What's wrong with the NKJV?

Prove it!</font>[/QUOTE]The fact that there is nothing in the Bible that referenced the KJV to be the only correct translation is proof enough.

 

the issue did not come to the forefront until the 50's/60's because almost all saved Christians believed and used the KJB.

Not in Holland, Germany, Spain, most of South America, Africa, and Asia. They all got saved via bibles translated into their own tongue, without ever seeing a KJV.

 

The Bible does teach that inspiration does not only apply to original manuscripts.

Jer 33-36.

 

Three chapters? can you be more specific?

 

Because there are people who would read the false teaching aggressive KJVOs disseminate and might be caught up in this philosophy and vain deceit.

Falsehood needs to be confronted and repudiated, even if the one propagating it is incorrigible.

 

After you answer my original question I will answer your second one.</font>[/QUOTE]OK. I answered your question. How about mine?

 

I would not want to ask you to read 3 whole chapters of the KJB.

So, those chapters detail the fact that God inspired Jeremiah to speak and Baruch penned his words in a scroll. This would be the "precious original manuscript." When he read then to the king, the king took a pen knife cut it up then burned it. OH NO!!! There goes the original manuscript.

BUT wait God was somehow not deturred. He gave Jeremiah the words again. this heretical "double inspiration" resulted in the precious manuscript being destroyed again.

God gave the same text the Jeremiah a THIRD time. This again was destroyed.

Without one original, secondary, or tertiary manuscript we still have exactly what Jeremiah said in the 1611 KJV!

Amazing!!

 

And how does the story from Jeremiah apply to the KJV and not apply to the NASB, NIV, or NKJV? Or for that matter, the Geneva Bible?

 

So answer this question, "Was there a Book which men could hold in my hand in 1605 that was God's word, perfect and without any error?"
</font>[/QUOTE]I would point out that you did not answer my question.

but I will answer yours.

1) Yes</font>[/QUOTE]If they already had a Bible perfect and without any error, why was the KJV necessary? What did the Church of England scholars change to make an errorless, perfect Bible... better?</font>[/QUOTE]Here you go Pure Words...

 

Good question. I believe that just like with the orinals and subsequent Bibles (latin, etc.) the Bible that was perfect at the end of the dark ages was near extintion and God charitably put His words in what He knew would be the international language of the last days. He knew which nations would send missionaries to the africans who were eating each other. He knew that English would be spoken in every corner of the globe. He knew the Philadelphia church age was coming and would center in the USA and England. that is why God put His words in the KJB.

I hope this answers your question...

 

Good question. I believe that just like with the orinals and subsequent Bibles (latin, etc.) the Bible that was perfect at the end of the dark ages was near extintion and God charitably put His words in what He knew would be the international language of the last days. He knew which nations would send missionaries to the africans who were eating each other. He knew that English would be spoken in every corner of the globe. He knew the Philadelphia church age was coming and would center in the USA and England. that is why God put His words in the KJB.

I hope this answers your question... </font>[/QUOTE]So, You're saying that God's perfect Word changes??? Are you saying that something can be God's perfect, errorless words at one moment then be a worthless perversion the next? That directly contradicts your theory about preservation... not to mention mine.

My KJV says: 1Peter 1:24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
(KJV)

I lean toward a dispensational view and am pre-trib/pre-mil but I am not aware of a single passage of scripture that claims that God's perfect Word would change over time for any reason.

If God's Word is forever settled in heaven, how can it change here on earth?

If something is God's true Word at one time, how can it cease to be God's true Word later? Psalms 119:160

[ January 24, 2003, 09:01 PM: Message edited by: Scotty aka Scott J ]

 

So then, we are all agreed:
there is nothing wrong with the nJKV!

Pure Words: Is there a Book which I can hold in my hand today that is God's word, perfect and without any error?

Yes, Brother Pure Words, there is
such a Book. Here is the academic
reference so you can find a copy and
study it:

THE HOLY BIBLE, NEW KING JAMES VERSION
(Thomas Nelson, Inc.; 1982)

I shall refer to it as the nKJV.
The nKJV is the inerrant written word of God
and the Final Authority.

Interesting, the nKJV is the subject of
this topic. How about that, an on-topic
post

[ January 24, 2003, 08:07 PM: Message edited by: Ed Edwards ]

 

You've convinced me, Ed. I no longer believe only the KJV is the word of God and nothing before or after it is. I now believe only the NKJV is the word of God and nothing before or after it is.

Phew, now I don't have to listen to other's trying to tell me that a unicorn is a goat. Both are wrong, the NKJV is correct with wild ox. It is the culmination of the scriptures in these last days because God knew we'd need it in the last part of the 20th century to do missionary work!

Thank you Ed!

 

1 Peter 1:23 (nKJV):

having been born again, not of
corruptible seed but incorruptible,
through the word of God
which lives and abides forever.

This Scripture passage shows the nKJV
witnessing of itself that the nKJV
is the "word of God"

Actually, here "word" refers to the Living
Word of God which is Messiah Jesus.
"Word" here does NOT refer to the written
word of God which is the Holy Bible.
Peter here is speaking of how we were
born again. Were we born again of the
Holy Bible or of Messiah Jesus? That is
a retorical question We were born-again of
Messiah Jesus.

 

I now believe only the NKJV is the word of God and nothing before or after it is.</font>[/QUOTE]Oops
You inserted an only that wasn't in
my message.

BTW, i was looking in the
Contemporary English Version (American
Bible Society, 1995). It has a very
postrib 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3. Diehard
postrib KJVOs could prove their postrib
case easier using the CEV

 

The NKJV is masterpeice of deception, a counterfeit of the KJV.

The source texts are said to be the same basic manuscripts as those used for the KJV, namely the Hebrew Masoretic Text (OT) and the Greek Textus Receptus (NT). However, upon careful examination this is not true. The NKJV translators put in the footnotes of the Study Editions that the source texts also included the corrupt Critical or Minority Text of Westcott and Hort (from which most of the corrupt modern English versions are derived. It is identified as "NU", the "N" meaning The nestle-Almand Text and the "U" standing for the United Bible Society text. Both os these were dependant on the corrupt Vatican and Sinai manuscripts, the same as the Westcott and Hort greek Text of 1881.

Among the translators were nine who were also on the NIV translation team. They used a different translation methodology, however. It was referred to as Dynamic Equivalence (Men's thoughts replacing God's words) a most corrupt translation method.

They succeeded in mutilating the words of God, including the name of God. With over 5,000 changes pertaining to the precious name of Jesus Christ, is evidence enough of their low regard for the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Also on the translation team was a known pro-gay member as well as a self confessed lesbian, hence the replacing of the word "sodomites" with "perveted ones" or "perverted persons" in several OT passages (Deut 23:17, 1 Kings 14: 24 and others) The strong message of disapproval of homsexuality in the KJV is played down in the NKJV

The NKJV also has a pro-Catholic bias. For example in James 5: 16 the NKJV says to "confess your trespasses to one another.". We are called upon to confess our "faults" to one another. trespasses are to be confessed to God alone.

I could go on all day with the corrupt differences.

Suffice it to say the NKJV is not even close to the KJV. It is just another counterfeit bible.

 

Alex,

It is disappointing that, after all your time away, you have not used it to study this issue. You are still calling faithful translations of God's word corrupt. You are still blaming the NKJV for doing what the KJV did (using footnotes to explain or offer variant readings). You are still calling the copies of the word of God corrupt when there is no firm evidence to tell us which of these various copies is corrupt. You tell us there was a progay member and lesbian without identifying them and you repeat the nonsense that the NKJV is soft on homosexuality, something that can be refuted merely be looking at the NKJV. It takes no deep study to prove this wrong.

Why haven't you increased your understanding here? It is not that you have not been confronted with the truth. You have been. Why do you remain so opposed to the word of God?

 

Alex Mullins said:

The NKJV is masterpeice of deception, a counterfeit of the KJV.

So it's pretty good then? Thanks for the endorsement.

 

As in "God forbid" instead of "may it not be" in Romans 3:4 and 10 other NT verses? I'm glad you admitted the KJV translators used "corrupt" translation methods.