New Book on the Doctrine of Scripture

[Logos1560]

from New Book on the Doctrine of Scripture

So, they wrote their own version, but were careful to saturate it's very existence with their favorite translations in the footnotes, essentially producing a non-version, which defers to other versions with entirely different manuscripts, which the editors preferred.

"The New King James Version footnotes tempt the reader to severely question the King James Bible it was named after:

You throw out accusations that you do not prove to be true. You misrepresent and bear false witness against the NKJV translators.

Dr. James D. Price, executive editor for the NKJV's Old Testament, was translating the Hebrew Masoretic OT Text instead of the New Testament.

None of the Church of England makers of the KJV named any one of the varying printed Greek Textus Receptus editions in their day as being their one perfect standard that they followed 100%. The KJV translators were not Textus Receptus-only advocates as they also made use of multiple varying sources including non-Textus Receptus sources. The KJV translators practiced textual criticism, picking and choosing from multiple, textually-varying Textus Receptus editions and some non-TR sources. The KJV translators even borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament translated from an edition of Jerome's Latin Vulgate, a non-TR source. One of the KJV translators even wrote a book defending Jerome's Latin Vulgate.

The footnotes of the NKJV may be for the same purpose as the marginal notes of the KJV.

In the 1611 preface, this is stated: “doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident; so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption.”

The 1611 preface also noted that “diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.” According to the large number of marginal notes in the 1611 edition, its makers must have found many places where they considered the text not to be so clear in its meaning. The makers of the KJV gave many more word-for-word, literal renderings in their marginal notes, and they also offered many acceptable, alternative renderings. In some marginal notes, they provided examples of where they gave no English word/rendering for an original-language word of Scripture in their underlying texts. These marginal notes clearly contradict any suggestion that all their translation decisions should be considered certain and unquestionable. The marginal notes could also raise doubt concerning some of their textual criticism decisions. The 1611 preface noted: “They that are wise, had rather have their judgment at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.”

 

[Logos1560]

KJV defender Edward F. Hills (1912-1981) wrote: “Even before the coming of Christ God had brought into being the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament translation which was to serve the Church as a temporary substitute until such a time as the ancient Hebrew Bible could be restored to her” (KJV Defended, p. 94; Text, p. 170). Edward F. Hills wrote: “In regard to Bible versions we follow the example of Christ’s Apostles. We adopt the same attitude toward the King James Version that they maintained toward the Septuagint” (p. 229; Text, p. 380; Believing Bible Study, p. 81). Edward F. Hills wrote: “The Apostles recognized the Septuagint as the providentially approved translation of the Old Testament into Greek. They understood that this was the version that God desired the gentile Church of their day to use as its Old Testament Scripture” (p. 230; Text, p. 380; Believing Bible Study, p. 82). Edward F. Hills wrote: “Just as they [the Apostles] recognized the Septuagint as the providentially appointed translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek, so we recognize the King James Version and other great historic translation of the holy Scriptures as providentially approved” (Ibid.; Text, pp. 380-381).

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

The NKJV was not denigrated purposedly the Lord Jesus Christ at Acts 3:26, Acts 4:27, or Acts 4:30 when they accurately translated the Greek word any more than the KJV was at Matthew 12:18.

• "The powerful Scriptures showing that Jesus is the ‘Son’ are switched to ‘servant’ in the NKJV in Acts 3:13; "The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath Glorified His Son Jesus; Whom ye delivered up, and denied Him in the presence of Pilate, when He was determined to let Him go"
• and in 26; "Unto you first God, having Raised Up His Son Jesus, Sent Him to Bless you, in Turning Away every one of you from his Iniquities."
• Again, the Doctrinal implications are obvious.
• His Sonship in Acts 3:13 is regarding God's Glorified Son and Acts 3:26 relates to the Incarnation when God Overshadowed Mary, making Jesus both God and man. A servant could be anyone."
  
  
• From: NKJV Affects Doctrine | Articles | kjbapsotolics.com

...

Why is this difference important in Acts 4:27 and 30 but unimportant in Matthew 12:18?

What's so important about editing out His Name, "His Son Jesus", for ANY REASON? That's sacrilegious if not blaspheme.

Someone needs to tell somebody this is God's Word. Not ours.

Here's one for you. Where did anyone ever get the idea that we are supposed to be allowed to chose what 'version' of the bible we like?

Has it ever occurred to anyone that God may be Consulted on that, for Him to be the One Who does the Choosing of our Bible version we use. Ever called on His Name and fasted a few days on your knees asking God about it?

I believe the problem with you and the diehard KJV-only crowd are the same, where you both A.) as individuals are always seeing yourselves as being superiors to any 'version' or manuscript you come across and B.) decide what your fancy is toward any given translation and enjoy calling all the shots, true or not, with regard to their content, as long as everyone understands that what God says is second, as far as you're concerned, to what you think.

Within the realm of Bible perspicuity Matthew 12:18; "Behold My Servant, Whom I have Chosen; My Beloved, in Whom My Soul is Well Pleased: I Will Put My Spirit upon Him, and He shall shew Judgment to the Gentiles", is a Fulfillment of the Prophecy in Isaiah;

Isaiah 42:1;
“Here is My Servant, Whom I Uphold, My Chosen One, in Whom My soul delights. I Will Put My Spirit on Him, and He Will Bring Justice to the Nations."

In the context of both parallel scriptures, the "Servant" is Exalted as being as being Identified as "My Servant", God says, Who is not just any servant, but His Beloved, His Chosen One in Whom God's Soul is Pleased with Delights and Who it is that God goes onto say, I Will Put My Spirit on Him, and He Will Bring Justice to the Gentile Nations.

(As a side note, by way of a Divinely Interpreted Bible Definition, notice how those two verses equate the words "the Gentiles" with the words, "the Nations", as the Bible also does in Romans 11:12 "Now if the fall of them (the Jews) be the riches of the World, and the diminishing of them (the Jews) the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their (the Jews') fulness?"
When the Bible uses the word 'World', it is often referring to the Gentiles).

James D. Price explained that the real reason for this choice of rendering in the book of Acts in the NKJV is that the translators thought that in this context Peter was alluding to Isaiah 52:13, which identifies Christ as the Servant of the LORD (False Witness, p. 25).

I'm not buying it. The extremely urgent necessity (?) came from other influences, including his own biases, to dispose of "His Son Jesus", and then only substitute, "Servant".

—Acts 3.26
"In the Revised Version of 1881 and in many modern versions this is rendered “His servant” or “His Servant”, and the name “Jesus” is omitted.

"The change from “Son” to “servant” does not arise from any variations in the Greek manuscripts, but from differences of opinion regarding the meaning of the Greek, TON PAIDA AUTOU.

"The omission of “Jesus” does arise from a corresponding variant in the Greek manuscripts, so the grounds for these two significant changes are quite different.

"The Greek PAIS occurs in the singular or plural twenty-four times in the New Testament, and in the Authorized Version it is rendered “child” in Matthew 17.18; Luke 2.43; 9.42; Acts 4.27; 4.30.

"It is rendered “children” in Matt. 2.16; 21.15;
“servant” or “servants”
in Matt. 8.6, 13; 12.18; 14.2; Luke 1.54; 1.69; 7.7; 15.26; Acts 4.25;
“menservants” in Luke 12.45;
“maiden” in Luke 8.51;
“maid” in Luke 8.54;
“young man” in Acts 20.12;
and “son” in John 4.51; Acts 3.13; 3.26.

"The Greek HUIOS occurs more than three hundred and fifty times and is rendered in the English translations as “son” or “child”, “sons” or “children”, and in Matthew 21.5 “foal”.

"It is true to say that PAIS in Acts 3.26 may be quite correctly rendered son, servant or child, and it would be wrong to assume that the Authorized Version was at fault in rendering it “Son” in this verse.

"The words are all appropriate to the Son of God, and there are prophetic Scriptures in the Old Testament in which the Son is spoken of as the Servant of the LORD.

"There are, however, good reasons for retaining “Son” in Acts 3.26, and there are passages in which it is very clear that HUIOS (son) is synonymous with PAIS.

"In John 4.46 we read of “a certain nobleman, whose son (HUIOS) was sick at Capernaum”.

"In verse 47 the nobleman besought Jesus that He would come down and heal his son (HUIOS).

"In verse 49 the nobleman said, “Sir, come down ere my child (PAIDION) die”, using a diminutive form of PAIS to refer to his son.

"In verse 50 Jesus says of the same child, “Thy son (HUIOS) liveth”.

"In verse 51 the bond-servants (DOULOI) of the nobleman met him, and told him, saying, “Thy son (PAIS) liveth”.

"It is quite clear that they were speaking of his son, whom they refer to as PAIS, which in this context cannot mean anything different from HUIOS, son. The person spoken of as PAIS was the son (HUIOS) of the nobleman.

"In Acts 3.26 the one spoken of as PAIS (TON PAID A AUTOU) is the Son of God, and here PAIS may be regarded as synonymous with HUIOS, and rendered Son or “child”, rather than as “servant”.

"Although the name of Jesus after “His Son” is not found in Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, and a few other ancient copies, it is found in Codex A, Codex P, cursives 1, 13,31 and many others."

From: Son or Servant? - Trinitarian Bible Society

 

[Logos1560]

This same Greek word found at Acts 4:27 and 30 was also used of Jesus at Matthew 12:18a where it was translated "servant" in the KJV. However, it was translated "child" in Wycliffe's, 1534 Tyndale's, Matthew's, Great, and Bishops' Bibles and as "son" in 1526 Tyndale's. Why is this difference important in Acts 4:27 and 30 but unimportant in Matthew 12:18?


The Companion Bible [a KJV study Bible] has this note for "child" at Acts 4:27: "child=servant, Greek pais, as in v. 25" (p. 1585).

The 1657 English edition of The Dutch Annotations has the following note for "thy holy child Jesus" at Acts 4:27: "or servant, minister, See Acts 3:13, 26, see also Matthew 8:6 compared with Luke 7:2 and here verse 25."

Concerning Acts 3:13, A. T. Robertson noted: "This phrase occurs in Isaiah 42:1; 52:13 about the Messiah except the name 'Jesus' which Peter adds" (Word Pictures, III, p. 43). Concerning Acts 3:13 in his 1851 commentary as edited by Alvah Hovey in the American Baptist Publication Society's American Commentary on the N. T., Baptist Horatio Hackett (1808-1875) wrote: "pais, not son=huios, but servant=Heb. ebhedh, which was one of the prophetic appellations of the Messiah, especially in the second part of Isaiah. (See Matt. 12:18, as compared with Isa. 42:1). The term occurs again in this sense in v. 26; 4:27, 30" (pp. 59-60). Concerning Acts 4:27, John Gill noted: "Unless the word should rather be rendered servant, as it is in verse 25 and which is a character that belongs to Christ, and is often given him as Mediator, who, as such, is God's righteous servant" (Exposition, VIII, p. 176).


The Greek word pais in these verses was used for both child or servant with the meaning determined by the context. Greek has a different word for "son"--huios. The KJV translated this word pais as "servant" 10 times, "child" 7 times, and "son" 3 times.

James D. Price explained that the real reason for this choice of rendering in the book of Acts in the NKJV is that the translators thought that in this context Peter was alluding to Isaiah 52:13, which identifies Christ as the Servant of the LORD (False Witness, p. 25). This first-hand statement from a NKJV translator gives the actual reason while others are merely speculating.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

You throw out accusations that you do not prove to be true. You misrepresent and bear false witness against the NKJV translators.

"The change from “Son” to “servant” does not arise from any variations in the Greek manuscripts, but from differences of opinion regarding the meaning of the Greek, TON PAIDA AUTOU.

"There are, however, good reasons for retaining “Son” in Acts 3.26, and there are passages in which it is very clear that HUIOS (son) is synonymous with PAIS.

That's the context of the chapter.

Along with this being the Fulfillment of a Prophecy regarding Jesus being Raised Up as a Prophet, Who is God's Son Jesus He Anointed, in the context of the Bible.

"In John 4.46 we read of “a certain nobleman, whose son (HUIOS) was sick at Capernaum”.

"In verse 47 the nobleman besought Jesus that He would come down and heal his son (HUIOS).

"In verse 49 the nobleman said, “Sir, come down ere my child (PAIDION) die”, using a diminutive form of PAIS to refer to his son.

"In verse 50 Jesus says of the same child, “Thy son (HUIOS) liveth”.

"In verse 51 the bond-servants (DOULOI) of the nobleman met him, and told him, saying, “Thy son (PAIS) liveth”.

"It is quite clear that they were speaking of his son, whom they refer to as PAIS, which in this context cannot mean anything different from HUIOS, son. The person spoken of as PAIS was the son (HUIOS) of the nobleman.

"In Acts 3.26 the one spoken of as PAIS (TON PAID A AUTOU) is the Son of God, and here PAIS may be regarded as synonymous with HUIOS, and rendered Son or “child”, rather than as “servant”.

—Acts 3.26
"In the Revised Version of 1881 and in many modern versions this is rendered “His servant” or “His Servant”, and the name “Jesus” is omitted.

"It is indeed a Doctrinal deficiency when the word Lord is deleted 66 times in the NKJV.

"Or the word God appears 51 fewer times than in the KJV.

"Other words removed with the frequency of omission cited include heaven 50 times,
repent 44 times,
blood 23 times,
hell 22 times;
& the word JEHOVAH is omitted entirely,
as is new testament,
damnation,
and devils.

From: NKJV Affects Doctrine – IBC Perspectives

How the NKJV Demotes Jesus Christ and denigrates His Lordship.

Luke 13:8:
NKJV; Sir
KJV; Lord

Matt. 18:26:
NKJV; before him, saying, Master
KJV; and worshipped him, saying, Lord

Matt. 20:20:
NKJV; kneeling down
KJV; worshipping him

Matt. 26:64:
NKJV; right hand of the Power
KJV; right hand of power

Gen. 22:8:
NKJV; God will provide for himself the lamb
KJV; God will provide himself a lamb

John 8:35:
NKJV; a son
KJV; The Son

Col. 2:2:
NKJV; the mystery of God, both of the Father and of Christ
KJV; the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ (Trinity)

Matt. 8:19 et al.
NKJV; Teacher
KJV; Master

Matt 19:16:
NKJV; Good Teacher
KJV; Good Master

Matt. 22:16:
NKJV; Teacher
KJV; Master

Matt. 23:8
NKJV; One is your Teacher, the Christ
KJV; one is your Master, even Christ

Matt 23:10;
NKJV; And do not be called teachers;
for One is your Teacher, the Christ
KJV; Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ

Acts 3:13:
NKJV; His Servant Jesus
KJV; His Son Jesus

Acts 3:26:
NKJV; His Servant Jesus
KJV; His Son Jesus

Acts 4:27:
NKJV; Holy Servant Jesus
KJV; Holy child Jesus

Acts 4:30:
NKJV; Holy Servant Jesus
KJV; Holy child Jesus

Col. 1:15:
NKJV; the firstborn over all creation
KJV; the firstborn of every creature

Mark 2:15:
NKJV; OMIT
KJV; Jesus

2 Thes. 3:5: patience of Christ patient waiting for Christ (we are to be patient waiting for Christ)

How the NKJV Demotes the Trinity:

Acts 17:29:
NKJV; Divine Nature
KJV; Godhead

Phil. 4:20:
NKJV; patience of Christ
KJV; patient waiting for Christ
(we are to be patient waiting for Christ)

Rev. 1:6:
NKJV; His God and Father
KJV; God and His Father

Col. 3:17:
NKJV; God the Father through Him
KJV; God and the Father by him

John 14:16:
NKJV; Helper
KJV; Comforter

John 14:26:
NKJV; Helper
KJV; Comforter

John 15:26:
NKJV; Helper
KJV; Comforter

John 16:7:
NKJV; Helper
KJV; Comforter

God's righteous servant" (Exposition, VIII, p. 176).

So, I guess you won't be protesting that the NKJV translated 'servant' instead of making it, 'Righteous Servant';

That would be: "To you first, God, having raised up His Righteous Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.”

That would be an indication of Worshipping Jesus, calling Him 'Righteous', so the translators of the bible who treated it just like it was any other book couldn't have that.

Neither could the Jehovah's Witnesses. The NKJV wouldn't match The New World Translation and that would be counter productive to the World Wide Ecumenical Movement that uses the NKJV as a bridge between the Christianity of the KJV, (with its opposition to homosexuality, for example), with Apostate Christianity and the Occult.

 

[Logos1560]

"Or the word God appears 51 fewer times than in the KJV.

You keep using inconsistent double standards in your misleading accusations against the NKJV. You are repeating incorrect claims made by Gail Riplinger, which you may have picked up second-hand from some other KJV-only source. You use the guilt-by-association fallacy in your improper attempts to try to smear the NKJV.

The NKJV does not actually omit the name "God" 51 times where the Hebrew name for God or the Greek name for God is found in the KJV's underlying original-language texts.

In response to this misleading charge, 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). James D. Price then discussed these times and demonstrated the faithfulness of the NKJV to the Hebrew and Greek texts underlying the KJV.

 

[Logos1560]

2 Thes. 3:5: patience of Christ patient waiting for Christ (we are to be patient waiting for Christ)

Concerning 2 Thessalonians 3:5, Baptist pastor and KJV defender Glenn Conjurske asserted: “We have a paraphrase in the King James Version, which instead of ‘the patience of Christ’ reads, ‘the patient waiting for Christ.’ This is in fact a double paraphrase, for even if were legitimate to turn ‘patience’ into ‘patient waiting,’ we ought to read ‘the patient waiting of Christ,’ rather than ‘for Christ.’ It is his patience—‘the patience of Christ’—which is spoken of, not ours” (Olde Paths, April, 1995, p. 77). This rendering in the KJV did not come from Tyndale. Here the KJV followed or kept a rendering introduced in the 1541 edition of the Great Bible and also kept in the Bishops’ Bible.

Concerning this verse, John Eadie maintained that “in rendering the last clause ‘into the patient waiting for Christ,’ after Beza’s ‘expectationem,’ they shrank from the real translation and put it into the margin, ‘into the patience of Christ’” (English Bible, Vol. II, p. 279). The marginal note in the 1611 edition of the KJV stated: "Or, the patience of Christ."

 

[Logos1560]

Col. 3:17:
NKJV; God the Father through Him
KJV; God and the Father by him

Some commonly used prepositions in the KJV may also be sometimes used in an uncommon or archaic way or sense.

At its entry by, the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary gives as its third definition the following: “Through, or with, denoting the agent, means, instrument or cause.”

Concerning prepositions, J. B. Lightfoot (1828-1889) wrote: “The misunderstandings which arise in the mind of an English readers are due in most passages rather to the archaisms than to the error of the translators. Where, in common language, we now say ‘by’ and ‘through’ (i.e., ‘by means of’) respectively, our translators, following the diction of their age, generally use ‘of’ and ‘by’ respectively—‘of’ denoting the agent, and ‘by’ the instrument or means” (Fresh Revision, p. 107). J. B. Lightfoot asserted: “From these archaisms great ambiguity arises. When we hear ‘it was said of him,’ we understand at once ‘about or concerning him,’ but this is not the meaning which this preposition bears in our New Testament. And again, when we read ‘it was sent by me,’ we understand ‘I sent it,’ but neither again is this the meaning intended. In the modern language ‘by’ represents the sender, whereas in the old it denotes the bearer of the letter or parcel” (p. 108). J. B. Lightfoot claimed: “In all such passages the ambiguous ‘by’ is a serious obstacle to the understanding of the English reader” (p. 110).

Because of their Latin background and scholarship, the KJV translators may have sometimes used some prepositions according to typical Latin usage instead of according to what would be later typical standard English usage. J. B. Lightfoot asserted: “Accustomed to write and speak in Latin, they [the KJV translators] unconsciously limited the range and capacity of the Greek by the measure of the classical language with which they were most familiarly acquainted” (Fresh Revision, p. 80).

 

[Logos1560]

Matt. 8:19 et al.
NKJV; Teacher
KJV; Master

Matt 19:16:
NKJV; Good Teacher
KJV; Good Master

Matt. 22:16:
NKJV; Teacher
KJV; Master

Matt. 23:8
NKJV; One is your Teacher, the Christ
KJV; one is your Master, even Christ

Matt 23:10;
NKJV; And do not be called teachers;
for One is your Teacher, the Christ
KJV; Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ

The KJV itself translated the Greek noun in these verses as "teachers" 6 times--Acts 13:1, 1 Cor. 12:28, 1 Cor. 12:29, Eph. 4:11, 2 Tim. 4:3, Heb. 5:12.

The KJV used master in the less common or archaic sense for teacher in those verses. The 1828 Webster's Dictionary listed a 9th definition for master as "the director of a school; a teacher; an instructor."

The Greek noun used in these verses is not the Greek noun meaning lord or master [in a different sense than teacher].

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

The NKJV does not actually omit the name "God" 51 times where the Hebrew name for God or the Greek name for God is found in the KJV's underlying original-language texts.

Nobody's talking about your dependence on General-Specific arguments. The Name God was removed 51 times, for no reason other than opposition to and prejudice against God Almighty, in what alleges to be His book.

The names of Occult figures had no trouble finding their way into the text of the NKJV, as substitutes for what the KJV says.

So, taking the Name God out is more than highly suspect.

This was because the KJV used dynamic equivalence paraphrases such as ‘God forbid,’

It's called translating from one language to another. Gesundheit means "health" or "good health", but that is not what would be said as the equivalent in our language. We would say "bless you" is the proper translation or for those without a Anti-Christ bias they would be heard saying "God bless you".

more literal expression in good English.

Wooden, bias against God and couldn't be more poor from the standpoint of Worshipping God, from the perspective of those who see the Bible's Author as being God and not you or any other men

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”

The undermining of the Place of God is noted by God in this and dozens of other verses.

James D. Price

Prefers the manuscript evidence he and the other NKJV editors placed in the footnotes and in several other verses in the text and has zero allegence to the manuscripts used in the KJV translation.

James D. Price's duplicity as an editor of THE KJV is world renowned.

 

[Logos1560]

Nobody's talking about your dependence on General-Specific arguments. The Name God was removed 51 times, for no reason other than opposition to and prejudice against God Almighty, in what alleges to be His book.

Your assertion or accusation is not true as you bear false witness against the translators of the NKJV. You have been misinformed by Gail Riplinger's false accusations whether you learned them from her or from someone else that repeated her incorrect claims.

The NKJV does not actually omit the name "God" 51 times where the Hebrew name for God or the Greek name for God is found in the KJV's underlying original-language texts.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Nobody's talking about your dependence on General-Specific arguments.

The NKJV does not actually omit the name "God" 51 times where the Hebrew name for God or the Greek name for God is found in the KJV's underlying original-language texts.

Nobody's talking about Greek or Hebrew, specifically, yet

You want to talk about them?

Hebrews 2.16: Did Christ take upon Himself the nature of the seed of Abraham, or did He merely ‘help’ the seed of Abraham?

New thread:

Hebrews 2:16, NKJV: Did Christ take upon Himself the nature of the seed of Abraham, or did He merely ‘help’ the seed of Abraham?

"Hebrews 2.16: Did Christ take upon Himself the nature of the seed of Abraham, or did he merely ‘help’ the seed of Abraham? "We now return to our consideration of the text of the NKJV. The NKJV alters with its translation a very important passage in Hebrews 2.16 concerning Christ’s Incarnation...

www.baptistboard.com

The Name God was removed 51 times

Generally, literally speaking. Period.

for no reason other than opposition to and prejudice against God Almighty

The Root of the Matter.

So what is really behind the removal of God’s Name? Was it simply a human superstition — a man-made tradition that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny, and/or enslavement to the letter of the law? Or is there something deeper?

The Bible makes it plain: Satan the Devil is “the god of this World” (2 Cor. 4:4); "In whom the god of this World hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the Glorious Gospel of Christ, Who is the Image of God, should Shine unto them."

Satan's goal is to blind minds and cut people off from Jehovah and the name 'God'. What better way than to erase God’s Personal Name from the very book that reveals Him?

From Eden onward, Satan has tried to undermine Jehovah’s Sovereignty and Identity. If he can convince religious leaders to strike out God’s Name and replace it with a generic title or nothing, then people no longer build a personal relationship with Jehovah — they only know of a distant “Lord.” That’s not a harmless mistake. That is a direct assault on Jehovah’s Sovereignty and on His invitation to “call on His Name to be saved.” (Romans 10:13)

So yes, human superstition and allegiance to the most generic, Godless, rendering of the underlying texts played a role. But the deeper conspiracy is Satan’s. He doesn’t care whether people pronounce Jehovah as Yahweh, Yehowah, or Jehovah — he just doesn’t want people to use the Name, or that of 'God', at all.

The names of Occult figures had no trouble finding their way into the text of the NKJV, as substitutes for what the KJV says.

The King James Bible says that Christians are "children of light":

"Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness." 1 Thessalonians 1 5:5 (King James Bible)

Freemasons, Theosophists, Kabbalists and Gnostics are the ones who call themselves "sons of light/sons of Light."

Masonic "sons of light" work to further the "kingdom of light."


sons of light (Freemasonry)

New King James Version.
"You are all sons of light and sons of the day. We are not
of the night nor of darkness." 1 Thessalonians 5:5.

Most all 'modern' translations
&
The New World Translation.
"for you are all sons of light and sons of day. We belong neither to night nor to darkness."

So, taking the Name God out is more than highly suspect.

God forbid.

It's called translating from one language to another. Gesundheit means "health" or "good health", but that is not what would be said as the equivalent in our language. We would say "bless you" is the proper translation or for those without a Anti-Christ bias they would be heard saying "God bless you".

Your assertion or accusation is not true

My assertions are always on point.

as you bear false witness against the translators of the NKJV.

"Touch not Mine anointed, neither do My Prophets no harm"
Psalm 105:15.

You have been misinformed by Gail Riplinger's false accusations whether you learned them from her or from someone else that repeated her incorrect claims.

What are you talking about?
What 'misinformed', 'false accusations', and 'incorrect claims'?

Where Gail Riplinger documented the associations of Westcott and Hort with the Occult?

How many friends have you had, or people you've known or heard of, who founded Societies for the Research of the Paranormal and it's practices?

Where are they right this second, anyway?

Despite practically sharing a name, the New King James Version is more than a series of small revisions to the original Authorized Version’s text. The NKJV is an altogether new translation of different underlying source material, a fact that reveals itself in side-by-side comparisons.

The translators of the NKJV, while assuring their readers that they have translated from the Received Text, at the same time give in their marginal references and sometimes in the text itself equal credence to a Greek text which is wholly different from it.

Once the position of the editors of this NKJV translation is known, it would appear that they have used the Received Text only as a means of paving the way for a substitution of the Authorized Version which would involve the introduction of their marginal variants into the main text of Scripture.

This translation, with its credence given to the marginal references, has the appearance of a most subtle attempt to discredit both the Received Text and the Authorized Version and to dismiss and devalue God Himself.

The AV has been made such a blessing for many centuries, not only in our own country but throughout the English-speaking world. In many ways the NKJV is far more dangerous than the modern translations which have openly abandoned the Received Text in favor of texts built on the c*****t Alexandrian manuscripts.

In view of the fact that half of the NKJV translation committee favored the Westcott-Hort Greek text, it makes sense that so many words in the NKJV conform to those found in false bible versions:

"Dr. Arthur Farstad, chairman of the NKJV Executive Review Committee which had the responsibility of final text approval, stated that this committee was about equally divided as to which was the better Greek New Testament text-the Textus Receptus or the Westcott-Hort. (1)​

Thomas Nelson Publishers are not committed to the Traditional Text. Among other 'versions,' of what is being passed off as God's word, they published the American Standard Version, (a revision of the Westcott-Hort 1881 English Revised Version) and the Revised Standard Version. (See: Thomas Nelson Published Other C*****t Versions.)

The New King James Version is a mixture of light and darkness:

The New King James is just a compromise between the liberal, p*******d Bible versions floating around and the rock-solid, accurate and preserved words of God, the King James Bible.​

​

 

[John of Japan]

Nobody's talking about your dependence on General-Specific arguments. The Name God was removed 51 times, for no reason other than opposition to and prejudice against God Almighty, in what alleges to be His book.

The names of Occult figures had no trouble finding their way into the text of the NKJV, as substitutes for what the KJV says.

So, taking the Name God out is more than highly suspect.

It's called translating from one language to another. Gesundheit means "health" or "good health", but that is not what would be said as the equivalent in our language. We would say "bless you" is the proper translation or for those without a Anti-Christ bias they would be heard saying "God bless you".

Wooden, bias against God and couldn't be more poor from the standpoint of Worshipping God, from the perspective of those who see the Bible's Author as being God and not you or any other men

The undermining of the Place of God is noted by God in this and dozens of other verses.

Prefers the manuscript evidence he and the other NKJV editors placed in the footnotes and in several other verses in the text and has zero allegence to the manuscripts used in the KJV translation.

James D. Price's duplicity as an editor of THE KJV is world renowned.

James Price is a friend of my sister and mine. He is a faithful and good Christian, now 100, who has faithfully served God for longer than I've been alive. He is not duplicitous at all. I know him well. Just because you disagree with him doesn't give you license to insult his character.

Furthermore, he was the OT editor of the NKJV, not the NT editor, so he had nothing to do with the NT footnotes.

Have a great Christmas.

 

[John of Japan]

James Price is a friend of my sister and mine. He is a faithful and good Christian, now 100, who has faithfully served God for longer than I've been alive. He is not duplicitous at all. I know him well. Just because you disagree with him doesn't give you license to insult his character.

Furthermore, he was the OT editor of the NKJV, not the NT editor, so he had nothing to do with the NT footnotes.

Have a great Christmas.

I have learned that Dr. James D. Price went to Heaven at age 100 on Dec. 12. He is now forever with his beloved wife and Savior. IMO he was the greatest Christian Hebrew scholar in the US in the 20th century. Just check out the Hebrew resources on his website if you don't believe me: Hebrew Masoretic Accents and Hebrew Syntax and Exegesis.

He was also a Bible translation scholar with two books on translation theory.

Many KJVO folk hated him and wrote nasty stuff about him, but he was never insulting in his books or in person, but was a gentle and good Christian. I remember fondly being in his Hebrew class, going on church visitation with him, etc.

When I get a chance after Christmas I may start a thread on him.

 

[JesusFan]

I have learned that Dr. James D. Price went to Heaven at age 100 on Dec. 12. He is now forever with his beloved wife and Savior. IMO he was the greatest Christian Hebrew scholar in the US in the 20th century. Just check out the Hebrew resources on his website if you don't believe me: Hebrew Masoretic Accents and Hebrew Syntax and Exegesis.

He was also a Bible translation scholar with two books on translation theory.

Many KJVO folk hated him and wrote nasty stuff about him, but he was never insulting in his books or in person, but was a gentle and good Christian. I remember fondly being in his Hebrew class, going on church visitation with him, etc.

When I get a chance after Christmas I may start a thread on him.

What is supreme irony to me would be that those who wish to blast off on him most of the time have no idea about textual criticism, Hebrew and Greek languages and text, see those quakes in the Kjvo Ruckmann and Riplinger

 

[Wesley Briggman]

I have to confess that I somewhat enjoy ticking off the TR (Truly Reformed) crowd. I really get them going when I insist Reformed Baptists are actually Reformed. They go nuts.

Could you identify theological differences between "Reformed Baptist" and "Non-reformed Baptist"?