The NKJV

September 21, 2005

Obviously brandplucked is using the Textus Receptus.

September 21, 2005

Like Super Jew said...to be Catholic is to deny history.

There are no major changes in the 1611KJV and todaysKJV.

RGR · September 21, 2005

So God's words WEREN'T preserved in Tyndale's version or the Geneva Bible?

Will, brother, can I make a suggestion as well?

In contrast - the Bible Believer is blessed to have God's inerrant preserved words in the King James Bible and they study God's words. The Bible Believer praises God that He has providentially preserved His words so we can read them today in the KJB.

Brother, I'm a Bible believer as well. Just because I don't always use the KJV doesn't mean I'm not a Bible believer. That comes off as arrogant and condescending to be quite honest.

A thought-I use mainly NIV and NLT. My church uses the KJV Bible exclusively. I do tote either of my non-KJV Bibles to church and turn to the exact Scripture when our pastor preaches. Frankly, I haven't seen hardly a situation yet in which something did not match. I think there was one instance in which I did not like the TRANSLATION that the NLT gave and did prefer the KJV over it.

Also when looking for Scripture references, for the most part, I find that I remember my KJV learned verses and use it quite often when giving Scripture references here. I personally prefer the NASB and use it quite often but it is easier to use the KJV.

BTW, in 1611, do you reckon folks were having debates about the "new" translation being given to them? Too bad we didn't have Worthy Boards then to gauge people's opinions!

September 21, 2005

Hi Trust and Obey, sorry about mixing up the parts of the previous post. I hope this one clarifies what I wanted to say.

Will K

If you think the New KJV is the same as the 1611 King James Bible, but with more modern English, then I hope this little study will reveal to you that they are not at all the same in hundreds of verses.

<<snip>>

How about providing the Hebrew/Greek source text in order to determine which is the most accurate... the KJV or the NKJV.

Just because the NKJV is "different" than the KJV in places does not automatically make it incorrect.

You're coming to the table with the inaccurate assumption that the KJV is infallible. It is not.

I'm growing weary of having to do all of the original language studies/posts to deflect these unwarranted accusations against the NKJV.

Hi Trust and Obey, what I am pointing out is that many people claim the nkjv is just like the old King James Bible but only the "archaic language" has been updated. This is far from the case. The NKJV has changed the meaning of literally hundreds of passages and has proveable errors in it. It is not as bad as the NASB, NIV or ESV, but it is not the inerrant word of God. You yourself do not believe that ANY Bible or any text IS now the inerrant word of God, do you? Your "final authority" is your own mind and understanding.

I have seen some of your posts trying to defend the nkjv renderings. What I see is your own opinion on what some words CAN mean, or should mean according to your understanding. Nothing more. You have no final authority and no inerrant Bible to refer us to, do you?

One example. If I rightly recall, one brother brought up the example of Proverbs 11:16 where the KJB says: "A gracious woman retaineth honour: and STRONG men retain riches."

The NKJV says: "A gracious woman retains honor, But RUTHLESS men retain riches."

You then (if I am right is assuming it was you) said that "ruthless" was right because the Hebrew word means violent, ruthless or terrible. However, it should be pointed out that Hebrew words have a multiplicity of meanings depending on the context. This particular word can mean the things you say, but it can also mean "the mighty" or "strong".

It comes from the verb #6206 which even the NKJV translated simply as "to prevail" in Isaiah 47:12, with no implication of "to oppress" or to be "ruthless".

Not only does the King James Bible correctly read "and STRONG men retain riches" but so also do Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishops's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Douay-Rheims version, the Bible in Basic English of 1960, and BOTH Jewish translations put out by the Jewish Publication Society and the Hebrew Publication Society of 1917 and 1936 respectively. Too bad these native Hebrew speakers aren't as well informed about their own language as you are ;-)

In addition to these versions that agree with the KJB reading, we also have Webster's 1833 translation and the KJV 21st Century and the Third Millenium Bible. Then in foreign language versions that I can read, we have the Spanish Reina Valera of 1960 and Las Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, (los fuertes) the Italian Diodati, and the Italian Riveduta of 1927, and the French Darby translation (hommes forts).

So you see, there are many Bible translators in several languages who have just as much, if not more training in the Hebrew tongue, and they happen to differ from your OPINION.

Do you believe ANY Bible out there IS NOW the complete, inerrant word of God? If so, which one?

Thanks,

Will K

Edited September 21, 2005 by brandplucked

September 21, 2005

Oh,one little question for all WorthyBoarders.......

Q:"Many, many Men and Women have served God in these days.
They have spoken to God, and God answered their prayers.
But, the thing is:
If God was displeased with their Translation, when they asked God to tell them what they should do; God would have told them, right away....."You are not reading my Word. The KJV is My ONLY Word!!"

(I would like at least ONE person to tell me when , or even where God said it.

Yomo

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Yomo, good question. I have not always been a King James Bible believer, or what you might call a KJV Only. It wasn't until I started to read about this subject and compare many Bible versions for myself that I began to ask God to show me the truth of His word. Did He really mean what He said about preserving His words in a Book here on this earth, and that heaven and earth would pass away, but His words would not pass away?

It should be obvious to a child that all the differing "bibles" out there cannot all equally be right and equally be the inerrant words of God. So, I began to pray and do a lot of studying. God says He never lies and a true prophet had to be 100% correct or he was a false prophet.

If I found a clear lie or contradiction that could not be explained, then I crossed off the list that particular version. I looked also at history and what God has done with the varying Bible versions. Most of them like the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, Goodspeed, Wuest, Berkeley etc. appear for a little time and then vanish away. Only the KJB has been around for almost 400 years now and every true revival that has ever taken place among English speaking people, God did it using the King James Bible.

The same Bible tells us that before the return of the Lord Jesus, there will be a falling away from the faith. What is happening on a wide scale today is that more and more Christians no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. Today's Christians are the most Biblically ignorant generation to have ever lived in these United States, and the most carnal.

For me, the facts speak for themselves. The ONLY Bible believed by thousands of Christians in many countries, to be the inerrant and inspired word of God is the King James Bible. No liberal "loves" the KJB. Every person I have met in person or on the internet who criticizes the King James Bible as having errors or wrong texts or mistranslations, WITHOUT EXCEPTION does not himself believe there is any Bible or any single text in any language that is now the inerrant words of God. He has become his own authority, and his particular "bible version" differs from everybody else's.

"In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes."

Judges 21:25

"Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8

If you are expecting an audible voice from heaven, you are looking in the wrong place. Read the Book and find the one that always tells the truth - it is the King James Holy Bible. God has given us His pure words. You either believe them or you don't.

Will Kinney

September 21, 2005

Say what you like, I find the NIV a much easier read than the KJV any day. And it is not "multiple choice" as you call it. NIV and other modern translations go with older manuscripts that were not known to exist in the times of the KJV. That makes the NIV much more reliable. Of course I know that doesn't matter one whit to you-if God Himself came down from Heaven and said that it was okay to read the NIV, you would still balk at the notion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Ronald, would you mind telling us exactly what these "older manuscripts" are that the NIV follows? Do you really know anything at all about what they say and don't say?

Are you aware of the FACT that the NIV rejects the Hebrew texts SCORES of times. (A score is 20, in case you didn't know :-), and that is scoreS of times. Like around 80 that I have found so far. and the NIV ALONE frequently rejects these particular Hebrew readings.

Do you want proof of these allegations? I will be happy to provide you with it if you like.

Ronald, you can use whatever version you want to. It is still a free country and if you want to use a watered down, perverted and frequently misleading bible version like the NIV, you are free to do so. You yourself do not claim it is inerrant. If you want to use an error ridden version, go right ahead. But for those who want to have and believe the inerrant Book, then I strongly suggest they use and believe the Book God has set His seal of approval on - the King James Holy Bible.

Will Kinney

September 21, 2005

Brother, I'm a Bible believer as well. Just because I don't always use the KJV doesn't mean I'm not a Bible believer. That comes off as arrogant and condescending to be quite honest.

A thought-I use mainly NIV and NLT. My church uses the KJV Bible exclusively. I do tote either of my non-KJV Bibles to church and turn to the exact Scripture when our pastor preaches. Frankly, I haven't seen hardly a situation yet in which something did not match. I think there was one instance in which I did not like the TRANSLATION that the NLT gave and did prefer the KJV over it.

Also when looking for Scripture references, for the most part, I find that I remember my KJV learned verses and use it quite often when giving Scripture references here. I personally prefer the NASB and use it quite often but it is easier to use the KJV.

Ronald, what I mean by a Bible believer is that the Bible believer actually believes The Book (singular) is the inerrant words of God. The Bible believer does not select from several different versions that follow different texts or that give totally different and often opposite meanings to the same verses.

Here are two examples from the Psalms that illustrate what the NIV is doing.

In Psalm 72:5 we read: "THEY SHALL FEAR THEE as long as the sun and moon endure, throughout all generations."

This is the reading of the KJB, Revised Version, ASV, NASB, NKJV, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the Spanish, Young's, Darby's, Geneva, and the 2001 revision of the RSV called the English Standard Version.

The NIV, however reads: "HE WILL ENDURE as long as the sun..." This is also the reading of the liberal RSV and NRSV, though the new ESV has again gone back to the KJB and Hebrew reading.. But the footnotes found in the NIV, RSV, and NRSV all tell us that the reading of HE WILL ENDURE comes from the Greek Septuagint, but that the Hebrew reads "they shall fear thee".

So why did the NIV change the clear Hebrew reading? Doesn't the Hebrew make sense? Didn't God inspire the words of the Old Testament in Hebrew and not in Greek, Syriac or Latin?

The second example is found in Psalm 73:7. There the Psalmist is speaking of the foolish and wicked who prosper in this world. He says of them: "THEIR EYES STAND OUT WITH FATNESS: they have more than heart could wish."

This is the reading of not only the KJV, NKJV, NASB, RV, ASV, but also of the RSV, NRSV and the ESV versions. However the NIV says: "FROM THEIR CALLOUS HEARTS COMES INIQUITY". Then in a footnote the NIV tells us this reading comes from the SYRIAC, but that the Hebrew says "their eyes bulge with fat."

Again, why would the "good, godly, evangelical scholars" who worked on the NIV change the text, if the Hebrew clearly makes sense and there is no doubt about what it says?

Also of note is the totally changed meaning of verse 9 where we read: "THEY SET THEIR MOUTH AGAINST THE HEAVENS, and their tongue walketh through the earth."

These wicked people speak against God, blaspheme heavenly truths and talk only of earthly interests. "They set their mouth against the heavens" is the reading or meaning of even the NASB, RSV, ASV, NRSV, RV, ESV, and NKJV. Yet the NIV actually says: "Their mouths LAY CLAIM TO HEAVEN, and their tongues take possession of the earth."

These are just a very few of literally hundreds of examples I can provide you with.

Will K

Gerioke · September 22, 2005

Brother, I'm a Bible believer as well.

RGR · September 22, 2005

Bottom line according to Brandplucked: He's superior to us because he uses the KJV and the rest of us who don't aren't Bible believers!

Homeward · September 22, 2005

I see no reason for us to brawl, here. Each of us can explain our thinking, without coming to verbal fist fights. I can't imagine our Lord approving of that.

Come let us reason together.