And I'm sorry to hear that you're sorry to hear that.
Your prerogative to use a text which has serious issues (for another thread of course).
The NKJV uses the same text as the KJV
It doesn't actually.
, which seems to be your preferred translation.
It is not about 'preference' of 'mine' (as if "I" get to decide what is and or is not God's words; a disgusting thought). The words either are, or are not, the words of God. It is that simple.
However, in your case, it does sounds like 'preference', since you are claiming to reject that which has been received by the church, for that which is rejected by the church, and accepted by critics, who sit in judgment over God's words, which was never their place to do.
The difference between the Textus Receptus and the Critical Text is simply one word.
Which makes all the difference in the world, since man lives "not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live." In the matter of taking away from or in adding to, God's words, the scriptures give sound warning, even from the begging with Eve, and the devil.
The very context was warning all:
- Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines
the commandments of men.
- Mar 7:8 For laying aside
the commandment of God, ye hold
the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
- Mar 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject
the commandment of God, that ye may keep
your own tradition.
- Mar 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
- Mar 7:11
But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
- Mar 7:12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
- Mar 7:13 Making
the word of God of
none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
God's words & ways, vs man's (ie. the devil's ideologies carried out in / by them) words & ways.
The T.R. has καθαριζον indicating that it is the excretion of the food (or the latrine into which the food is excreted), which purifies it
The living text (Act. 7:38; Heb. 4:12, &c.) received by the living church (1 Pet. 2:5), teaches
- Mar 7:18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
- Mar 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
- Mar 7:18 και λεγει αυτοις ουτως και υμεις ασυνετοι εστε ου νοειτε οτι παν το εξωθεν εισπορευομενον εις τον ανθρωπον ου δυναται αυτον κοινωσαι
- Mar 7:19 οτι ουκ εισπορευεται αυτου εις την καρδιαν αλλ εις την κοιλιαν και εις τον αφεδρωνα εκπορευεται καθαριζον παντα τα βρωματα
That which leaves the body, after digestion, is simply "dirt" (Jdg. 3:22). Defilement is a spiritual thing, and is of the mind / heart / spirit (Mar. 7:18-23). Thus the eating of the "bread ["αρτους", "αρτον", a dietary 'clean' food allowed by God to be eaten, even from the beginning, Gen. 1:29]" (Mar. 7:2,5) "with unwashen hands" (Mar. 7:5) could not ever "defile" anyone. That which is 'purged' is the body / colon (the person) from the food eaten, since it comes in and goes out of the physical body (man is likened to a "worm", dirt in and dirt out). It reads, "καθαριζον παντα τα βρωματα" (purging all the foods), and the question is from where? The immediate context shows that the dietary 'clean' food ('bread') eaten (Jesus is speaking to Jews) is passed through the body, from the entrance (G1531; "εισπορευομενον", V-PNP-NSN) (mouth) and out the exit (anus) in going to the toilet, thus "purging" (G2511, "καθαριζον"; "V-PAP-NSN") the body of such. It is in parallel with itself.
A very dangerous 'text' with many subtractions & additions; and rejected by the living church of God.
So, the 'C.T.' has both taken away "καθαριζον" and added "καθαριζων", which changes the ending by a single letter, from 'omicron' to 'omega', lifting itself above the true word of God.
, suggesting that it is the Lord Jesus who has purified the food.
The food is already a 'clean' (sanctified by the word of God) food being eaten. It was just bread. There was no cleansing of it needful, since the word of God, even from the beginning, already sanctified the specific plant life to be eaten by mankind - Gen. 1:29. What the NKJV (by its translation, and foot note, "Mark 7:19 NU sets off the final phrase as Mark’s comment that Jesus has declared all foods clean.", ESV, NIV, and other such texts do is violate the regulations of God in diet here, and substitute (antichristos, in the place of the anointed words of God) their own dietary plans, and claim Jesus is the author of their ideology / practices, when it is the "doctrines of devils" (1 Tim. 4:1); whom, even in the beginning did the same, by tempting Eve at the tree forbidden by God to be eaten.
- 1Ti_4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
By quoting the NKJV originally, I was showing my support for the T.R. rendering.
The so called 'NKJV' does not entirely follow the same 'T.R.' as the King James Bible, and this is demonstrated from the OT and NT texts, and many examples could be provided, but this is not the subject of the thread. Any may do a quick search online to begin to see distinctions.
However, you might like to consider Acts 10:15 in this context.
Acts 10(-11, which cannot help you here, and supports what I am saying) is
not the context of Mar. 7. Matthew 15 is the same context of Mark 7. -
Matthew chapter 15 1611 KJV (King James Version)
Indeed so, if you are a 16th or 17th Century Englishman.
I am not, and never will be, and neither are you. The point is an 'imaginary "if" (your word)' and a waste of mental time in pretending.
The NKJV has, "So He said to them, are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods."
The 'NKJV' is not a '16-17th century' text and never will be.
The two main differences are the addition of the word 'thus'
No, only in the 'NKJV', is the word "thus" added (and
adds a footnote, "Mark 7:19 NU sets off the final phrase as Mark’s comment that
Jesus has declared all foods clean."), but in the 'ESV' (which you also cited) it says, "(Thus he declared all foods clean.)", so it is not merely the word "thus".
which the NKJV adds to help the meaning,
No, the 'NKJV' does not add the word, since it is just a text (based on not the same 'T.R.' as the King James Bible) and cannot choose as mankind can, but the translators of the 'NKJV' adds the word "thus", and footnote, and leads the reader to make incorrect conclusions, violating the word of God in diet and substituting mankind vain traditions in dietary practices, and claiming it is authoritative from God, when it is no such thing.
Sorry, but the 'italics' in a 'NKJV' are a mixed bag (see Heb. 9:12 for instance).
to show that it is not in the original
"the original" what?, autograph? How would you know? Have you seen the original autograph? I ask this, knowing full well the answer, since the translators, whether for the King James Bible, or the recent committees, only have copies of copies to work from, and their copies will vary, from small to large differences, depending on where those texts came from.
; and the translation of καθαριζον as 'purifying' rather than 'puging.'
Again, why would a food (bread, already sanctified by God's word) need to be 'purif[ied]', whether it entered and left a body (mankind) or not? It is silly to go this route.
Do you take me for a fool, idiot, or imbecile? Do you think I do not have access to the same, or more, information than you do? Please, drop the condescension.
