Sunday, June 10, 2012

1611 Authorized King James Bible vs. Alexandrian Text: A Brief HIstory

"KJV Only" is an error where they tell you the KJV is "new inspiration" but I thought this video was interesting in showing the differences between Bible versions. I always stick with the KJV myself:

42 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is a very informative video - well done.

The New King James Version also uses the Textus Receptus.

There is nothing holy about using "thees" and "thous" and the King's English.

I personally prefer the NKJV and have found it to the best of my knowledge although I don't pretend to be any Bible scholar, true to the KJV in matters of sound doctrine.

We don't speak to one another in King's English or use archaic terms that need special clarification.

i do not use other modern translations and paraphrases. Most of them are corruptions of the original text and those that are "acceptable" such as the NASV don't have the readability, clarity and kinship to the Authorized Version in my opinion.

christian cerna said...

i use the ESV myself. And when I was a new believer, I did find that the NLT version helped me to understand the basic principles of the New Testament message. However, I also am now weary of the continual changes and updates that are being made to these translations. Most of the time the changes seem unnecessary, and make it difficult to study the bible with others who do not use the same translation. I often wonder if one of the reasons for the lack of unity in the Church, is that fact that everyone reads and interprets doctrine from a different bible translation.

christian cerna said...

Personally, I think the ASV translation is the most beautiful sounding translation. It is pretty much the KJV, with some spelling changed to reflect American English. Not surprisingly, since it is in the public domain, you won't find book publishers who will touch it. It's sad that such a beautiful translation will never be read by most people, simply because there is not much money to be made from it.

Anonymous said...

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/american_standard_version_expose.htm

See the above.

The ASB changes and deletes phrases from the Textus Receptus. So, while it may be beautiful sounding, if it adds to and takes away from the Textus Receptus, it cannot be trusted.

Anonymous said...

The NIV, ESV, NASB, NKJV, ASV, NLT, and pretty much every other "modern" version, come from Westcott/Hort, who weren't even believers. They took a manuscript found in the trash, and used it, and that became the versions I stated above. It has some changed and missing verses.

A person might complain about the "thees" and "thous", however, the reason that the KJV uses those "old" words, is because in Hebrew and Greek, they have singular and plural for "you". Whereas modern English does not, but these "old" words cover that, so you know when a "you" is singular or plural. I think that is pretty awesome.

And since the KJV comes from the Received Text, then it is 100% perfect for that reason.

Anonymous said...

The last "Anonymous" is incorrect about the NKJV. It was NOT a creation by Westcott/Hort who DID corrupt the Word.

This link gives an excellent comparison between the NKJV and the NAS. http://www.justbible.org/

What I like about the NKJV is that it capitalizes pronouns referring to Deity while the KJV does not.

Also, it should be pointed out that the KJV with the King's English cannot be used on the mission field in many instances due to not being suitable for translation. For instance in Spanish-speaking countries one cannot use the KJV while giving the Gospel message while the NKJV will. Most evangelical missionaries in Spanish-speaking countries prefer the Reina-Valera.
The archaic language and the "thees" and "thous" of the KJV do not translate into Spanish.

Jeremy W. said...

I completely agree with the post at 9:25 and I have come to trust the KJB as the best English translation. I like that it is not copyrighted and can be freely reproduced. New Versions must make changes because of copyrights.

The use of "thee" and "ye" over "you" in the new translations makes a difference. You does not denote if it is singular or plural and it absolutely does effect Bible doctrines.

Here is one such example.
Gen. 12:3 NKJV I will bless those who bless you,
And I will curse him who curses you;
And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

NASB 3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

All of the new versions you can not distinguish if it is singular or plural with the "YOU" Note this verse is often used in politics to financially support a country or race of people. But is that what the verse really means?

Gen 12:3 KJB 3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Notice it is the singular use of thee. Paul confirms this in Galatians 3:16

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

So the thee is Jesus Christ who all "thee" on earth are blessed by. This above is just one example. What about this one "you are the body of Christ?" Is that you singular or plural?

Anonymous said...

The NKJV is from Wescott/Hort, so whoever said it isn't, is wrong.

Anonymous said...

In essence Jeremy W. is saying that it is impossible for Spanish-speaking people to get the Word of God since the KJV is not translatable into Spanish? And how many other languages that the King's English is incompatible with?

The comparisons made are so minor and do not affect the basic message of the Gospel. It is commonly pointed out by KJV onlyists that if the "thees" and "thous" are tinkered with it results in error.

Yes, KJV is public domain and the NKJV is not, but eventually the copyright laws will expire on the NKJV also. It is unfortunate that we must deal with the "real" world of publishing which is not a charity or a nonprofit, but operates as a business. One has to purchase a KJV Bible - they are not free unless received from a ministry such as the Gideons or other ministries that distribute Bibles free of charge.

If one wants to get "picky" one can find issues with the KJV but I don't like to "go there". In fact, some of the renderings in the NKJV are clearer than in the KJV. But it is not necessary to make a war out of this. Let's use both. One for poetic, elegant speech and the other for plain English.

I say rule out all others on general principle - paraphrases and dynamic equivalency types.

simonshawnandrews said...

nkjv is a corrupted bible. It uses the textus receptus but also texts that are considered corrupt like the vaticanus.
see:
http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/nkjvtext.asp

simonshawnandrews said...

nkjv is a corrupted bible. It uses the textus receptus but also texts that are considered corrupt like the vaticanus.
see:
http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/nkjvtext.asp

Bible Believer said...

I used to own a NKJV, just didn't like it, saw with my own eyes too many changes, though far more subtle then NIV.

I am not a KJV Onlyist that preaches it is new inspiration etc, but there are definitely changes in many new Bible versions that are suspect.

I do not know what is best Spanish Bible, I supposed they would have Spanish translations of the KJV but historically Spain being under Rome's yoke so long, this is probably a new development. The true Bibles of other languages, probably came through the same uncorrupted path of KJV.

I have seen weird Bible versions like KJV 2000, etc, all very different changes.

I do not know much about ASV, that is pretty much still KJV right as you said Christian Cerma?

Couldn't the Spanish do what we had to do? Learn what thee and thou mean? We all read YOU ourselves when we see those words. They could have it translated to tu' easily enough. I really consider that a side issue if it all means the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou

The commenter does have a point about the singular and plural, I do think that PART MATTERS.

I understand that we are not reading pure 16ll versions today of the KJV, no "fs' for the "s's", if you know what I mean there.

I think when the context and substance is changed and verses taken out, that is the main problem with all the Bible versions and facts they are translated from Vatican Bibles etc.

When I was newly saved I spent time comparing a NAB [Catholic Bible] and KJV, it was night and day. I can't even stand to hear or read the NIV and NKJV is LESS objectionable then NIV and other versions but I still saw some problems with it.

Bible Believer said...

I believe one can be born again and have a "bad" Bible. So do not want to be legalistic here...

However it seems the Holy Spirit would lead one to the KJV [for English speakers] or at least a version that was truthful or show a person these things as they grow in the faith.

How did I know to go get a KJV, within weeks of salvation? I mean back then I KNEW nothing. I wasn't even in a new church. That was something I believe God led me on.

I remember hearing NIV very early on, new believers Bible study with this one other independent church and it just sounded "off".

That said there is enough verses even in bad Catholic Bible, to be born again and get "some truth". I read Hebrews and Romans from Catholic Bible while still Catholic and knew something wasn't adding up.

Bible Believer said...

Simon that is interesting so the NKJV is a mixture of the Textus Receptus and other corrupt ones like Vaticanus. I felt like it was a lower level corrupt Bible, like there are far worse ones.

The Message and NLT, and Jehovah Witness BIbles are pretty bad. NAB in the foot notes--the ones Catholic use have foot notes that tell you not to believe in Scripture contains the Apocrypha.

I wouldn't doubt they have differnet levels of BIble corruption.

Jeremy W. said...

Anonymous at June 12 9:25 I think you miss the point. If one could read the original Hebrew or Greek this would be clearly the best. I speak English and we are talking about "ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS." So for you to make up a comment about those who read Spanish not having the word of God is clearly a straw man argument you have made to knock down.

Having to purchase a bible unless given by the Gideons does NOT deal with copyright. For instance: a printing company prints Bibles and sells them. The KJB not being copyrighted means they do not have to pay royalties to those who own the copyright such as Rupert Murdoch for example.

Anonymous I would agree with you that the thees and thous do not effect the BASIC message of the bible. I refer to my above post that it does effect doctrines though.

I can not speak Greek or Hebrew but constantly look words up in lexicons concordances for better understanding. I am simply saying that I have grown to trust the KJB the best upon my own research.

I began by reading the NIV (a dynamic equivelant) and moved to the KJV. One thing I can declare is when I switched that was when understanding came and when fruit began to grow in my life.

christian cerna said...

I would think that the KJV would be ideal for translation into Spanish. The 'ye' can be translated 'ustedes' or 'vosotros'. And the 'thee' can be translated 'tu'.

I believe the original Reina Valera bible is just as accurate as the KJV, because the Spanish language does have a plural and singular form of 'you'- as do most latin languages, like French, Italian, and Portuguese.

And yes, the ASV is almost exactly the same as the KJV. You can check it out at youversion.com

Marion said...

976 – Thomas Nelson Publisher initiated the New King James Version. (Thomas Nelson History)

"Two meetings of the North American Overview Committee met at Nashville and Chicago in 1975 to assist in preparing guidelines for the NKJV. Members of that committee and a Nashville Convocation of 1984 included the following high profile members of the Religious Roundtable and Council for National Policy: Tim LaHaye, D. James Kennedy, Jerry Falwell, Ben Haden, Mary C. Crowley, W.A. Criswell, E.V. Hill, Henry Morris, Bill Bright and Charles Stanley." (NKJV Translators)

ABOUT THE CNP
The Council for National Policy is a 500+ member consortium of globalists, cults, secret societies, subversive organizations, corporate enterprise and evangelical ministries. Membership of the CNP is comprised of high profile evangelical leaders who establish “conservative” policies and the evangelical agenda in collaboration with Knights of Malta, Opus Dei, Freemasons, Moonies, CFR members, Klu Klux Klan officials, former Nazis and Nazi collaborators, neo-Nazis, Roman Catholics, and members of the Eugenics societies. For understanding of the globalist character of this organization, the reader is referred to the following in-depth reports:

the CNP
http://watch.pair.com/cnp.html#cnp

past/present prominent member of the CNP
http://watch.pair.com/database.html

(referral to and use of any link is not an endorsement of any person, group of "ministry" - informational purposes only)

Anonymous said...

Every language has a good Bible. So the straw man of "oh someone needs to speak English to have the a good Bible in KJV?" is just that, a straw man. Spanish has the Reina Valera. We're not talking about Spanish or any other language anyway. We're talking about English. So these enemies of the KJV always build these dumb straw men.

news4themasses said...

http://www.kjvonly.org/other/demystify.htm "Third, the man who compiled the first edition of the TR was Erasmus, a Dutch humanist. Except for the TR, we fundamentalists have not used any of Erasmus' works, even though he was the most famous scholar of his day. Although he attacked many practices of the Roman Catholic Church, he did not leave it and join with the Protestant Reformation. He even dedicated the first edition of the TR to Pope Leo X! Furthermore, in his attempt to compile the best Greek text, he sometimes followed the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate instead of the Greek manuscripts available to him because of public pressure." END of Quote. I'm not against KJV, I'm not legalistic about it although I use the KJV and a NASB for my studies and I've already received many links to support TR, I also checked into the origins of TR, ie Erasmus. In the end those scriptures that cut through the marrow of your soul should be the ones you apply to your life. Non-believers/Unsaved have reason enough to not read the bible, then we go and give them 1000 reasons more.

Jeremy W. said...

Going back and reading through here I must confess I made an innocent mistake but a mistake none the less. Forgive me for I wrongfully copy and pasted the KJV of Gen. 12:3 and credited the NASB with the rendering.

To clarify and rectify it, the NASB actually reads this way.

Gen. 12:3 And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who [a]curses you I will [b]curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.”

Anonymous said...

This whole discussion is really getting divisive and unproductive and unfruitful.

Bible Believer correctly points out that God has preserved the verses necessary for salvation throughout the various corruptions, etc.

So I guess that we should all go around speaking to one another, saying for instance, "How art thou today"? or "Doest thou worketh at thy labor?". Puleeze. I understand God's Word is sacred and the original manuscripts are important, but it seems some people concentrate more on making an issue of defending the KJV and tearing apart instead of actually using the Bible or even reading it!!

If one finds the King's English distracting and unnatural, then use the NKJ. It won't corrupt you or anyone else. There are far more important things to be concerned about such as the TRULY corrupted blasphemous Message or the dynamic equivalancy versions or the paraphrases such as the NLT.

Of course there is no copyright on the KJV. It was written before such laws even existed. Today in the real world we have laws and copyright laws have to be in place for a certain time period. It is the law. And if one really wants to get picky, there are verses in the KJV that are not rendered as well as they are in the NKJ and there are flaws in the KJV.

Read the KJV if you like, but don't beat up on those who happen to find the NKJ a better tool to study God's Word.

Anonymous said...

Here's an example of an error in the NKJV that affects SALVATION:

Matthew 7:14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

It is not "difficult". It is narrow and straight. Narrow since Jesus is the only way, and straight because you must go through Him.

Not "difficult" as the NKJV says. That's a false gospel. And when I saw that in the NKJV years ago, I tossed my NKJV in the garbage and never bought another, and I never will again.

My KJV is what I most often use. I also have an Americanized KJV that uses American English:

http://www.google.com/search?q=sword+bible+easy+reader&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb#q=sword+bible+easy+reader&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbo=u&tbm=shop&source=og&sa=N&tab=wf&ei=oxLZT4zYH4fq9AST5qjNAw&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=e6814ef3afc206bf&biw=1366&bih=627

So there's the KJV in American English, for those that complain so much :)

Anonymous said...

Last anon,

The NAS renders Matt. 7:14 this way:
14 For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it

So it is better than the NKJ?

And Young's Literal Translation:

14 how strait [is] the gate, and compressed the way that is leading to the life, and few are those finding it.

And then we have the NIV:

14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Are these superior to the NKJ?

This is nothing but nitpicking. This is not fruitful.

Salvation does not hinge on any one verse! There are key verses that compose any sound presentation of the Gospel, some in Romans, some in Ephesians and 1 John, etc.

Like Bible Believer said, even the Catholic Bible contains enough truth that one could show a Catholic using their OWN Bible the way of salvation!

Of course we should strive for excellence and accuracy, but let's not get legalistic about it.

Bible Believer said...

I think one should avoid bad bibles if they have that knowledge. Not being legalistic, but if you study and compare Bibles and am shown by the Holy Spirit the differences then you are responsible for that knowledge. I for one, can't stand false Bibles because they just read wrong, and there are those which are less blatant then others, but I have sat in Bible studies and more, at churches I visited and left, and just felt aggrieved sitting there listening to all the skewed verses. Someone can be saved via a bad Bible, as I said, and new Christians, this is an area that many are NOT shown but once a person knows they are responsible. This is why I stick with the KJV. I guess the "thees" and "thous" do not bother me. I have a NKJV, I just felt like it didn't 'read right", not as bad as a NIV mind you, but hey in my case I KNOW, and am responsible before God.

Marion said...

Did anyone look up the information I posted regarding the WHO of the NKJV?

The WHO is as important as is WHAT was the final product...

bad seed (the WHO)...produces bad fruit (NKJV and others)...it's simple.

Anonymous said...

This never ceases to amaze me.

A person like myself is stumbled by the word "difficult" put in a clear salvation verse, where it doesn't belong, and just because I personally state that I threw my NKJV in the garbage over it, now I'm "nitpicking" and "legalistic".

What a joke.

Go read your NKJV.

I will read my KJV, that presents the Gospel correctly.

christian cerna said...

I think Bible Believer summed it up quite nicely. It is possible for people to be hear the gospel, even in a bad bible. And recent converts can benefit by the simplicity of some of the newer translations, as they learn the principals of the faith. However, as a believer begins to mature and to grow in the knowledge of the Faith, I believe that the Spirit will lead him to seek a bible that is more accurate and has more literary excellence. I don't believe that a Christian that is truly seeking to grow in knowledge will be satisfied with a simple bible like the NLT. I'm not saying that he must necessarily use the KJV, but he will probably want a more literal translation.

But all of that comes with time. We have all gone through that process of learning and exploration. We must let people grow and flourish as the Spirit leads them, and not try to force them to be like us.

Anonymous said...

Bible Believer, you are correct.
I have used the NKJV for several years and it has been a blessing to me. The Lord has not convicted me of using it and quite frankly it is disturbing to see so many KJV onlyists who condemn anyone who uses anything other than the KJV.

I am not saying you are a KJV-only. You are following the Lord's conviction for you. The archaic King's English does not distract you - it does me. So I say extend grace and liberty to believers to follow the Lord's leading on this and just because He convicts one person does not mean that they are closer to Him than others.

I would warn anyone who uses anything other than the KJV or the NKJV that they need to take another look. But until God convicts me - and I hope that I am sensitive to His leading - I will continue to use the NKJV.

I plan to give my grandchildren NKJVs - they wouldn't relate to the King's English at all. I am at perfect peace about this. I want them to be IN the Word and not set it on a shelf someplace because it is something foreign to them.I don't want them to grow up thinking they need to address the Lord with "thees" and "thous" and address Him any differently than it is natural for them to speak.

Anonymous said...

If you get two different meanings (not wordings, but meanings) from a text, then one is right, and the other is wrong.

The NKJV is often contradictory to the KJV. So the KJV is the right choice.

Marion said...

Christian Cerna...you stated:

"And recent converts can benefit by the simplicity of some of the newer translations, as they learn the principals of the faith. However, as a believer begins to mature and to grow in the knowledge of the Faith"

Thus saith the Lord: "As newbon babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offr up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which, being disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner.
And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed."(1 Peter 2:2-8)

The above Scriptures state that we grow by the "sincere" milk of the word...if fed on "insincere" milk, at best, growth is stunted, at worst...?

Since those who were responsible for the corrupted NKJV were various apostates, agents of Rome and dominionist...do you (or anyone else)think the outcome is "sincere" milk? Where is such a work designed to lead? Away from the truth.

Please take the time to just scan these comparison..

http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/downloads/PDF/LOTKJB/preview.PDF

WHEN the NKJV omits references to:
Lord 66 times
God 51 times
heaven 50
repent 44
blood 23
hell 22
Jehovah omitted entirely
new testament entirely
damnation entirely
devils entirely

WHEN it changes Son to servant, demoting His deity;
makes changes that demotes the trinity, , messes with the blood, repentance and all those doctrines listed above, THEN...we can determine that it is an attack on the "sincere" milk of the word - the faith once delivered, (not "redone")for which we are to contend.

"Beloved, when I gave all dilligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for "the faith" which was "once" delivered unto the saints.
For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." (Jude 3-4) (emphasis mine).

It matters not what we want to "believe" about an issue...we need to examine the evidence, look to the Word of God,and if needed "change" our beliefs, if we are to be faithful to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ!

"Recent converts" cannot "befit" from corruption, and cannot learn the "principles of the faith" when those principles of the faith have been ravished. And neither can anyone else!

Anonymous said...

Last Anon, please don't make such broad statements w/o backing them up with fact. "Often contradictory" - really? How so?

Do you pray to God in King's English or your friends and family in King's English? If so,they are going to look at you REALLY funny.

If you want to get picky, there are some issues with the KJV also, but I have no problem using it or seeing others doing so, but when it is elevated to being an idol, than that is a problem. Not saying those who PREFER the KJV are doing that, but those who insist on any other rendering as false and it is KJV all the way, that is an issue.

I have been blessed by the KJV and the NKJV. They both have a place in my spiritual walk. I don't use any other Bible translations.

It bothers me when the KJV does not honor God by capitalizing pronouns referring to Him. But the NKJV does.

I wish people spent more time READING the Bible and less time nit-picking over KJV vs NKJV.

Go after the REAL corrupted Bible versions that have permeated the Body of Christ.

Anonymous said...

Marion well answered the last anon's request for showing where and why the NKJV contradicts the KJV.

The NKJV is not very good. And that post proved it.

It's like someone here is on the NKJV payroll or something. Of course, it is a copyrighted thing.

Whereas, there is no copyright on the KJV, since the Bible should never have a copyright :)

Anonymous said...

Oh please, what an inane statement to make - that just because someone prefers the NKJV that they are an agent for the enemy. This proves my point that oen can go off balance in defense of the KJV.

As for the copyright, there are laws in place now that were not in place when the KJV was written. I don't like it either, but it is temporary and will expire at some point and become public domain.

I have no agenda - I prefer the NKJV and I also use the KJV. What is pointed out as flaws in the NKJV are mainly nitpicking. KJV folks don't want to face up to the issues that exist in the KJV.

This creates unnecessary division in the Body and is a distraction from the real enemy.

This KJV or the highway is not helpful. For those who find the irreverent referral to Deity in the KJ bothersome while the NKJ capitalizes pronouns referring to Deity and the fact that the Kings English is a stumbling block, they come under condemnation for using the NKJ as well as the KJV. Is that right? We are under grace, not law. Just asking.......I feel condemned here simply for using the NKJV.

Marion said...

That's right Anon...the copyright goes to the author, and that would be the Word of God! NO MAN owns that. The purpose of copyright is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

The "sincere" word of God cannot be improved on by man...look what happens to everything else we put our hands on...not pretty...corrupt!

Anonymous said...

A copyright being on the supposed Word of God, that is insane!

But that is what man does.

There is no copyright on the KJV.

Here's a great site that shows the errors in the NKJV: http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html

Anonymous said...

Nobody should feel condemned for using the NKJV, but the person that uses the NKJV shouldn't feel the need to go on a crusade against those that use the KJV and believe it to be perfect and unique among the mass of English "bibles".

Anonymous said...

No "crusade" here although I have been accused of having an agenda in the comments. I didn't fault ANYONE who uses the KJV, did I? I even said I use it also!!

Some people need to join the "real" world in which we live.
How can one publish a Bible to eliminate the King's English and not have a copyright?

I have given some valid points but they have been ignored. The KJV is not a "perfect" Bible. And the fact that it is not copyrighted does not make it holy.

I have not condemned anyone for preferring the KJV, but I have been condemned by some contributors to this blog for using the NKJV along with the KJV as if I am committing sin.

Where is the grace? I love the Lord and His Word and the desire of my heart is to worship and serve and honor Him. I am a sinner saved by grace and a work in progress. I value discernment and I seek His will in every area of my life - so far He has not convicted me of using the NKJV.

This is a personal decision between each believer and the Lord. If one wants to use the KJV exclusively and believes that is what is right, fine. But if one wants to use the NKJV also, please don't condemn what God has not. We need to be careful about that as believers.

I would not ever use any other modern English version other than the NKJV.

I don't see the value in debating the issue of KJV vs NKJV.There are much bigger fish to fry.

Anonymous said...

I checked out the link given by one of the previous Anons supposedly exposing the NKJV as satanic, pagan, etc. The logo that was pictured on the site is NOT on my NKJ Bible and I have never seen it. I don't know where they got this, but this makes all their info suspect. I checked into some of the verses and found that this appeared to be nitpicking.

This looks like a sensationalistic site. One verse that they say is corrupted by changing "effeminate" to "homosexual". Wow! What a corruption. Another says the word "Easter" should not have been changed to "Passover".

Another verse they said was corrupted by inserting "kneeling down" instead of worshipping.

I didn't check out all of them. They made a big deal out of taking out the "thees and thous" as corrupting the Word. Don't these folks know the difference between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law? Of course we should strive for accuracy and not treat the Word of God in a sloppy manner, but sounds like they are merely pushing their agenda.


Not saying the NKJV is perfect, but neither is the KJV. Let's not make a mountain out of a mole hill.

This will be my final word on the topic. Grace and peace to all.

Bible Believer said...

I think the issue goes way beyond formalized "kings" English with the KJV, thanks Marion for posting the "changes" in the NKJV. I know people are going to use the Bible of their choice, but just please look into the problems with some Bibles. They are changing them, and have. I do not believe God's Word should be copyrighted.

I found this article of interest...

http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/scripture/thee-and-thou.php

Anonymous said...

The NKJV calls salvation difficult. That alone makes it corrupt.

Marion said...

The logo referred to in that link regarding the cover of the NKJB was on the "earliest" edition - it was removed when they started getting heat for it. If you go to this site,

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=new+king+jame+bibles&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1680&bih=878&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=HtndT8DIC4qC8QTb4czsCg

you can see images of the NKJV cover.

As far as I'm concerned, "Anon NKJV defender", no one is to be condemned for using that bible. However, based on the list I gave, of the doctrinal omissions, (which I notice you ignored in your comments) in love, we ought to point folks to the superior, "sincere" milk of the word that they may grow thereby. When a work changes/omits the Lord, God, blood, repentance, new testament, hell, devils and damnation (and others)...where then is the gospel? As the evidence shows, there is now a "different" gospel; simply put, that message and messenger God's Word says are "accursed" - and ought to be rejected. The word warns that we can be "removed" from the truth by such error:

"I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you then that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." (Gal 1:6-8)
(In context, Paul was referring to going back to the law, but the principles remain...perverting the Word of God, perverts the grace of God. And this perversion creates a false gospel).

In the end, people will do what they want, in spite of the truth - even when they've been warned. You defend your defense of the NKJV by saying you also use the KJV; implying that, why then argue...indeed.

Quite honestly, rather than an objective look at the facts, and comparisons, some choose to tenaciously "battle" their opinions in a manner that is unbecoming and frankly, childish. I think we ought to do better. We ought to "argue" according to knowledge and the Word.

"But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness." (2 Tim. 2:16)

Anonymous said...

Last anon, you totally miss the point. Yes, the Gospel is simple and salvation IS available to all who put their faith in Jesus Christ and His atonement.

BUT salvation IS difficult for most people because it is narrow and one must accept the narrow way and MOST will take the broad road.
THe inclination of man is to want to EARN salvation through works. It is a DIFFICULT thing for most people to totally give all that up and rest in the finished work of Christ.
That is why our Lord Jesus says that there are few who find it. Yes, salvation IS a difficult thing for the pride of man!! You apparently totally miss the deeper meaning.