What's wrong with the NKJV?

The answer to the original question about the issues KJVO folks have with the "nkjv" is a good one. It goes to the heart of the issue. One must understand that many call themselves KJB Only and really not mean it.

SOME who call themselves KJB Only believe that the TR/Byzantine line of manuscripts are the closest to the 'originals' and the KJB is the 'best' translation of them in English and therefore English speakers should use the KJB. This camp opposes the nkjv becuase in many places it does use the critical/alexandrian/minority text. However, others have made other English tranlsations of TR manuscripts and this type of KJB-Onlyism secretly (you have to go to one of their Bible Colleges like I did to find out) recommends them; but, since there is no market for them they, "stick by the KJB." This position cannot distinguish the forest from the trees. They confuse an evidence/proof for the KJB with the truth about the KJB.

TRUE KJB believers believe that God's people have always had the pure words of God. It went from Greek and Hebrew into old Latin in the first few centuries and then due to the papist persecution history does not clearly record where the pure words of God were untill 1611. They must have been somewhere because of Psalm 12:6-7 but I cannot tell you exactly what they were. Neither can you since we do not have any extant complete copies of them. the 1611 is and was the Bible of the last days. English is now the world language, the KJB is the pinnacle of the English language and the only Book to meet the scriptural requirements its sets for itself. the niv, for example, does not meet its own requirements (See Ps 12:6 in a nutty idiots version then read Mark 1:1-3 and 1 Sam 22:19).

That said, the reason KJB Believers warn against the nkjv is becuase they have changed the words of God.

 

No. I am saying some spirit has messed YOU up. If God wants us to have to study (2 Tim 2:15, not do your best) His words to figure out what a He means when He says "unicorn" then we should study and compare scripture with scripture to get the answer. If God says "Easter" guess what? Even if the "originals" said "pascha" Easter is the correct word. Study to shew thyself approved...

Just because you don't understand what the Bible says does not mean God didn's SAY IT!

[ January 26, 2003, 12:41 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]

 

You doubter! You cannot tell me exactly where they were because *ONLY THE KJV IS THE WORD OF GOD*. What part of "only" do you not understand? Because Psa 12:6-7 is about the KJV, then it was a LIE until 1611 because the KJV didn't exist before 1611. You speak of the Hebrew and the Greek and now even Latin - who cares about all that stuff! Do you have it? Can you read it? You say it was the "word of God" without even seeing it or being able to read it! And which ones? No two agree among themselves, they are ALL corrupt, and the word of God cannot contain mixture of error! Again proving Psa 12:6-7 was a complete lie until 1611.

I am disappointed that you can't accept the plain, pure word of God ("unicorn" and "Easter") but need to find Holy-Spirit-correcting explanations for them, and that you're saying old, dissimilar ("things that are different are not the same"!) Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are also the word of God. Maybe you don't really believe God's word is pure after all.

[ January 24, 2003, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

Exactly. "pascha" is WRONG, only the KJV is correct, finally bringing God's word to mankind in 1611. But earlier you said the old Greek is also God's word, but now you say "Easter" is the correct word, not "pascha". It seems you cannot make up your mind! The KJV speaks of a double-minded man...

But I *know* what God said! He said "Easter" and "unicorn", not "Ishtar" and "goat" like you would have us believe! Don't change the words of God!

 

Brian T puked :

When did I say that?

I SAID that God has always given HIS people His words. Yes, for a short time the originals were the words of God but GOD ALLOWED them to be destroyed. Certainly even a "chosen frozen" calvinist could understand the Sovereignty of God. From what the historical record bears the Bible God used for several hundred years after that was the old latin Bible. Guess what we do not have that one completely anymore either. God did not die He had a plan which culminated in giving the world an English Bible in 1611 as THE final authority for the last days.

 

BrianT saw the light:

Maybe you are not always as stupid as you sound! Ta da! You finally got one right!

 

No I didn't, you are bearing false witness.

When did I say that?

I SAID that God has always given HIS people His words.
</font>[/QUOTE]You said in the Hebrew and Greek! But no two Hebrew or Greek manuscripts are the same! It's nothing but a confusing mess, and God is not the author of confusion. Even you yourself said 'Even if the "originals" said "pascha" Easter is the correct word'. Well I have news for you, "pascha" is a Greek word! Even *you* admit it is wrong! You call something with an error in it "the word of God"?!?

Exactly. Culminated. Better than *everything* previous. Because everything previous, even the Greek as you admit with your comments about "pascha", was imperfect and therefore not the "word of God".

 

Maybe you are not always as stupid as you sound! Ta da! You finally got one right!</font>[/QUOTE]When are you going to see the light? If "pascha" is wrong as you agree, then the Greek was *never* the word of God, for it contained this error. ONLY the KJV is correct, so stop saying the word of God existed before 1611 when it is obvious that it couldn't have.

 

What I am saying is that we do not know what ONE letter of the Original Greek said. I believe it was letter-for-letter perfect. Just like the 1611 AV. What if the original said something different than "pascha?" What if it didn't? WHO KNOWS!!?!? As you pointed out, God is not the author of confusion. I do not waste ONE second worrying about what some LOST mss says when I have the TRUE WORDS of GOD TODAY!!! Why would you?

I was being sarcastic when I said, "IF the original said Pascha ..." I guess that does not come through well in typing.

Regardless of what the lost original Greek said, Easter is still the correct English word there.

I am glad you recognize that when someone runs to "the Greek" they are citing multiple CONFLICTING sources. I do not do that. I believe the 1611 AV is the ONLY truth today.

I did not say that previous generations did not have the words of God. i AM saying that we do not have THOSE Bibles. TODAY we have the KJB. End of story.

 

Pure Words said:

What I am saying is that we do not know what ONE letter of the Original Greek said.

Not one, eh?

There you have it, folks. We can't know for sure that our present Bible is identical to the one the Apostles and prophets penned in even one single letter, according to the KJV-onlyists.

What better evidence do you need that KJV-onlyism is not a position borne of faith, but is in reality nothing but skepticism, doubt, and unbelief?

 

If it said "pascha", it was wrong as you admit. If it didn't, then God's word was not preserved because every Greek manuscript says "pascha". The only possibility is that God's word never existed until 1611 when ALL previous, corrupt 'attempts' were corrected.

I do not worry about it. You brought it up.

Were you also sarcastic when I said " "pascha" is WRONG" and you responded "You finally got one right!"?

Yes, because only the KJV is the word of God, nothing prior *could* be even if we wanted it to be, because everything prior said "pascha".

But the problem here is that "pascha" is not conflicting in the Greek. ALL Greek manuscripts say it. And since it is wrong, God's word never existed until 1611.

You should. What part of "only" do you not understand? ONLY the KJV is God's word. It is the CULMINATION (highest point, best). Thus, all else is inferior and imperfect. And whatever is imperfect cannot be "the word of God" because God is perfect and cannot make mistakes.

Yes, and I am glad I wasn't living prior to 1611 when God was lying to men, with passages like Psa 12:6-7 which obviously could not have been true until 1611.

 

That is a historical FACT! HOW CAN you compare something that exists, the KJB, with something that no LONGER exists?

Not only that, we do not NEED to do that because GOD has preserved His words in the KJB. Why not trust HIM instead of the collective ignorance of modern 'scholarship?'

 

That is a historical FACT! HOW CAN you compare something that exists, the KJB, with something that no LONGER exists?

Well, you do it all the time with the KJV. How can you tell us that the KJV is the inerrant Word of God when you yourself claim you don't know a single letter of what the Biblical authors actually wrote?

Your attempts to cast doubt, skepticism and unbelief are only for the modern versions. Somehow, the KJV is strangely exempt. This is called "special pleading," and is a form of hypocrisy.

It doesn't seem like a terribly profitable enterprise, tempting millions of Bible believers to doubt the Word of God. What's that thing the KJV-onlyists are always reciting? "Yea, hath God said?"

 

Which is precisely why you cannot say with scriptural authority that the KJV is the perfect preservation of God's word. You don't have anything to compare "perfection" to.

Where did God tell us this?

You are trusting "modern scholarship." The only difference is that your scholarship was modern 400 years ago when man did not know as much about language and manuscripts now.

 

You are trusting "modern scholarship." The only difference is that your scholarship was modern 400 years ago when man did not know as much about language and manuscripts now.</font>[/QUOTE]I disagree Pastor Larry. KJVO's don't trust the KJV translators. Their preface to the KJV refutes the premises that KJVO's depend on. The "scholarship" they truly trust in is very recent, as in the last 60-70 years.

I have never seen a KJVO refer to anyone that believed what they believe prior to the SDA Wilkerson. I have started reading "The Fundamentals". The KJVO's share some common premises with the liberals that Torrey et al. repudiated. They both reject what God did in favor of what they presume God did. Both cling to their pre-suppositions in spite of indisputable contradictory evidence. Both taken the pen out of the hands of God's chosen writers and put it into hands of their own choosing without any evidence from those hands that God had done so. Both scoff at lower criticism as unnecessary proofs against what they say is already settled certainty.

Now in many respects, the liberals of 120 years ago came to different conclusions than the KJVO psuedo-fundamentalists today but there are similarities... and both endanger(ed) true fundamental Christianity.

The thing they most share in common is blatant disrespect for God's Word and the overwhelming evidence preserved for us.

 

1) Dean Burgon.

2) Almost no SDA today are KJVO. But even if they were it doesn't make them wrong about THAT issue. Catholics are against abortion. Does that mean that everyone who is pro-life is a papist? Or that real Christians should be pro-abortion?

3) I am surprised that no one mentions that the Mormons use (not believe) the KJV and many Pentacostals are KJVO.

It does not detract from the truth in one iota.

 

The word unicorn is EXACTLY what God wanted them to use.

In TODAY's language, a unicorn is a mythical animal. Therefore, the language of the KJV is outdated. Therefore, it is not the best translation for this day. It may have been for 1611, but it is not for 2011.

 

What I am saying is that we do not know what ONE letter of the Original Greek said.

Neither, then, would the KJV translators have known what one letter of the Original Greek said. So to place faith in the KJV over the original texts (whether or not the original texts exists) means you're putting faith in something besides God's origninal Bible, which is unbiblical.

 

Burgon was NOT KJV-only. He was a Bible corrector. He said "we hold that a revised edition of the Authorized Version of our English Bible, (if executed with consummate ability and learning,) would at any time be a work of inestimable value." (THE REVISION REVISED, p. 114).