Questions for KJV critics

[rsr]

This is what happens when a man is so hung up on "the Greek" that he can't read plain English.

Oh, I didn't know that English was one of the biblical languages. Seems to me that being "hung up on Greek" is what would be expected to have a faithful translation of the New Testament. The word is the same that's translated Passover elsewhere. Apparently, the KJV translators were able to divine that the word, although the same, meant something else in this passage.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by KING JAMES AV 1611:
Come on guys tell the truth.I give you documented facts and you don't believe it.Little wonder that you question scripture.I have plenty more info on mv's and your giving me opportunity to use it.Thanks!

Steve, The "facts" you've documented demonstrate that this lesbian had as much to do with the substance of the NIV translation as the homosexual King James had to do with the KJV... which is about zero. If Mollenkott had used any other version for the basis of her commentaries, her conclusions would be the same. She seems interested in explaining away the text no matter how it is expressed.

On the other hand... that puts her in the same camp as you. You can read the words in MV's which to any normal reader would say the same thing as the KJV... but you see something totally different. You labor under the delusions of Riplinger's divine inspiration.

 

[Alcott]

"Easter" is from the pagan "Ishtar", the goddess that the pagans worshipped--Rome included. Herod wanted to wait until his pagan holiday was over before bringing Peter out to the people.

That's a valid point. One must wonder why the biblical writers did not use "Ishtar" but instead used "Pascha," and yet Jimmy's yes-men translated it as if it had been Ishtar.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by KING JAMES AV 1611:
For your information;
2. 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.

The emblem is a symbol for the Christian Trinity. If you want to play this game though, I can probably find some obscure connection between King James and the Habsburgs, which any good conspiracy theorist knows is the line of the Anti-christ. Seeing that there is an established bond between the royalty of Europe and the Illuminati, I am surprised you guys aren't burning any Bible associated with the British monarchy.

(See Riplinger's tract on the NKJV.)

I see you are still having trouble with I Timoty 2:12... what was that you were saying about having a problem with authority? It seems you reject Paul and embrace Riplinger.... OH YEAH, you think she's writing under inspiration.

3. It is estimated that the NKJV makes over 100,000 translation changes, which comes to over eighty changes per page and about three changes per verse!

This being the case, you shouldn't have any trouble demonstrating that the NKJV eliminates an essential Christian doctrine... Which one is it?

A great number of these changes bring the NKJV in line with the readings of such Alexandrian perversions as the NIV and the RSV.

... OR perhaps it brings it in line with better evidence and translating techniques.

Where changes are not made in the text, subtle footnotes often give credence to the Westcott and Hort Greek Text.

Are you ignorant or just plain dishonest? Please tell us where the NKJV footnotes the WH Greek Text.

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

I'm interested. Please list the ones you think are the most egregious. Beware though, I have heard that on occasion the NKJV stuck with the KJV reading rather than reconciling to the TR.

5. In the NKJV, there are 22 omissions of "hell",

Now isn't this an scary claim... until you check it out a little and see that the NKJV leaves the word "sheol" untranslated in the OT when it possible refers to the grave or else Paradise. In the NT, it actually corrects a weak method of the KJV. The KJV translates both Gehenna and Hades as hell. Two different words, one translation (as opposed to hagios pneuma where the KJV translates one Greek name with two different English names, Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit). The NKJV corrects both of these weaknesses by differentiating between Gehenna and Hades while translating the Holy Spirit's name consistently.

23 omissions of "blood",

Wow, Steve. Isn't this a little bit embarassing for you? You continually post lies written by proven liars without checking out the facts!

I found your 23 "omissions", actually 24. On 21 occasions, the NKJV committed the horrindous error of using "bloodshed" instead of blood. Just so you don't miss this refutation I will list these verses: Hebrews 12:4, Exodus 22:2; 3, Deuteronomy 17:8; 22:8, I Samuel 25:26; 33, II Chronicles 19:10, Proverbs 28:17, Isaiah 33:15, Ezekiel 9:9; 22:9; 22:13; 38:22, Hosea 1:4; 4:2(2); 12:14, Joel 3:21, Micah 3:10, Habakkuk 2:12. Once it translates "lifeblood", Genesis 9:5. Once it translates "life", Leviticus 19:16. Once it translates "bloodline", Ezekiel 19:10.

44 omissions of "repent",

Another interesting claim... so I checked it out. The NKJV has repent or some form of the word each time the KJV does in the NT. In the OT, the KJV uses the word repent when referring to an action by God. The NKJV, in due reverence and accurate translation, changes that usage to relent or compassion. Here's an interesting example in which the KJV says God will repent of evil:

[qi]Jer 26:2 Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD'S house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD'S house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word:
3 If so be they will hearken, and turn every man from his evil way, that I may repent me of the evil, which I purpose to do unto them because of the evil of their doings.

[/qi]
The NKJV says relent concerning the calamity thus highlighting God's mercy. Each time the KJV uses repent in the OT relating to men, the NKJV uses repent also except one. In Exodus 13:17 it says "Lest perhaps the people change their minds when they see war, and return to Egypt" rather than "Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt:"

50 omissions of "heaven",

I didn't look as closely at this one since it is getting late and I think I have already demonstrated the worth of your "evidence" but a sampling of the OT revealed that the where the KJV uses heaven to refer to the sky, the NKJV uses heavens. There is only one place in the NT where there is a difference, Revelation 6:14 where the NKJV says, "Then the sky receded as a scroll" and the KJV says "And the heaven departed as a scroll".

51 omissions of "God"

I didn't look them all up. But here is what I did find, the KJV uses God 3894 times, the NKJV 3853 for a difference of 41. On 24 of those occasions, the KJV uses "God" in the phrase "God forbid" which is a dynamic equivalency translation in both the OT and NT. In other words, it doesn't have corresponding Greek and Hebrew... these occurrences represent a departure from the TR. If I have time I will try to get the rest of these later but judging from your track record so far, it would be a waste of time.

and 66 omissions of "Lord".

It's late. I'm tired. I will try to get to the rest of this non-sense tomorrow.

Thanks Steve for your efforts or lack there of but you still haven't proven anything... by your cut and paste plagarism.

 

[neal4christ]

Boy, I noticed Steve sure is good at copying and pasting! I just wish he would read what he is copying and really think on some of it! Stop swallowing every far fetched conspiracy theory about the MVs, Steve.

Neal

 

[Alcott]

Originally posted by KING JAMES AV 1611:
Come on guys tell the truth.I give you documented facts and you don't believe it.Little wonder that you question scripture.

Hey, get this. "Little wonder that [we] question scripture {nonbiblical KJVO doctrine}"... that is equivalent to questioning HIM.

 

[AV Defender]

You labor under the delusions of Riplinger's divine inspiration.

Question,have you ever read her book(truthfuly please)from cover to cover? Or are you just "Aping" what someone else said???

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by JYD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> You labor under the delusions of Riplinger's divine inspiration.

Question,have you ever read her book(truthfuly please)from cover to cover? Or are you just "Aping" what someone else said??? </font>[/QUOTE]Not unless you count the cuts and pastes that you guys have used.

However, I have heard what she said with her own mouth and what she was quoted as saying in a pro-KJVO magazine. She says that "Jesus" gave her the acrostic algebra that supposedly adds NIV+NASV-AV and comes up with the word "sin". She stated in print that the reason she used GA instead of Gail on her book is that GA stands for "God and" Riplinger, God as author and Riplinger as secretary. She goes on to claim that God fed her the text of this book like He fed Elijah by the ravens.

I have also heard one of the "Gail Riplinger" lecture series videos. In it, she preaches to a supposed IFB congregation in Winston-Salem, NC on the versions issue. So much for not allowing a woman to teach or usurp authority over men, huh? I don't know that she presented all the information in her book on this video but her sermon lasted 45-50 minutes and probably covered alot of it.

So to answer question directly, I have not read her book but I am also not ignorant of what she has said and written.

 

[kman]

Originally posted by JYD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> You labor under the delusions of Riplinger's divine inspiration.

Question,have you ever read her book(truthfuly please)from cover to cover? Or are you just "Aping" what someone else said??? </font>[/QUOTE]I haven't her book. But I have heard her debate
with James White where she mentioned the NASV
thing Scotty mentioned.

Listen to the first 15 minutes of this and
explain what in the world Riplinger is talking
about:

http://www.straitgate.com/jw090900.ram

Is this the type of person you go to for clear, bibilical insights??

-kman

 

[rsr]

About the Easter/Ishtar connection: Despite all the electrons wasted on this subject, there appears to be no proven connection.

The English term, according to the Ven. Bede (De temporum ratione, I, v), relates to Estre, a Teutonic goddess of the rising light of day and spring, which deity, however, is otherwise unknown, even in the Edda (Simrock, Mythol., 362); Anglo-Saxon, eâster, eâstron; Old High German, ôstra, ôstrara, ôstrarûn; German, Ostern. April was called easter-monadh.
--The Catholic Encyclopedia

Saying the same thing thousands of times doesn't make it correct.

 

[Ransom]

KING JAMES AV 1611 said:

You guys can't win.
Dr. Mollenkott, one of the literary consultants for the NIV translating committee, is a professed homosexual.

And when she "came out," she was dismissed.

Another notorious homosexual associated with a popular Bible version: King James I of England.

Who fired him?

NIV: 1
KJV: 0

I claim victory.

 

[Ransom]

KING JAMES AV 1611 said:

Come on guys tell the truth.I give you documented facts and you don't believe it.

No, you gave us opinion. Specifically, a lot of Virginia Mollenkott's liberal interpretations of key verses are crucial to your argument. But you conveniently forget to note that her opinion would equally apply to the KJV.

Another snoozer from the desperate KJVers.

 

[Ransom]

KING JAMES AV 1611 said:

2. 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.

This has been answered and refuted so many times it's not funny.

Why don't you people poke your head up out of your hidey hole some time and see what's going on around you?

The triquetra can't be an ancient "666" symbol. It predates the numeral 6.

3. It is estimated that the NKJV makes over 100,000 translation changes, which comes to over eighty changes per page and about three changes per verse!

Great! That means they did their jobs and didn't just slap a new label on an old translation.

 

[Steve K.]

hmmmm blinded the minds of them that believe not.... Oh just thinking. Hey skeptics ,we KJV guys have a word for your explanations to attempt to refute truth. We call it subtil.That's what the Devil is and why I believe the name of God or Jesus or the blood is removed from one verse and stuck in somewhere else in the mv's.That way you can have an arguement.Your manuscripts are corrupt! Proven to be dabbled with by Satanist,sodomites,new agers,etc... You just can't see it because it's a heart issue.It's a final authority issue. Thank God I have one. KJV

 

[Steve K.]

FABLE: The King James Bible was revised several times before 1800, so modern translations are just additional revisions of the original King James Bible of 1611.


FACT: The so-called "revisions" of the King James Bible prior to 1800 were to correct typographical errors, add notes, and omit the Apocrypha from between the Testaments. There were no changes in the actual TEXT of the King James Bible. The REAL changes (over 36,000 of them) didn't start until the modern revisionists came on the scene.


FABLE: The modern translations are more accurate because they have been translated from older and better manuscripts.


FACT: It is truly amazing how so many Christians have bought into this lie without ever checking to see WHAT these manuscripts are, WHERE they came from, and WHO wrote them. It's also strange that no one seems to be asking the question, "Has God honored these 'older' and 'better' manuscripts throughout Church History?"

The modern translations are based on the work of two nineteenth century Greek scholars from England--B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort. Westcott and Hort, who were deeply involved in the occult, hated the Textus Receptus Greek text, from which the King James Bible was translated, so they conjured up THEIR OWN Greek text. This Westcott and Hort Greek text was based primarily on two very corrupt fourth century ROMAN CATHOLIC manuscripts: Codex Vaticanus (discovered in the Pope's library in 1481) and Sinaiticus (discovered in 1859 in a trash can at St. Catherine's monastery on Mt. Sinai). These are usually the "older" and "better" manuscripts that we keep hearing so much about. These manuscripts support most of the attacks in the new versions.

The Vaticanus is considered to be the most authoritative, although it is responsible for over thirty-six thousand changes that appear today in the new versions. This perverted manuscript contains the books of the pagan Apocrypha, which are not scripture; it omits the pastoral epistles (I Timothy through Titus), the Book of Revelation, and it cuts off the Book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14 (a very convenient stopping point for the Catholic Church, since God forbids their priesthood in Hebrews 10!). The attacks on the word of God found in these manuscripts originated in Alexandria, Egypt with the deceitful work of such pagan Greek "scholars" as Origen and Clement of Alexandria. Then in 313 A.D. the Roman emperor Constantine ordered fifty copies of "the Bible" from Eusebius, the Bishop of Caesaria. Eusebius, being a devout student of Origen's work, chose to send him manuscripts filled with Alexandrian corruption, rather than sending him the true word of God in the SYRIAN text from Antioch, Syria. So the corrupt Alexandrian text (also called the "Egyptian" or "Hesychian" type text) found it's way into the Vatican manuscript, then eventually into the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, and finally into the new "Bible" versions in your local "Christian" bookstore. Therefore, when you hear or read of someone "correcting" the King James Bible with "older" or "more authoritative" manuscripts, you are simply hearing someone trying to use a ROMAN CATHOLIC text to overthrow the God-honored text of the Protestant Reformation and the great revivals. God has never honored this corrupt text and He never will.

 

[Steve K.]

But nevertheless, that's where the New American stands in connection with the Authorized Version. I just jotted down what these versions, translations, and paraphrases are doing. Consider:

One, they cause widespread confusion, because everywhere we go people say, What do you think of this; what do you think of that? What do young people think when they hear all of this?

Two, they discourage memorization. Who's going to memorize when each one has a different Bible, a different translation?

Three, they obviate the use of a concordance. Where are you going to find a concordance for the Good News for Modern Man and all these others? You aren't going to find one. If we're going to have a concordance for every one; you're going to have a lot of concordances.

Four, they provide opportunity for perverting the truth. There are all these translations and versions, each one trying to get a little different slant from the others. They must make it different, because if it isn't different why have a new version? If makes a marvelous opportunity for the devil to slip in his perverting influence.

Five, these many translations make teaching of the Bible difficult. And I'm finding that more and more as I go around the country. I mentioned this thing the other night. How could a mathematics professor or instructor teach a certain problem in a class if the class had six or eight different textbooks? How about that? How could you do it?

Six, they elicit profitless argumentation. Because everywhere we go they say this one is more accurate. Which one is more accurate? How do they know? And this is not a reflection against those saying this, because I would have done this a few years ago. In Christian Life magazine I got this. My dear friend, Dr. George Sweeting, president of Moody Bible Institute-one of the sweetest, dearest men you've ever met; he's wonderfully named-he's starting today right down near my home at southern Keswick, and if I'm back by the end of the week I expect to see him and I'm going to talk to him about these things. When he was asked for his recommendation for the New American Standard, he said, 'I like it because it reads freely." You can read it yourself; it's in the ad in various magazines. And he said, "I particularly like it because it's so near to the original." I'm going to say, "Now George, what is the original? Have you seen it?" There isn't any original.
quote from Dr. Logsdon a man on the revision committee for the nasv.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by KING JAMES AV 1611:
hmmmm blinded the minds of them that believe not....

Wait. What did I miss? You posted a bunch of claims. They were refuted citing evidence that even you can verify. You did not check the info out before you posted it and apparently have not since. Who has the blinded mind? Your own words reveal you.

I have a suspicion about you Steve. You aren't reading the whole responses are you? You are like a Jehovah's Witness when they encounter something they weren't trained for, it scares or angers you- you evade and ignore the truth because it runs contrary to what you want to believe.

Oh just thinking.

No. Thinking would go something like this: "I posted a bunch of stuff from Riplinger and these guys proved it wrong... maybe she wasn't divinely inspired after all... maybe I shouldn't trust the KJVO authors after all... maybe I should prove all things and hold to that which is true."

Hey skeptics ,we KJV guys have a word for your explanations to attempt to refute truth.

Attempt implies failure. I didn't fail to prove your statements about the NKJV were false. They are false. I have shown you proof you can verify yourself... any time you repeat this falsehood in the future, you will be lying.

We call it subtil.

There is absolutely nothing subtle about concrete proof.

That's what the Devil is and why I believe the name of God or Jesus or the blood is removed from one verse and stuck in somewhere else in the mv's.

Yep. I can see that conspiracy working out real well for Satan. Out the thousands of references to blood if he can just get a verse swapped her or there primarily in the OT having nothing to do with Christ then the teaching of the blood atonement will be destroyed, right? No. Your accusation is inane.

Your manuscripts are corrupt!

No. Yours are. The "New Age Bible Versions" book you hold in your hands is not the inspired original that GA Riplinger took in dictation from God.

You just can't see it because it's a heart issue.

You're right. The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. A few posts ago you were revelling in this supposed proof you had posted... now having had it completely and resoundingly debunked, you want to turn it into a "heart issue", an issue of emotions. A rather obtuse concession but one worth noting anyway. You said we couldn't win and now you acknowledge we have by returning to emotions, personal attacks, and generalities. You tried specifics and lost.

It's a final authority issue.

Yes it is. I reject you, Riplinger, Gipp, Hyles, Ruckman, et al. as final authorities. You have all proven to be promoters of false doctrine.

KJV

No Steve, the KJV is not your final authority. No where in its pages does it make the claims about itself that you do. No where does it say that God's perfect Word would be preserved only in it. No where does it say that its wording is perfect. No where does it say that God would re-inspire a translation in 1611. No where in its pages does it validate Riplinger as an inspired writer as you have.

All... ALL of your KJVO beliefs come from outside the KJV. They are creations of vain, deceiving men and women.

 

[Ransom]

KING JAMES AV 1611 said:

FABLE:


Oh dear, looks like Steve has run out of steam and gone back to spamming us to oblivion.

I wish the moderators would do something about this waste of bandwidth.

 

[Ransom]

KING JAMES AV 1611 describes the state of the KJV-only union:

hmmmm blinded the minds of them that believe not....

Couldn't agree more.

Hey skeptics ,we KJV guys have a word for your explanations to attempt to refute truth. We call it subtil.That's what the Devil is and why I believe the name of God or Jesus or the blood is removed from one verse and stuck in somewhere else in the mv's.

But I thought they were all taken out? Now you're saying they've just been moved around.

Mind you, that's not true either. But changed premises constitute prima facie evidence that your theories hold no water.

Proven to be dabbled with by Satanist,sodomites,new agers,etc...

Only in the minds of KJV-onlyists.

You just can't see it because it's a heart issue.

No, we can't see it because it is a KJV-only fantasy, inhabiting the same non-existent realm as little green men and Santa Claus.

It's a final authority issue. Thank God I have one.

Your own mind.

 

[Ransom]

KING JAMES AV 1611 said:

One, they cause widespread confusion

Only KJV-onlyists are confused.

Two, they discourage memorization.

You'll have to explain this one to the people in my young adult Sunday school class, who memorized entire books from the NIV.

Three, they obviate the use of a concordance.

The publishers of the exhaustive concordances for the NIV, NASB, and NKJV must not know this.

Where are you going to find a concordance for the Good News for Modern Man and all these others? You aren't going to find one.

What's this concordance doing at the back of my Good News bible, then?

Four, they provide opportunity for perverting the truth.

You can do that much more cheaply with a King James, as you have so amply demonstrated.

Five, these many translations make teaching of the Bible difficult.

Someone forgot to tell our pastors.

Six, they elicit profitless argumentation.

Right. So when are you going to do something about it by very quietly going away?