Featured The KJV has been Preserved more Perfectly than Human Possibility.

I have seen these false accusations that bear false witness before. You are being misinformed, and you jump to wrong conclusions. A KJV edition, a Family and Library Reference Edition published by Good News Publishers (with a 1968 copyright date by Royal Publishers) has a page of historic Christian symbols that are also used on its border designs and other special pages. These symbols include a symbol for the Trinity. Did the publisher of the 1982 NKJV possibly or likely get the idea of using a symbol for the Trinity from an earlier edition of the KJV? You and other KJV-only advocates also ignore and avoid the truth that the publishers of the NKJV stated how they used the symbol for the Trinity.

Just because a symbol may have been used by others with a different meaning is not actually proof that is its meaning as used by the NKJV’s publisher Thomas Nelson. Can knowledge of the publisher’s own actual meaning for its symbol be gained? In its 1991 KJV-NKJV Parallel Bible, Thomas Nelson identified its logo on the NKJV’s title page as “an ancient symbol for the Trinity.” The publisher maintained that its triquetra “comprises three interwoven arcs, distinct yet equal and inseparable, symbolizing that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct yet equal Persons and indivisibly one God.” Therefore, this publisher has clearly stated and identified its authentic meaning determined for its use of this symbol. Gary Zeolla maintained that “the triquetra is not an ‘image’ of God that people create to worship” and that “it is a symbol used to illustrate a very difficult theological concept” (Differences Between Bible Versions, p. 192). Dean Moe wrote: “The triquetra is a three-pointed trinangular figure portraying the ‘three-in-one’ of the Trinity” (Christian Symbols Handbook, p. 32). In KJV-only seeming attempts to smear the NKJV by use of a guilt-by-association argument, do KJV-only advocates ignore the possibility that the same symbol can be used with different meanings just as the same word can be used with different meanings? How does this symbol have any bearing on the accuracy or inaccuracy of the translating in the NKJV? For example, should the symbol or token of a rainbow (Gen. 9:13) be considered to have the same meaning for believers as it may have for many unbelievers or pagans?

Would KJV defenders use the same measures and condemn the KJV if a publisher included any symbol or symbols for God? Did the first 1611 edition of the KJV have any symbols or images to depict God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, or the Trinity? Laurence Vance acknowledged that “the engraved title page depicts the Trinity in the upper panel in the form of the Divine Name, a dove, and a lamb” (King James, His Bible, p. 55). Gordon Campbell maintained that “the godhead is represented by symbols rather than pictorial representation” (Bible, p. 100). Concerning the engraved 1611 title page, Alister McGrath maintained that “the upper panel depicts the Trinity in a conventional style” (In the Beginning, p. 207). McGrath noted that “the ‘lamb and flag’ is generally interpreted as a symbol of the resurrection of the crucified Christ” (p. 209). Benson Bobrick affirmed that the 1611 title page depicted “the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove” (Wide as the Waters, p. 252). At the bottom of the title page of the 1611 KJV, Geddes MacGregor observed that it has “a traditional symbol of the redeeming work of Christ, especially in the Eucharist--a pelican ‘vulning’ herself, that is, wounding herself with her beak to feed her young with her own blood” (Literary History, p. 205). Concerning the 1611 title page, Derek Wilson asserted that “an interesting feature is the inclusion of Catholic imagery” (People’s Bible, p. 123). Gordon Campbell claimed: “The figure of Peter is strikingly Catholic: not only is he the sole possessor of the keys (whereas on the Coverdale cover all apostles have been issued with keys), but he is paired with Paul on either side of the godhead, which is the normal arrangement in Catholic altarpieces” (Bible, pp. 100-101). Derek Wilson noted: “The apostles are shown with the traditional symbols of their martyrdom and, at the foot of the page, there is a drawing of a pelican in her piety (a heraldic device depicting a pelican feeding her young with her own blood), which Catholic convention employed to represent the sacrifice of Christ in the mass” (People’s Bible, p. 123). Steve Halla wrote: “Boel’s choice of iconography reflects King James’s desire for Christian unity by combining both traditional ‘Catholic’ iconography, such as Peter and Paul and the Pelican feeding its young, with iconography distinctly reflective of Protestant iconoclastic sensibilities” (Neste, KJV400, p. 119). Alister McGrath observed: “There is a curious irony to this symbol. In the Middle Ages, the image of a pelican came to be linked with the Lord’s Supper or Mass, especially with the medieval ecclesiastical feast of Corpus Christi” (In the Beginning, p. 210). Benson Bobrick maintained that the 1611 title page has “a pelican (symbol of Christ) shown feeding her young with blood from her own breast” (Wide as the Waters, p. 252).

 

Would KJV-only advocates use the same measures and condemn the 1611 KJV if its publisher used any pagan symbols or images in it? At Psalm 141 and 1 Peter 3, the 1611 edition of the KJV has an initial letter with a figure of the Greek god Pan. In the initial letter for Matthew 1 and Revelation 1, the 1611 KJV has an illustration with the Roman god Neptune with sea horses. At Romans 1, the 1611 edition of the KJV has an initial letter with a naked, sprouting nymph Daphne. It may be that some of the initial letters in the original 1611 KJV edition with mythological scenes may be from the same source as those used in an edition of the Bishops’ Bible. T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule suggested that some of the ornamental initials in the 1611 resemble “those used in folio editions of the Bishops’ Bible” (Historical Catalogue, I, p. 135). In introductory articles in Hendrickson’s reprint of the 1611 KJV, Alfred Pollard pointed out: “In the New Testament two of the mythological ten-line set, the use of which in the Bishops’ Bible had justly been censured, reappear at the beginning of Matthew and Romans” (p. 45, footnote 2). John Eadie affirmed that the printers of the 1611 used some of “the same head pieces, woodcuts, and other embellishments, which had appeared in the Bishops’” (English Bible, II, p. 291). Eadie pointed out that “the figure of Neptune with his trident and horses, which appears so often in the Bishops’, stands at the beginning of Matthew” (p. 291). H. W. Hoare noted that the figure “of Neptune with his trident and horses was borrowed from the Bishops’ Bible” (Evolution, pp. 274-275). William Loftie affirmed that “the figure of Neptune, which in the largests of the Bishops’ was made frequently available, now headed the gospel of St. Matthew” [in the 1611] (Century of Bibles, p. 6). The initial letters can be seen in the large 1611 digital reproduction by Greyden Press, in the 2010 reprint of the 1611 by Oxford University Press, and in the 2011 reprint by Zondervan, but the 1611 reprints in Roman type published by Thomas Nelson or Hendrickson Publishers do not have them. David Norton has a page of illustrations that included three initials from the 1611 in his book, and he asserted that it is unlikely that the KJV translators approved of their use (Textual History, pp. 51-52). Gordon Campbell wrote: “The initials portraying Daphne and Neptune had been used in the Bishops’ Bible, and had attracted censure from some quarters, so their reuse must have been deliberate. In any case, there was no reason for the translators to disapprove” (Bible, p. 101). Donald Brake commented: “Many consider it a mystery why the King James translators, all ministers of the gospel, allowed pagan images to illustrate the initial letters of God’s Word. While readers today might consider depictions of mythological images contrary to the biblical message, the translators likely did not view them as a threat to Christian belief” (Visual History of the KJB, pp. 179-180). Donald Brake asserted that the 1611’s initial letter at Hebrews 1 is a “demonic face with bat wings” (p. 178). Brake maintained that the 1611’s initial letter at 2 Corinthians 1, Galatians 1, Philippians 1, 2 Thessalonians 1, Philemon 1, and 1 Peter 1 is “two demons depicted with horns and pitchforks” (p. 179). In addition, the 1611 KJV edition referred to the signs of the Zodiac in its calendar: “Sol in Aquario” (p. xvii), “Sol in Piscibus” (p. xviii), “Sol in Aries” (p. xix), “Sol in Tauro” (p. xx), “Sol in Gemini” (p. xxi), etc.

Some publishers have printed editions of the KJV with lodge or masonic symbols on the cover, title page, or presentation pages. Some examples of these would be a 1928 edition printed by Oxford University Press, a 1940 edition printed by A. J. Holman, a 1941 edition printed by A. J. Holman, a 1946 edtion by the National Bible Press, a 1949 edition by John A. Hertel, an undated edition by World Publishing Company, and an undated edition printed by the Oxford University Press with lessons of the Order of the Eastern Star. The 1928 Oxford KJV edition has a masonic symbol [a square & compass with a G in the middle] on its cover and on presentation pages. The 1940 A. J. Holman KJV edition also has this same masonic symbol on its front cover and on presentation pages.

 

I know what the accurate term KJV-only means.
Perhaps you show that you do not know what it means since you try to deny being KJV-only while posting typical KJV-only claims and accusations.

I have carefully studied and examined KJV-only reasoning and teaching, even more so than a majority of KJV-only authors.

Since the KJV is an English Bible translation, the term KJV-only would be used soundly and correctly to describe a certain view or teaching concerning English Bible translations, not concerning Bible translations in other languages. The accurate term KJV-only is used by Bible believers to define and describe any view that accepts or makes some type of exclusive claims for only one English Bible translation—the KJV.

Holders of a KJV-only view would in effect attempt to suggest, assume, or claim that the KJV is the word of God in English in some different sense than any other English translation is the word of God in English. While perhaps admitting the fact that the KJV is a translation, holders of a KJV-only view attempt in effect to treat the KJV as though it is in a different category than all other English translations or as though it is not a translation in the same sense (univocally) as other English Bibles. In practice, KJV-only advocates accept no other English Bible as being the word of God translated into English in the same exact sense (univocally) that they would claim only or solely for the KJV. In typical KJV-only reasoning/teaching, no other English Bible is accepted as equal in authority to the KJV as a translation.

It is not reading only the KJV that would be considered to constitute a KJV-only view. Reading only the KJV would not identify the person’s view or beliefs concerning the KJV. It is not using only the KJV in teaching or preaching that would be considered to constitute a KJV-only view. It is not preferring the KJV that constitutes a KJV-only view. What is soundly considered to constitute a KJV-only view would concern a person’s beliefs, opinions, and claims concerning the KJV (his exclusive only claims for it), not his reading only it or using only it in teaching or preaching. Someone can accept the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Textus Receptus and still be KJV-only if they also make any exclusive, only claims for this one English translation--the KJV or if they believe it to be the word of God in English in a different sense than any other English Bible translation. If someone in effect makes the inconsistent textual criticism decisions involved in the making of the KJV the determiner of the Hebrew OT text and Greek NT text, it would indicate the holding of a KJV-only view. Someone can consult the Hebrew or Greek texts for clarification and study and still be KJV-only if they also believe or make any exclusive claims for only one English translation—the KJV. Someone can read and consult concordances, Bible dictionaries, and commentaries and still be KJV-only. Someone can read another English Bible in order to criticize it and still be KJV-only. KJV-only defines and describes any person who makes any exclusive only claim for one English translation—the KJV. Any view that suggests or implies perfection, inerrancy, or inspiration for the KJV and any view that supposes or assumes that its translating is the word of God in a different sense (equivocally) than any other English Bible could accurately be described as KJV-only. The subjective opinion or unproven assumption that the KJV alone is a perfect English translation or that the KJV is the final authority would definitely be a form of KJV-only view. The subjective opinion that the KJV is the only faithful and true English translation would also qualify as being a KJV-only view since it involves believing or accepting an exclusive, only claim for this one English translation.

It does not refer to a vague stereotype as you incorrectly allege.

 

The fact that I soundly identify KJV-only reasoning, opinions, and claims as being KJV-only does not at all demonstrate any obsession. You fail to refute my accurate statements.

My focus is on the truth; therefore, I soundly disagree with misleading, incorrect, non-true, and non-scriptural KJV-only opinions.

You can choose to believe accusations and claims against the NKJV that are not true, and thereby, you deceive yourself by believing those claims that are not true.

 

If only you were man enough to read John William Burgon for yourself! He was not KJVOnly, and you would certainly learn from the experience.

 

You are KJVOnly. Read the Revision Revised by Burgon. He can help you.

 

I know of many incorrect, non-true, and non-scriptural KJV-only opinions including some that you state and post.

Non-true and non-scriptural only claims for only one 1611 and post-1611 English Bible translation [the KJV] are KJV-only.

Your suggestion or claim that the KJV has "the imprimatur of Divinity" would be one example since you would seem to deny that the NKJV and other post-1611 English Bibles have the same thing.

Your inconsistent, misleading, unjust accusations against the NKJV suggest KJV-only reasoning on your part. Your posts demonstrate that you will not apply the same exact measures/standards to the translation decisions involved in the making of KJV as you inconsistently and thus unjustly seek to apply to the NKJV. According to Scripture as translated in the KJV, the use of divers measures [different and thus double standards] would be an abomination to the LORD.

 

You do not demonstrate that you agree with the non-TR-only and non-KJV-only assertions of John William Burgon. Your view is different from Burgon's.

John William Burgon wrote: "Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any means, claim perfection for the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out that the Textus Receptus needs correction" (The Revision Revised, p. 21, footnote 3). John William Burgon maintained that “in not a few particulars, the ‘Textus receptus’ does call for Revision” (p. 107). Burgon wrote: “That some corrections of the Text were necessary, we are well aware” (p. 224, footnote 1). Burgon himself asked: “who in his senses, --what sane man in Great Britain, --ever dreamed of regarding the ‘Received,‘ --aye, or any other known ‘Text,‘ --as a standard from which there shall be no appeal? Have I ever done so? Have I ever implied as much? If I have, show me where” (p. 385). Dean Burgon himself asserted: “If, on the contrary, I have ever once appealed to the ‘Received Text,‘ and made it my standard, --why do you not prove the truth of your allegation by adducing in evidence that one particular instance?“ instead of bringing against me a charge which is utterly without foundation (p. 388). Burgon asked: “Who, pray, since the invention of printing was ever known to put forward any existing Text as ‘a final standard’?“ (p. 392). Burgon asserted: “So far am I from pinning my faith to it [the Textus Receptus], that I eagerly make my appeal from it to the threefold witness of Copies, Versions, Fathers, whenever I find its testimony challenged” (Ibid.). Burgon as edited by Edward Miller asserted: “I am not defending the ‘Textus Receptus’” (Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, p. 15). Burgon added: “That it is without authority to bind, nay, that it calls for skillful revision in every part, is freely admitted. I do not believe it to be absolutely identical with the true Traditional Text” (Ibid.). Burgon asserted: “Where any part of it conflicts with the fullest evidence attainable, there I believe that it calls for correction” (Ibid.). Edward Miller concluded that the Traditional Text advocated by Dean Burgon would differ “in many passages” from the Textus Receptus (p. 96).

In the introduction to another of Burgon’s books, Edward Miller asserted: “The Traditional Text must be found, not in a mere transcript, but in a laborious revision of the Received Text” (Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text, p. 1). In 1864, Burgon maintained that “the accumulated evidence of the last two centuries has enabled us to correct it [the Textus Receptus] with confidence in hundreds of places” (Treatise on the Pastoral Office, p. 69). Burgon noted: “GOD has not seen fit to work a succession of miracles for the protection even of His Word” (p. 64). Burgon claimed: “To some, it may seem a matter of regret that a perpetual miracle has not guarded the ispissma verba of the Spirit; but the wiser will judge differently” (p. 77). Burgon asserted: “From the very nature of the case, he who transcribes a MS. must fall into error sometimes” (p. 66). John William Burgon maintained “that the number of various readings in the New Testament properly so called has been greatly exaggerated,” and he asserted that “in reality they are exceedingly few in number” (Causes of the Corruption, p. 16; Green, UnHoly Hands, I, p. B-5). Burgon asserted: "Let it be also candidly admitted that even where (in our judgment) the Revisionists have erred, they have never had the misfortune seriously to obscure a single feature of Divine Truth" (Revision Revised, p. 232). Burgon as edited by Edward Miller wrote: “It may be regarded as certain that most of the aberrations discoverable in the Codexes of the Sacred Text have arisen in the first instance from the merest inadvertency of the scribes” (Causes of the Corruption, p. 21). John William Burgon wrote: “The Greek text ordinarily in use is that of Stephens, put forth at Paris in 1550” (Treatise on the Pastoral Office, p. 69). John William Burgon wrote: “The Greek text, as we have it in any ordinary edition, (that of Bp. Lloyd, for example, who reproduced that of Mill (1707), which is very nearly that of Stephens (1550),) is known to be generally correct, --quite correct enough for all practical purposes” (p. 70).

Edward Miller noted: “Dean Burgon has incurred much misrepresentation. He does not maintain the faultlessness of the Received Text” (Guide to the Textual Criticism, p. 33). Glenn Conjurske maintained that KJV defenders “have read Burgon without half understanding him—though indeed he is not hard to understand—and have coupled his protest with the most invincible ignorance and the most arrogant prejudice. And they have crippled Burgon’s protest, by saddling it with a host of the most baseless of fictions” (Olde Paths, April, 1995, p. 75; Bible Version, p. 156). Glenn Conjurske asserted that the stand of the Dean Burgon Society “is far away from anything which Burgon held” (May, 1996, p. 100). Glenn Conjurske observed that Burgon “believed that there were inaccuracies and mistranslations in the King James Version and that the Revised Version remedied some of them” (p. 102). Conjurske contended that “in our own generation there are a great many who suppose that they hold Burgon’s view, but who in fact hold a view which Burgon had nothing to do with” (Bible Version, p. 165). Glenn Conjurske maintained that “Burgon never applied his doctrine to any printed Greek New Testament, nor to any single manuscript, but held that the true text was dispersed in all the manuscripts, to be ferreted out and established by patient and painstaking labor, to which he gave much of his life” (Ibid., p. 166).

 

You use false KJVOnlyist sources, who lie. Since you spread the falsewitnesses of KJVOnlyist, that makes you KJVOnly.

 

The problem with generalizations one or many can be wrong. Specifics need to be dealt with, one at a time.

 

Wrong. Your opinion is incorrect. You continue to make false accusations and jump to wrong conclusions concerning the NKJV. You cite and quote false accusations made by unreliable, biased KJV-only sources against the NKJV. You fail to apply the same exact measures/standards consistently and justly.

The truth remains that the NKJV is a genuine, real, sufficient, true English Bible translation in the same sense (univocally) as the KJV is a genuine, real, sufficient, true English Bible translation.

The NKJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the KJV is the word of God translated into English.
The NKJV is both a revision (of the KJV) and a Bible translation in the same way (univocally) that the KJV is both a revision (of the pre-1611 English Bibles) and a Bible translation.

Your posts show that you suggest that the NKJV is an English Bible translation in a different sense (equivocally) than the KJV is, which would demonstrate KJV-only reasoning on your part.

 

The Church of England makers of the KJV consulted and were influenced by the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate of Jerome. They used Hebrew--Latin lexicons and Greek-Latin lexicons that often had renderings from Jerome's Latin Vulgate as their definition of Hebrew OT words or as their definition of Greek NT words. The Church of England makers of the KJV borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament that is translated from the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate of Jerome.

Do you condemn the KJV for all its associations and connections to the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate?

 

None of those bogus accusations against the NKJV are true. Adding up several false accusations does not make them become true.

You disobey the scriptures by making or repeating a false report or by bearing false witness.