Matthew 5:32

[Joy in the Journey]

Wasn't this message originally about Matthew 5:32 : How did we get onto discussing the KJV anyway ? ( I'm just as guilty )

Tim

[halifaxchristian]

Trust...forgot about your challenge.

[Trust & Obey]

Wasn't this message originally about  Matthew 5:32  :        How did we get onto discussing the KJV  anyway ?  ( I'm just as guilty    )

Tim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It happens all the time!

I think that the "you must follow the Law" and the "KJV-Only" arguments are the biggest hijackers out there.

[Trust & Obey]

Trust...forgot about your challenge.  Am going to work tonight (in about 5 minutes)... will reply tomorrow morning.

God bless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No problem, halifax. And, I'm not just trying to "throw you for a loop." If there are problems with the NKJV I really would like to know because I use it heavily.

But, I've also spent quite a bit of time examining the "NKJV is of the devil" accusations and never found anything that was convincing. But, if you have something new I am game to see it.

One thing that bothers me about the NKJV is that on most of them there is the triquetra symbol. Some say it represents the trinity, but I think it is three sixes intertwined (666). I made sure my NKJV does NOT have that on it. Am I being superstitious? No. I'm being cautious. Because, if I am sharing the gospel with a JW at my door I don't want them to see an occultic symbol on my Bible. Why, because THEY are supersitious.

I see it as a simple misunderstanding of what the triquetra is on the part of the NKJV team.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Trust and obey...no, you are not being superstitious but wise. Here is the "proof" of the demonic origins of the NKJV...

First of all...let's remember that the KJV is NOT COPYRIGHTED. This means that it is publishable by anyone, quotable by anyone, and is free for public use unresticted. The New King James Versio is COPYRIGHTED. By definition, a COPYRIGHT must have a certain number of significant changes from an underlying text to be considered for copyright distinction. This means that the NKJV must have been intentionally changes in numerous places in order to fit its requirement status for copyright.

There are over 100,000 word changes in the NKJV. I do not mean "word changes" such as...updating a term to common language usage, or removing a tense suffix, etc. "Word changes" here means...an intentional, purposeful alteration of a word which often changes the direct meaning and understanding of a sentence and/or phrase. One in every 80 words is alterated in the NKJV.

Here are some examples:

Matthew 7:14... "Because STRAIT (narrow) is the gate...which leadeth unto life..." KJV. The New changes "strait" to "difficult".

Matthew 20:20... "Then came unto Him (Jesus) the mother of Zebedees...WORSHIPPING HIM." KJV. The NKJV reads "kneeling down".

Hebrews 2:16... "For verily He (Jesus) took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham."KJV. The NKJV reads "For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seek of Abraham."

1 Timothy 6:10..."For the love of money is the root of ALL EVIL."KJV. The NKJV says, "For the love of money is the root of all KINDS of evil."

2 Cor. 2:17..."For we are not as many as CORRUPT (change) the Word of God..."KJV. The NKJV changes "corrupt" to "peddle" which means "sell".

2 Corinthians 10:5..."Casting down IMAGINATIONS..."KJV. The NKJV changes "imaginations" to "arguments".

Phillippians 2:6..."Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be EQUAL WITH GOD."KJV. The New changes "robbery" to "a thing to be grasped".

Romans 1:25..."Who changed the truth of God into a lie". The New reads..."Who EXCHANGED (switched) the truth of God FOR (not into) a lie."

Romans 4:25..."Who (Jesus) was delivered FOR our offences." The New changes it into..."Who was delivered BECAUSE OF our offences."

The New King James version changes Jesus from being a "Holy Child" (acts 4:27) in the KJV to a "Holy Servant". The NKJV changes a "heretic" (titus 3:10) to a "divisive man". The NKJV changes "hell" to "hades" at least 11 times (such as Rev.1:18, 2Peter2:4, 1 Cor.15:55, Luke 10:15). The NKJV changes "heathen" to "nations" and "bewitched" (acts 8:9) to "astonished". The changes go on and on.

The New King James Version also has margin notes and footnotes questioning God's Word in places that concern His coming again, His resurrection, His blood atonement, His sacrificial death, His Deity, virgin birth...and the list goes on and on.

The original King James Version had footnotes also...that UPHELD their doctrines and word and Scripture selections. The footnotes purpose was to strengthen the readers belief in the Word of God and its essential doctrines...not to downplay, question, and second guess. The New King James Version...ALTHOUGH A MILLION TIMES BETTER THAN THE NIV, NASB, ETC., IS STILL A BRIDGE TO COMPROMISE.

God bless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Those are not very convincing. For example, chaging "root of all evil" to root of "all kinds of evil" is a more correct rendering.

Is money the root of evil for the man who goes out and commits adultery? No, because it is lust and he is going to end up paying alimony You get the point.

These are the same passages that I got from KJV-Only websites and I am not convinced.

Rather, I can point out areas where the NKJV is MORE accurate and points to the deity of Chirst MORE thant the KJV. For example:

KJV:

Tit 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

NKJV:

Tit 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ

The KJV rendering of the passage leads you to believe that our Saviour Jesus Christ is NOT the great God that is spoken of. It does this by adding the word "our" between the words "and" and "Saviour." The NKJV makes it very clear that is is Jesus Christ who is the Great God.

So, I'm still not convinced. It is all hype.

And, regarding the copyright thing. I'll obey God's law over man's law regarding "preaching the word." If they want to sue me for an injunction to stop using the NKJV "without permission" then I'll let God deal with them.

I agree that the word of God should be free. It should not be copyrighted. But, the only reason the KJV isn't copyrighted is because it was translated abroad and many moons ago. If it had been translated 50 years ago it would be copyrighted, too. So, the only reason it isn't is because of the age of it and where it was translated.

[Trust & Obey]

2 Cor. 2:17..."For we are not as many as CORRUPT (change) the Word of God..."KJV.  The NKJV changes "corrupt" to "peddle" which means "sell".

Actually, the Greek word here used for "as corrupt" is kapeleuo and it means "to retail" or it can be referring to a person as "a huckster."

So "peddle" is a more accurate translation. "Corrupt" gives the idea that it is being changed and butchered, much like the accusations with the NKJV, but that is not what this passage is saying.

[halifaxchristian]

Trust and obey...although the NewKJV is much, much, much, much, much better than the vast majority of other modern versions...this does not make it okay. The lesser of two evils doesn't mean the lesser should be justified. The fact is this: the NKJV, by mere fact of its copyright, means that a certain percentage of it has been changed AS A NECESSITY. Should there be an un-copyrighted Word of God in today's day-in-age? Absolutely. Would government laws forbid this? I would certainly believe not!!! No company should be profiting off of God's Word or have the ability to claim an honest rendering of divine ancient manuscripts "their own".

The NKJV is a bridge to comprimise. The purpose of its plentiful footnotes and margins is satanic in origin. This is a tactic of the enemy to get the seed of doubt planted in our minds and to lead us astray into the realm of thinking that is sympathetic to "modern versions" and non-textus receptus-based resources.

Money is indeed the root of ALL evil. Money is representative/symbolic of SELF. Self-advancement, pleasure, and gain is why people sin. It is a disregard and disrespect for God and/or neighbour that is being insinuated in this Scripture.

There are doctrinal differences in the NKJV...and while I do conceed that they are not NEARLY as bad as the NIV, NASB, etc...it is, in very word and deed, a translation of God's Word that sets the groundwork for TR-based Bible believers to take a step in the wrong direction and, in turn, became a cause for the prophesied "great falling away".

Jesus said to live by "every word" that proceeds out of the mouth of God. If a certain version of the Bible has INTENTIONALLY and DELIBERATELY changed ONE SINGLE WORD of God's mouth...I abhor and reject that version.

The footnotes, changes, adjustments, and direction of the NKJV is heretical and another road sign on the way to apostasy.

God bless.

[Trust & Obey]

Trust and obey...although the NewKJV is much, much, much, much, much better than the vast majority of other modern versions...this does not make it okay.  The lesser of two evils doesn't mean the lesser should be justified.

So far, it is only "evil" because you are saying it is. You haven't proved that.

The fact is this: the NKJV, by mere fact of its copyright, means that a certain percentage of it has been changed AS A NECESSITY.

I agree. And, as I've shown, so far the changes enhance the understanding of the text (such as changing "corrupt" to "peddle").

Should there be an un-copyrighted Word of God in today's day-in-age?  Absolutely.  Would government laws forbid this?  I would certainly believe not!!!  No company should be profiting off of God's Word or have the ability to claim an honest rendering of divine ancient manuscripts "their own". 

They will have to answer to God for that, but it doesn't automatically invalidate the translation. That is guilt by association and it doesn't work here.

The NKJV is a bridge to comprimise.  The purpose of its plentiful footnotes and margins is satanic in origin.  This is a tactic of the enemy to get the seed of doubt planted in our minds and to lead us astray into the realm of thinking that is sympathetic to "modern versions" and non-textus receptus-based resources.

It is being true to other scholarship, whether or not you agree with it. It is allowing the reader to understand that there are other manuscripts, but it isn't saying they are more or less accurate. It is just giving all of the evidence, which is what good scholarship does.

Money is indeed the root of ALL evil.  Money is representative/symbolic of SELF.  Self-advancement, pleasure, and gain is why people sin.  It is a disregard and disrespect for God and/or neighbour that is being insinuated in this Scripture. 

Please tell me how it was "the love of money" that caused Noah to get drunk.

There are doctrinal differences in the NKJV...and while I do conceed that they are not NEARLY as bad as the NIV, NASB, etc...it is, in very word and deed, a translation of God's Word that sets the groundwork for TR-based Bible believers to take a step in the wrong direction and, in turn, became a cause for the prophesied "great falling away".

Again, you haven't provided anything of substance to prove this other than your testimony. I am testifying otherwise. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to PROVE that it is corrupt.

Jesus said to live by "every word" that proceeds out of the mouth of God.  If a certain version of the Bible has INTENTIONALLY and DELIBERATELY changed ONE SINGLE WORD of God's mouth...I abhor and reject that version.

Look, Jesus did not say "by every word in the KJV." The KJV is a translation, nothing more. Guess what? The NKJV is a translation, too. The NKJV is God's word just as much as the KJV is and you haven't proved otherwise.

The footnotes, changes, adjustments, and direction of the NKJV is heretical and another road sign on the way to apostasy.

Please show me some examples. BTW, I can pull out my KJV and find footnotes that I don't agree with. Footnotes are not the word of God and cannot be used to invalidate a translation of the word of God.

God bless.

You too, Bro halifax

[halifaxchristian]

Trust and obey...if your disagreement with me lies not in the KJV/NKJV debate, as I originally thought, but, rather, in the Textus Receptus/Alexandrian debate...that is a whole different story. And one that I am taking up with Super Jew. It will be of your interest in observing our exchanges, and, by all means, join in if you'd like. Super Jew brought up some intellectual points and I am presently constructing a defense of my position. It is taking some time because of the references I plan on using, etc.

To clarify, I thought that you were merely stating that the NKJV is ON PAR with the KJV. Obviously, you are not arguing this, but instead, maintaining that the Alexandrian manuscripts ARE IN THEORY AND REALITY God's Preserved Word. It is here where we lie then, and not in the KJV/NKJV debate.

Lastly, I do believe that words, and many words at that, have been intentionally changed in the NKJV translation. I do not see what justification you can make for this...but obviously you do. The verdict is simple...the NKJV translators, by necessity, as previously stated, changed words delibrately...not only from the KJV but ALSO from the actual manuscripts that they used in their rendering. They had to...by LAW for publishing rights. Perhaps I am hard-headed, but for good reason I believe. This is utterly wrong...I don't care what spin you put on it.

The original King James Version translators set out to do their jobs for a reason: to make the Word of God available to the general public and to advance Protestant doctrines in light of the reformation. Many of the translators were Puritans and staunch anti-romish believers. Their cause, THOUGH YOU MAY DISAGREE WITH IT, had much higher principle's behind it than what those clinging to the NKJV can claim. Money (at least in part)...or solely theological motivations??? Take your pick.

God bless.

[Trust & Obey]

Trust and obey...if your disagreement with me lies not in the KJV/NKJV debate, as I originally thought, but, rather, in the Textus Receptus/Alexandrian debate...that is a whole different story.  And one that I am taking up with Super Jew.  It will be of your interest in observing our exchanges, and, by all means, join in if you'd like.  Super Jew brought up some intellectual points and I am presently constructing a defense of my position.  It is taking some time because of the references I plan on using, etc.

To clarify, I thought that you were merely stating that the NKJV is ON PAR with the KJV.  Obviously, you are not arguing this, but instead, maintaining that the Alexandrian manuscripts ARE IN THEORY AND REALITY God's Preserved Word.  It is here where we lie then, and not in the KJV/NKJV debate.

Lastly, I do believe that words, and many words at that, have been intentionally changed in the NKJV translation.  I do not see what justification you can make for this...but obviously you do.  The verdict is simple...the NKJV translators, by necessity, as previously stated, changed words delibrately...not only from the KJV but ALSO from the actual manuscripts that they used in their rendering.  They had to...by LAW for publishing rights.  Perhaps I am hard-headed, but for good reason I believe.  This is utterly wrong...I don't care what spin you put on it. 

The original King James Version translators set out to do their jobs for a reason: to make the Word of God available to the general public and to advance Protestant doctrines in light of the reformation.  Many of the translators were Puritans and staunch anti-romish believers.  Their cause, THOUGH YOU MAY DISAGREE WITH IT, had much higher principle's behind it than what those clinging to the NKJV can claim.  Money (at least in part)...or solely theological motivations???  Take your pick. 

God bless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not arguing for or against the Alexandrian manuscripts, as I haven't given enough study to the issue to intelligently contribute to that discussion. I'll let you two hash it out.

What I am arguing is that the NKJV is a great translation. When you say "changed the word of God" you must understand that the "word of God" is contained in manuscripts, not translations only.

So, the KJV is a translation of the word of God, it isn't the word of God directly. So, too, is the NKJV a translation of the word of God.

Can the NKJV render things differently than the KJV and still be a good translation? Yes, it can. As I've shown, the NKJV has rendered things differently than the KJV, but it enhances the understanding of the original manuscript. Do you know what that means? It means that the KJV rendered the manuscripts less understandable than the NKJV does. That is not "changing God's word." It is "translating it in a more effective manner."

You have not given any solid evidence that the NKJV is a "perverted distortion of God's word." You've only responded with traditional KJV-Only rhetoric, with all due respect.

On the other hand, I've responded with 2 passages in the NKJV that are clearly better than the KJV rendering. Does that make the KJV a "perverted distortion of the word of God?" No, it doesn't. It just makes it a bit dated. Are there areas where the KJV might be better than the NKJV? Probably. It goes both ways and that is true of ALL translations. NO TRANSLATION IS THE PURE UNADULTERATED WORD OF GOD AS IT WAS PENNED BY THE AUTHORS. All translations are man's attempt to translate documents from a foreign language into our language. Things will be lost in the translation any way you slice it.

[halifaxchristian]

Trust and obey...if your disagreement with me lies not in the KJV/NKJV debate, as I originally thought, but, rather, in the Textus Receptus/Alexandrian debate...that is a whole different story.