

And she called his name Joseph; and said, The LORD shall add to me another son. (Gen. 30:24)

And Mizpah; for he said, The LORD watch between me and thee, when we are absent one from another. (Gen. 31:49)

And Jacob said, O God of my father Abraham, and God of my father Isaac, the LORD which saidst unto me, Return unto thy country, and to thy kindred, and I will deal well with thee: (Gen. 32:9)​

I suppose you could argue that they didn't actually speak that Hebrew word aloud, but that is the word that Scripture records. If they didn't actually utter it, was it the word they were thinking when they substituted another word? In addition to direct speech the Scripture also narrates the use of Yehovah before Moses --

Unto the place of the altar, which he had made there at the first: and there Abram called on the name of the LORD. (Gen. 13:4)​

So, did Abram speak the name "Jehovah" or something else?

 

[JesusFan]

It is difficult for me to understand how any one could be taken in by this ridiculous argument. The answer is actually a resounding, NO! I didn't just sit here, I did look it up for myself.

First, no person at all in the biblical period of Genesis-Exodus knew God by the English term "LORD". Since these inspired scriptures are only recorded in Hebrew we can only presume that the name(s) by which those people knew God were Hebraic words.

Aside #1: "LORD" is an English translation of one of a couple of Hebrew words. The personal name for the one true God (the four Hebrew letters YHWH) is translated "LORD" (Strong's #3068) 6,510 times in the KJV; it is rendered as "Jehovah" only 4 times in the KJV (Exodus 6:3, once in Psalm 83, and twice in the book of Isaiah). The reasons the KJV translators chose to put "Jehovah" in their text so very few times is open to speculation. The first occurrence of the nomen tetragrammaton is in Genesis 2:4; it then appears over 100 times in rest of that book, and another 20+ times in Exodus before 6:3.

Aside #2: "Yahweh" is now the preferred form of the sacred name; "Jehovah" was probably not the way the Hebrews would have pronounced 'The Name' (had they ever dared to speak it), although no one can say for sure.

But second, the real question is: Did any one know God by His sacred name (YHWH) before Moses? Well, here are just a few sample verses that quote speech (by Noah, Abram, Leah, Laban, and Jacob) where the word "LORD" in our translation is actually Yehovah in the underlying Hebrew text --

And he said, Blessed [be] the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. (Gen. 9:26)

And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth, (Gen. 14:22)

And she called his name Joseph; and said, The LORD shall add to me another son. (Gen. 30:24)

And Mizpah; for he said, The LORD watch between me and thee, when we are absent one from another. (Gen. 31:49)

And Jacob said, O God of my father Abraham, and God of my father Isaac, the LORD which saidst unto me, Return unto thy country, and to thy kindred, and I will deal well with thee: (Gen. 32:9)​

I suppose you could argue that they didn't actually speak that Hebrew word aloud, but that is the word that Scripture records. If they didn't actually utter it, was it the word they were thinking when they substituted another word? In addition to direct speech the Scripture also narrates the use of Yehovah before Moses --

Unto the place of the altar, which he had made there at the first: and there Abram called on the name of the LORD. (Gen. 13:4)​

So, did Abram speak the name "Jehovah" or something else?

Wouldn't they have had "generic" names/titles for God, it was just that His persoanl 'real" name was given unto Moses for first time?

 

[franklinmonroe]

Wouldn't they have had "generic" names/titles for God, it was just that His persoanl 'real" name was given unto Moses for first time?

Yes, there are other Hebrew words that we often translate as "god" or God" (depending upon the context). But God has only one personal name. I'll try to make what I wrote above even more clear: YHWH, the personal name of God was evidently in use by multiple people, in many places, in various ways according to Genesis and Exodus (all before 6:3).

This is considered a 'notorious' (apparent) contradiction in the Bible.

 

[franklinmonroe]

"The New King James Bible was first published in 1979. It is a deadly version because its editors have succeeded in deceiving the body of Christ ...

Where is markthebaptist now?

Today is the fifth quiet day since his last slander; after posting 20+ times on just two days (he hadn't posted before) he hasn't posted since. Winman, it appears your buddy has abandoned you.

It is disgusting how some people (who claim to be Christians) will post rubbish and then run off, leaving others to clean up their mess.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Where is markthebaptist now?

Today is the fifth quiet day since his last slander; after posting 20+ times on just two days (he hadn't posted before) he hasn't posted since. Winman, it appears your buddy has abandoned you.

It is disgusting how some people (who claim to be Christians) will post rubbish and then run off, leaving others to clean up their mess.

IMHO that just exposes the immaturity of some posters, they cannot think for themselves so their posting is limited to copying and pasting half-truths and lies, and when the untruths are pointed out they disappear. I should emphasize that phenomenon is not limited to (some in) the KJVO faction- it also happens with other issues as well.

 

[Winman]

Where is markthebaptist now?

Today is the fifth quiet day since his last slander; after posting 20+ times on just two days (he hadn't posted before) he hasn't posted since. Winman, it appears your buddy has abandoned you.

It is disgusting how some people (who claim to be Christians) will post rubbish and then run off, leaving others to clean up their mess.

Perhaps you are correct, or perhaps he is busy, time will tell. I don't check this forum every day myself. I don't need his support, and I am sure he feels the same way.

I am KJO because I firmly believe God promised to preserve his word. I have examined the TR and the CT texts, and believe the TR text the true preserved text. Can I prove it? Not in a way that would satisfy you.

There comes a time when you must either believe one text is preserved and the other corrupt, or that both are corrupt. They are not the same, both cannot be the true text. If you can not settle on one, then you have none.

So, do you have one, or do you have none?

 

[Mexdeaf]

There comes a time when you must either believe one text is preserved and the other corrupt, or that both are corrupt. They are not the same, both cannot be the true text. If you can not settle on one, then you have none.

Sez who? Where is that in the Bible? Where has God said that?

Perhaps someone should start a thread about this. I think it is a fallacy.

 

[Winman]

Sez who? Where is that in the Bible? Where has God said that?

Perhaps someone should start a thread about this. I think it is a fallacy.

How can it be a fallacy? If you believe that God promised to preserve his Word without error, then the true text must be in the world.

The only alternative is that God did not preserve his word.

But you cannot argue that the TR and CT are the same, that is impossible to be true.

I think it revealing that those who promote the CT always try to argue it is the same as the TR. If it is the same (which it isn't) then why do you need a new version? If it is the same, why not stay with the TR and the KJB?

The KJB is always and will always remain the standard.

 

[Mexdeaf]

How can it be a fallacy? If you believe that God promised to preserve his Word without error, then the true text must be in the world.

The only alternative is that God did not preserve his word.

The KJB is always and will always remain the standard.

Those three statements are all fallacies.