A look at the NKJV.

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Steven m., Feb 9, 2003.

  1. Steven m.

    Steven m.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    0
    The New King James Bible Examined

    WHAT ABOUT THE NEW KING JAMES BIBLE? In this article, we want to share with God's people some of the important facts which led us to reject the NKJV and warn others about it. We do not believe that the "NKJV makes the KJV even better" as its publishers cl aim. To the contrary, our study leads us to conclude that the NKJV vitiates the original, reliable, accurate KJV in a most deceptive manner. While claiming to have "preserved the authority and accuracy" of the original KJV, the actual result is a hybrid t ext which incorporates many changes identical with or similar to the corruptions found in other modern Bible versions.

    Why the New King James Bible? Its publisher, Thomas Nelson Company, says its purpose is "To Preserve the Integrity of the Original in the Language of Today"-"To preserve the authority and accuracy . . . of the original King James while making it understan dable to 20th Century readers"-"To update with regard to punctuation and grammar; archaic verbs and pronouns"; and "Up-to-date accuracy with regard to words whose English meaning has changed over a period of 3 1/2 centuries." The completed NKJV text is said to be "Beautifully Clear" and "Highly Readable." Thomas Nelson Publishers has spent millions to convince Chr istians that the NKJV is "the" Bible of the present and the future.

    Why do we recommend rejection of the NKJV? Space limitations preclude a full discussion of every reason, but we do urge a careful consideration of the following facts. It is essential to know that many of the word changes between the original KJV and the NKJV are not changes which result from removing archaisms, etc. Instead, many are changes which clearly reveal that, contrary to their agreed basis, the NKJV translators departed from the original KJV and its underlying Greek text, the Textus Receptus, in favor of the very same wording found in versions translated from corrupted Greek texts.

    The instances in which the NKJV breaks with the original KJV by substituting wording identical to that of corrupted modern Bible versions are too numerous to be considered coincidence. And, since Nelson tells us that the NKJV scholars spent "months of pra yer, research, and discussion over the handling of a single word," we must conclude that these changes were neither coincidental nor accidental.

    The following references are listed as examples of the way the translators inserted erroneous words and meanings from corrupted modern Bible versions into the NKJV text:

    Titus 3:10-KJV reads, "A man that is an heretick...reject." NKJV and NIV change "heretick" to "divisive man"; RSV and NASV to "factious" man. (The one who holds to heresy is to be rejected, not the one who exposes false doctrine. The new versions confuse who is in mind here).

    Acts 4:27-KJV reads, "Thy holy child, Jesus." NKJV, NASV and RSV change "holy child" to "holy servant."

    Acts 8:9-KJV reads, "bewitched the people." NKJV and NASV change "bewitched" to "astonished." NIV and RSV change "bewitched" to "amazed."

    Romans 1:25-KJV reads, "changed the truth of God into a lie." NKJV, NASV and NIV read "exchanged the truth of God for the lie" or "a lie."

    Romans 4:25-KJV reads, "Who was delivered for our offenses and was raised again for our justification." NKJV and NASV change "for" to "because of." (Even the NIV and RSV use the correct word, "for").

    2 Corinthians 10:5-KJV reads, "Casting down imaginations." NKJV, NIV and RSV change "imaginations" to "arguments."

    Colossians 3:2-KJV reads, "Set your affection on things above." NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV change "affection" to "mind."

    1 Thessalonians 5:22-KJV reads, "Abstain from all appearance of evil." NKJV, NASV and RSV change "appearance" to "form."

    2 Timothy 2:15-KJV reads, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God." NKJV and NASV change "study" to "be diligent." NIV and RSV change "study" to "do your best."

    Old Testament examples include:

    Psalm 79:1-the word "heathen" in the KJV is changed to "nations" in the NKJV, NASV and NIV.

    Isaiah 11:3-the entire phrase, "And shall make Him of quick understanding" in the KJV is eliminated in the NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV.

    Isaiah 66:5-the wonderful phrase, "But He shall appear to your joy" in the KJV disappears without explanation from NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV.

    Daniel 3:25-the fourth person who was in the fiery furnace with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, was identified as "the Son of God." The same identification is given in the text of the NKJV but a footnote reads "or, a son of the gods," and both NIV and NA SV actually have the latter reading in their texts.

    In other Old Testament portions, the word "evil" in the KJV is replaced by several different words-doom, disaster, calamity, catastrophe, trouble, adversity, terrible, harm, wild. In four different places in 1 and 2 Kings, "sodomites" is changed to "perve rted persons."

    The NKJV does not deserve its respected name. It is a perverted version.

    Additional examples of significant changes would include the following: Matthew 4:24; 6:13; 7:14; 20:20; Mark 4:19; John 14:2; Acts 17:29; Romans 1:18; Philippians 2:6; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; 1 Timothy 6:5, 10, 20; Hebrews 2:16; 10:14; James 1:15; 1 Peter 1:7.

    A striking word change involves changing "corrupt" to "peddling" in 2 Corinthians 2:17. The KJV correctly says, "For we are not as many, which corrupt the Word of God...." But the NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV, change "corrupt" to "peddling." Is there any great difference between peddling (selling, or making a gain of) the Word of God and corrupting (adulterating) it? Of course there is, and one does not have to be a Greek scholar to decide which word is correct. When this warning was given in the 1st Century, was there any way for people to peddle (make a gain of) God's Word? Of course not-they were suffering for it. The warning clearly refers to corrupting God's Word, something that was common then as it is now. Only in our day has it ever been possible to pe ddle (make a gain of) the Bible. With its huge profits from the sale of many different Bible versions, the Thomas Nelson Publishers is both corrupting and peddling God's Word.

    Dr. Jerry Falwell, a member of the NKJV overview committee, gives this new Bible his unqualified endorsement, stating that "It protects every thought, every idea, every word, just as it was intended to be understood by the original scholars." This simply is not true! As already pointed out, words have been changed and with those changed words have come changed thoughts and ideas.

    Some will argue that the changes noted do not affect any fundamental Bible doctrine. We strongly disagree. Is not the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures a fundamental doctrine? Is not every word of the Bible important? Jesus Christ said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matt.4:4). He also said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matt. 24:35). Since Christ is concerned about every word, we should also be con cerned about every word and raise a voice of protest whenever scholarly sleight of hand is discovered in any modern version, including the NKJV.

    In raising strenuous objections to the changed words of the NKJV text, we are not referring to those changes which update old English verb forms without changing the meaning, i.e., removing "est" or "eth" from verb endings. Neither do we refer to updating the old English pronouns "thee," "thou" and "thine" where they refer to individuals. We do consider it a tragic mistake to eliminate the use of "Thee," "Thou" and "Thine" where these refer to Deity. There is a disturbing trend toward stripping God of His Majesty both in word and deed. The substitution of the common pronouns 'You" and "Yours" for "Thee," "Thou" and "Thine" which have historically been used to refer to Deity both in the Scriptures and the Hymns of the Church, only helps pave the way for further attempts of sinful men to bring God down to their level rather than exalting Him in every way possible.

    The NKJV translators claimed it was one of their purposes to update words where the meaning of a particular word had changed over the last 375 years. In 2 Thessalonians 2:7, they updated "letteth" to "restraineth"; in Psalm 4:2, "leasing" is updated to "lying"; In 1 Thessalonians 4:15, "prevent" is updated to "precede"; in Matthew 19:14, "suffer" is updated to "let" (meaning allow or pennit).

    In other instances it is difficult to understand how the NKJV scholars thought they were updating and clarifying the KJV as, for example, when they substituted "minas" for "pounds" in Luke 19:13; or, "satraps" for "princes" in Daniel 3:3; or, "black cummin" for "fitches" in Isaiah 28:27.

    Many Christians today are purchasing NKJV Bibles for three reasons: (1) Many pastors and Christian leaders are highly recommending it. (2) They have been assured by translators and publishers that the NKJV is based upon the same Hebrew and Greek texts used by the KJV translators. However, as already mentioned, such a claim is simply not true and can be easily documented by comparing the wording of the NKJV with the NIV, NASV, RSV and other versions whose translators admittedly used other Hebrew and Greek texts. (3) The NKJV is supposedly easier to read and understand but its impurities actually make it doubly deceptive and dangerous.

    The duplicity of the NKJV publishers, translators and endorsers greatly increases the possibility of believers being deceived. The word duplicity is used advisedly. Webster's Dictionary defines duplicity as, "Deception by pretending to feel and act one way while acting another." The following duplicity can be fully documented:

    The duplicity of the Thomas Nelson Publishers is clearly evidenced by their supposed concern and stated desire to "preserve the authority and accuracy...of the original King James" Bible. Yet, Nelson is the largest publisher of Bibles in the world and publishes eight of the nine modern versions including the iniquitous Revised Standard Version, copyrighted by the apostate National Council of Churches. If the Thomas Nelson Publishers were genuinely concerned about the purity of the Scriptures, would they continue printing the RSV and other corrupted modern Bible versions?

    The duplicity of the NKJV scholars is also a matter for concern. Although each scholar was asked to subscribe to a statement confirming his belief in the plenary, divine, verbal inspiration of the original autographs (none of which exist today), the question of whether or not they also believed in the divine preservation of the divinely inspired originals was not an issue as it should have been. Dr. Arthur Farstad, chairman of the NKJV Executive Review Committee which had the responsibility of final text approval, stated that this committee was about equally divided as to which was the better Greek New Testament text-the Textus Receptus or the Westcott-Hort. Apparently none of them believed that either text was the Divinely preserved Word of God. Yet, all of them participated in a project to "protect and preserve the purity and accuracy" of the original KJV based on the TR. Is not this duplicity of the worst kind, coming from supposedly evangelical scholars?

    Further duplicity is revealed in the preface of the NKJV and in a 16-page history of the KJV printed at the end. On page VI of the preface, NKJV readers are given the following erroneous information: "There is only one basic New Testament used by Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox, by conservatives and liberals." This is simply not true! There are two basic New Testament texts-the Divinely preserved Textus Receptus from which the original KJV was translated and the satanically corrupted Westcott-Hort Text (and its revisions) which form the basis of all other modern Bible versions.

    NKJV readers are further misinformed as to why there are so many differences between the original KJV and all the modern versions. On page VI of the preface, NKJV readers are assured, "...That the most important differences in the English New Testament of today are due, not to manuscript divergence, but to the way in which translators view the task of translation." This simply is not true. Many important differences in the English New Testament of today are indeed due to manuscript divergence (over 5700 differences exist between the TR and WH Greek texts) in addition to the divergent views of the scholars who produced the various translations.

    On page VII of the preface is another very significant statement concerning the NKJV footnotes: "Significant explanatory notes, alternate translations, and cross references, as well as New Testament citations of Old Testament passages, are supplied in footnotes. Important textual variants in the Old Testament are footnoted in a standard form. The textual information in the New Testament footnotes is a unique provision in the history of the English Bible. Terms in the footnotes such as 'better manuscripts' are avoided. The footnotes in the present edition make no evaluation of the readings, but do clearly indicate the manuscript sources of readings which diverge from the traditional text. Thus, a clearly defined presentation of the variants is provided for the benefit of interested readers representing all textual persuasions."

    As a crowning climax of duplicity and inconsistency, the editors of the NKJV make the following incongruous statements on pages 1,234 and 1,235 of the King lames history printed at the conclusion of the NKJV text:

    "The tendency of recent revisers has been to remove words and phrases from the text of Scripture, based on the most recently discovered extant manuscripts. In using the Greek text underlying the King James Bible, these words and phrases were retained. And, in those few places where the majority of the manuscripts did not support a word or phrase, that fact could best be indicated in a footnote. (The New Testament of the New King James Version shows in its footnotes those places where the major textual traditions differ from the language of the King James Bible.)

    "It was the editors' conviction that the use of footnotes would encourage further inquiry by readers. They also recognized that it was easier for the average reader to delete something he or she felt was not properly a part of the text, than to insert a word or phrase which had been left out by the revisers."

    Will the next modem Bible be the "Do It Yourself" version? This would be a distinct possibility if the advice of the NKJV editors in the two preceding paragraphs were to be followed. In effect, they are saying, let each reader decide for himself what portions, verses, phrases and words should be included in God's Holy Word." NKJV footnotes, far from being helpful, are an invitation to disobey the plain command of God not to add to or take from His Word. Deuteronomy 4:2; Revelation 22:18,19.

    The preservation of God's divinely inspired Word is clearly set forth in Psalm 12:6,7, "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever. " God has fulfilled His promise through the Textus Receptus and the King James Version. Those who replace the KJV with the NKJV will have been duped into accepting a Bible which still bears a respected name but one which has placed "readability" above purity.

    The translators of the original King James Bible had a distinct advantage. They were able to use their vast knowledge of ancient languages and translation abilities prior to the time when the deadly virus of so-called "Higher Criticism" infected the whole field of scholarship. False teachers boldly dissected God's Word with the "tools of scholarship" in order to reconstruct it according to their own speculations and presumptions. The result is a pseudo-intellectual aura in which no one can be sure of anything. It's time to get back to the pure Word of God where faith prevails and doubt is vanquished!

    Believers who will take the time to compare the KJV with the NKJV and then with other modern versions will see for themselves why the NKJV should be exposed and repudiated as a polluted version. And, those who will take time to carefully look at the NKJV footnotes will be doubly concerned and will join in warning others about it.

    Our plea to God's people is to reject the NKJV Bible and continue preaching, teaching, memorizing and meditating upon the pure, unadulterated, Divinely preserved milk and meat of God's Holy Word-The King James Authorized Version of 1611 upon which God has placed His stamp of approval over a span of nearly four centuries. Nothing is more important than the purity of God's Holy Word.


    Hope this helps to determine your version.
    Brother Miller.




    "Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read" - Isaiah 34:16
     
  2. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,079
    Likes Received:
    103
    Who is the source of this? Why should I believe him? Sounds like the same unfounded allegations posted ad nauseum on previous threads.

    It's important, especially on a multi-screen screed.

    That's the whole point of the Modern Versions.
     
  3. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    Steven M,
    You don't know what you are talking about! The NKJV is definitely superior to the KJV in every respect.
     
  4. Steven m.

    Steven m.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    0
    You clearly are decieved if you think any version is superior to the KJV.

    Man made bibles period.Read my upper post very carefully as you will see.

    Brother Miller.
     
  5. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Has anyone seen the series of movies for children, The Never-Ending Story ?

    This thread should be titled, The Never-Ending Argument . :confused:

    Sue
     
  6. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, Brother Terry -- Preach it! [​IMG]

    Also we note that the lead-in spam can be found
    at least 7 sites including:

    http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/reynolds-nkjv.html

    That site has the following attribution.
    "The New King James Bible Examined
    By M. H. Reynolds, Editor, Foundation Magazine"

    What ever happened to the polite/legal
    requirement for attribution? :(
     
  7. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG] Hi Sister Sue!
    Yes, i saw THE NEVER-ENDING STORY movie
    and it's sequel as well.

    I just really get irked :mad: when people
    spam-bash my source of truth, the
    Holy written word of God, my final
    authority: the New King James Version (nKJV).
     
  8. Harald

    Harald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2001
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh no, Mr. Herrington. While I will not speak for Steven I must address your short false statement that "The NKJV is definitely superior to the KJV in every respect."

    Not in Romans 3:22 it ain't.

    KJV correctly says "faith OF Jesus Christ", while NKJV says "faith IN Jesus Christ". The Greek stands behind the KJV respecting the (English) preposition. The NKJV mistranslates a similar construction twice in the same verse in Gal. 2:16. The KJV gets the (English) preposition right also here, "OF". There is no preposition in the Greek, it simply says "pisteôs Iêsou Christou" (Rom. 3:22, Gal. 2:16a).

    The NKJV is more accurate than the KJV in some instances in the NT, and vice versa the KJV is more accurate than the NKJV in some NT instances. I will leave it up to the fighters to decide which one is the superior translation as compared to the underlying Greek text.

    Harald
     
  9. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    I got this in an e-mail.

    "Either the Bible I use (King James Bible),
    or the New King James Bible has at least
    one lie in it. Would you agree that
    one of the two contains a lie?
    Please examine Isaiah 9.3."

    I don't agree at all; both are the Holy
    Bible and contain no lie at all.

    One problem may be is that you don't
    read the REAL King James Bible but
    a MV KJV like the KJV1679 or KJV1873.
    Here is Isaiah 9:3 in the real KJV1611:

    Ifaiah IX:3 (KJV1611):
    Thou has multiplied the nation,
    and !!not increased the ioy: they ioy
    before thee, according to the ioy in haruest,
    and as men reioyce when they
    diuide the spoile.

    !! Or, to him

    Ifaiah IX:3 (alternate reading KJV1611):
    Thou has multiplied the nation,
    and to him increased the ioy:
    they ioy before thee, according to
    the ioy in haruest,
    and as men reioyce when they
    diuide the spoile.

    The two varied readings exist in the REAL
    King James Version of 1611. KJVOs get into
    trouble because they don't read the
    REAL King James Version of 1611.
    The REAL King James Version of 1611 of
    was translated by 50 Anglican scholars
    who left translator notes. By contrast
    The KJV1873 was translated by some unknown
    American Bible salesmen [​IMG] who didn't
    leave translator notes.
    The nKJV was translated in the USofA
    by known translators, some of whom were
    Baptists. The Anglicans of King James'
    day kicked Baaptists out of England.
    Why do i think the nKJV is superior [​IMG]

    BTW, the nKJV translates that verse as such:

    Isaiah 9:10 (nKJV):
    You have multiplied the nation
    And increased its joy; F10
    They rejoice before You According to the joy
    of harvest, As men rejoice when they divide
    the spoil.
    ------------------------------------------------
    FOOTNOTES:
    F10: Following Qere and Targum;
    Kethib and Vulgate read not increased joy;
    Septuagint reads Most of the people
    You brought down in Your joy.

    So the nKJV tells the actual disconnect here,
    while the REAL KJV merely hints at it.

    The New King James Version (nKJV) is the
    errorless and perfect written word of God
    preserved for us to these last days.
     
  10. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    1 Peter 1:23-25 (nKJV)

    23 having been born again, not of
    corruptible seed but incorruptible,
    through the word of God which lives
    and abides forever,
    24 because "All flesh is as grass,
    And all the glory of man as the flower
    of the grass. The grass withers,
    And its flower falls away,
    25 But the word of the Lord endures
    forever." Now this is the word
    which by the gospel was preached to you.

    [​IMG] The New King James Version (nKJV) testifies
    of itself that it is the word of God.
    What more is needed to show that
    The New King James Version (nKJV) is the
    inerrant and perfect written word of God
    preserved for us to these last days.
     
  11. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    The New King James Version testifies of
    itself that it is the pure word of God.

    Isaiah 40:5-8 (nKJV):

    The glory of the Lord shall be revealed,
    And all flesh shall see it together;
    For the mouth of the Lord has spoken."
    6 The voice said, "Cry out!"
    And he said, "What shall I cry?"
    "All flesh is grass, And all its
    loveliness is like the flower of the field.
    7 The grass withers, the flower fades,
    Because the breath of the Lord blows
    upon it; Surely the people are grass.
    8 The grass withers, the flower fades,
    But the word of our God stands forever."

    QED: The New King James Version (nKJV) is the
    inerrant and perfect written word of God
    preserved for us to these last days.
     
  12. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    I will take GOD'S WORD, THE NEW KING JAMES VERSION over the KJV anytime. Better scholarship equals a better translation, period. Even the NIV is superior to the old KJV.
     
  13. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Steven m. in his un-attributed quote
    of M. H. Reynolds said:
    "The translators of the original King James
    Bible had a distinct advantage."

    Yes, i agree. The translators were all
    Anglicans. The Anglicans had expelled all
    the pesky Baptists from their shores.

    By contrast, the translators of the
    nKJV included Baptists. The New King
    James Version (nKJV) is the
    inerrant and perfect written word of God
    preserved for us to these last days.
     
  14. Steven m.

    Steven m.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do believe that those that hold to any version outside the KJV as the Word of God are guilty in the 1st degree of textual heresy.

    The NIV is a [poor]translation, [snip]
    whole verses are omitted,and Gods real Word warns,
    against taking from it.(Rev 22:19)if whole verses,
    and words are omitted,is not that equal to taking away?Seems simple to me.

    I am a KJV Fundamental Independent Bible believing Baptist and you are?

    I contend that any version other than KJV is man,
    made armor and you cant win no spiritual wars with such.

    Brother Miller.

    [ February 09, 2003, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]
     
  15. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    How could you believe such nonsense? This KJVO heresy is one of the worse doctrines the church has encountered in the past 50 years.
     
  16. Steven m.

    Steven m.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    0
    The editors and translators of the New King James Bible claim that they are standing in the tradition of the men who originally produced the Authorized Version and who slightly revised it in the 18th century, that they are only updating outmoded language and that they remain firmly committed to precisely the same Greek and Hebrew text as that underlying the original King James Bible. The advertisements for the NKJV would have readers believe that there are no textual changes and that the men who produced it love the old King James Bible. The Statement of Purpose issued by Thomas Nelson, publishers of the New King James Bible New Testament (1979), makes the following claim:

    "Not to add to, take from, nor alter the communication intended by the original translators, but to convey that communication in 20th century vocabulary and usage."

    This says to me that the producers of the NKJV are committed to PRECISELY the same text as that underlying the King James Bible.

    This is not the case, though.

    FIRST, THE EDITORS OF THE NKJV ARE DEFINITELY NOT COMMITTED TO THE RECEIVED TEXT UNDERLYING THE KJV.

    We have corresponded with some of these men, including the executive editor of the Old Testament portion, Dr. James Price. In April of 1996 he admitted to me that he is not committed to the Received Text and that he supports the modern critical text in general --

    "I am not a TR advocate. I happen to believe that God has preserved the autographic text in the whole body of evidence that He has preserved, not merely through the textual decisions of a committee of fallible men based on a handful of late manuscripts. The modern critical texts like NA26/27 [Nestles] and UBS [United Bible Societies] provide a list of the variations that have entered the manuscript traditions, and they provide the evidence that supports the different variants. In the apparatus they have left nothing out, the evidence is there. The apparatus indicates where possible additions, omissions, and alterations have occurred. … I am not at war with the conservative modern versions [such as the New International Version and the New American Standard Version]" (James Price, e-mail to David Cloud, April 30, 1996).

    AT LEAST SOME OF THE EDITORS OF THE NKJV ARE COMMITTED TO THE SO-CALLED "MAJORITY TEXT," WHICH MAKES SIGNIFICANT DEPARTURES FROM THE RECEIVED TEXT UNDERLYING THE KJV.

    In 1982, Thomas Nelson published “The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text.” The editors, Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad, were also key players in the New King James Version project. There are almost 1900 differences between the Received Text and the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text. The deletion of 1 John 5:7 is an example. The translators of the Authorized Version accepted this passage as inspired Scripture and they placed it in the English Bible. The editors of the NKJV, on the other hand, do not believe 1 John 5:7 is Scripture, and they have omitted the passage from the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text, together with dozens of other portions of Scripture and hundreds of words. These men are definitely not committed to the Received Text or the King James Bible. Their goal is to modify it to bring it in line with their theories of textual criticism, which err by taking into consideration only the Greek manuscript evidence and ignoring the three other sources of evidence, ancient translations, writings of ancient church leaders, and lectionaries.

    (A list of the omissions and changes proposed by the “majority text” view can be found in the back of the Interlinear Bible by Jay Green. A good refutation of the majority text position is available in Jack Moorman’s book The Majority Text, which is published by Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108. 800-564-6109, [email protected].)

    FURTHER, THE MARGIN OF THE NKJV IS FILLED WITH THE SAME TYPE OF CRITICAL NOTES FOUND IN THE MODERN BIBLES.

    The Nestle-Aland United Bible Societies critical Greek text (NU) follows the Westcott-Hort text of 1881 in removing or questioning dozens of entire verses and thousands of words which are in the Received Text. It is shorter than the Received Text by the equivalent of 1 and 2 Peter. Those who believe the Received Text underlying the Authorized Version and other revered Protestant versions is the preserved Word of God reject the NU text as corrupted. The editors of the NKJV claim they are honoring the Received Text with their New King James Bible, but they have given credibility to the corrupted UBS text by placing its doubt-producing readings in the margin of their Bible.

    Many modern version defenders point to the marginal notes in the 1611 KJV and claim that it is inconsistent for King James Bible defenders to make something of the critical textual notes in the modern versions while ignoring the ones in the original KJV. James White does this in his popular but shallow book The King James Only Controversy (p. 77). This is a comparison of monkeys and trees, though. Both the 1611 KJV and the modern versions have marginal notes, but the nature of those notes is very different. The textual notes in the 1611 KJV were not critical as are the ones in the modern versions. The marginal notes in the 1611 KJV did not cast continual doubt upon the text, as do those in the modern versions. In testifying of the marginal notes in the modern versions, Jay Green, a biblical scholar and Bible translator, says, "Deceitful footnotes often throw doubt on the words of the text, such as may be found at Mark 1:1; Romans 9:5, etc. Worse, yet, in other places when words that witness to the Godhead of Christ are removed from the text, seldom is there a footnote to call attention to it. And when there is a footnote purporting to give evidence for the change, a false impression is often given by an incomplete presentation of the facts" (Jay Green, Sr., The Gnostics, The New Versions, and the Deity of Christ, Lafayette, Indiana: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1994, p. 5). The marginal notes in the NKJV New Testament largely show the omissions and changes from the Nestle-Aland Greek text, a revision of the Westcott-Hort text of 1881. The note at 1 Timothy 3:16 says, "NU Who," telling the reader that "God" is removed from this important verse and is replaced with the almost meaningless "Who." The reader is left wondering why. If he were to pick up the popular New International Version to check further, he would be led even farther astray, as already noted, by being told that only "some manuscripts" have the word "God." To pretend that the marginal notes in the 1611 KJV are the same in nature as those of the modern versions is to ignore the facts.

    Those who use the New King James Bible are therefore subjected to the same onslaught of potential doubt as those who use the New International Version or some other modern edition of the Bible. Many claim that the critical notes which question the authenticity of the Bible text are not harmful to readers. We believe this is nonsense. I saw the fruit of this questioning in my own life before I was grounded in the issue of God's Preserved Scripture and before I understood the unbelieving foundation of modern textual criticism. Before I went to Bible School I read my Bible carefully, word by word, and I did not doubt or question even one tittle. After I completed a course in New Testament Greek and was taught by a professor that the Received Text and the KJV are not based on the most dependable scholarship, I found myself questioning large portions of the Bible. I would like someone to explain to me how such confusion builds strong Christian lives.

    (The following study is based on the margin of the New King James Version, Thomas Nelson, copyright 1984.)

    44 ENTIRE VERSES ARE QUESTIONED IN THE MARGIN OF THE NKJV ON THE BASIS OF THE UNRELIABLE UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES TEXT

    Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 21:4; 23:14; 24:6 Mark 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28; 16:9-20 Luke 17:36; 22:43; 22:44; 23:17 John 5:4; 7:53-8:11 Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29 Romans 16:24 1 John 5:7

    PORTIONS OF 95 OTHER VERSES ARE QUESTIONED IN THE MARGIN OF THE NKJV ON THE BASIS OF THE UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES TEXT

    MATTHEW

    5:22 NU omits "without a cause"
    5:27 NU omits "to those of old"
    6:13 NU omits "For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen."
    9:13 NU omits "to repentance"
    9:35 NU omits "among the people"
    10:3 NU omits "Lebbaeus, whose surname was"
    10:8 NU omits "raise the dead"
    12:35 NU omits "of his heart"
    13:51 NU omits "Jesus said to them"
    15:8 NU omits "draw near to Me with their mouth, And"
    18:29 NU omits "at his feet"
    19:20 NU omits "from my youth"
    20:7 NU omits "and whatever is right you will receive"
    20:16 NU omits "For many are called, but few chosen"
    20:22 NU omits "and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with"
    20:23 NU omits "and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with"
    22:13 NU omits "take him away, and"
    23:3 NU omits "to observe"
    25:13 NU omits "in which the Son of Man is coming"
    26:60 NU omits "false witnesses"
    27:35 NU omits "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet: They divided My garments among them, And for My clothing they cast lots."

    MARK

    1:2 NU omits "Isaiah the prophet"
    1:14 NU omits "of the kingdom"
    2:17 NU omits "to repentance"
    3:5 NU omits "as whole as the other"
    3:15 NU omits "to heal sicknesses and"
    4:4 NU omits "of the air"
    6:11 NU omits "Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city"
    6:36 NU omits "bread; for they have nothing to eat"
    7:2 NU omits "they found fault"
    9:29 NU omits "and fasting"
    9:45 NU omits "into the fire that shall never be quenched"
    9:49 NU omits "and every sacrifice will be seasoned with salt"
    10:24 NU omits "for those who trust in riches"
    11:10 NU omits "in the name of the Lord"
    12:4 NU omits "and at him they threw stones"
    12:30 NU omits "This is the first commandment"
    12:33 NU omits "with all the soul"
    13:14 NU omits "spoken of by Daniel the prophet"
    14:19 NU omits "And another said, 'Is it I?'"
    14:27 NU omits "because of Me this night"
    14:70 NU omits "and your speech shows it"

    LUKE

    1:28 NU omits "blessed are you among women"
    1:29 NU omits "when she saw him"
    1:78 NU omits "shall visit"
    4:4 NU omits "but by every word of God"
    4:8 NU omits "Get behind Me, Satan"
    4:18 NU omits "to heal the brokenhearted"
    4:41 NU omits "the Christ"
    5:38 NU omits "and both are preserved"
    6:10 NU omits "as whole as the other"
    6:45 NU omits "treasure of his heart"
    7:10 NU omits "who had been sick"
    7:31 NU omits "And the Lord said"
    8:45 NU omits "and those with him"
    8:45 NU omits "and You say, 'Who touched Me?'"
    8:54 NU omits "put them all out"
    9:54 NU omits "just as Elijah did"
    9:55 NU omits "and said, 'You do not know what manner of spirit you are of'"
    9:56 NU omits "For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives but to save them"
    10:35 NU omits "when he departed"
    11:2 NU omits "Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven"
    11:4 NU omits "But deliver us from the evil one"
    11:11 NU omits "bread from any father among you, will he give you a stone? Or if he asks for"
    11:29 NU omits "the prophet"
    11:44 NU omits "scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites"
    11:54 NU omits "that they might accuse Him"
    17:3 NU omits "against you"
    17:9 NU omits "him? I think not"
    19:5 NU omits "and saw him"
    20:23 NU omits "Why do you test Me?"
    20:30 NU omits "took her as wife, and he died childless"
    22:30 NU omits "in My kingdom"
    22:31 NU omits "And the Lord said"
    22:64 NU omits "struck Him on the face and"
    22:68 NU omits "Me or let Me go"
    22:23 NU omits "and of the chief priests"
    23:34 NU omits "Then Jesus said, Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do"
    23:38 NU omits "written and in letters of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew"
    24:1 NU omits "and certain other women with them"
    24:42 NU omits "and some honeycomb"

    JOHN

    3:13 NU omits "who is in heaven"
    3:15 NU omits "not perish but"
    4:42 NU omits "the Christ"
    5:3 NU omits "waiting for the moving of the water"
    5:16 NU omits "and sought to kill Him"
    6:11 NU omits "to the disciples, and the disciples"
    6:22 NU omits "which His disciples had entered"
    6:47 NU omits "in Me" 8:6 NU omits "as though He did not hear"
    8:9 NU omits "being convicted by their conscience"
    8:10 NU omits "and saw no one but the woman"
    8:59 NU omits "through the midst of them, and so passed by"
    9:11 NU omits "the pool of"
    10:26 NU omits "as I said to you"
    11:41 NU omits "from the place where the dead man was lying"
    12:1 NU omits "who had been dead"
    17:12 NU omits "in the world"
    19:16 NU omits "and led Him away"

    ACTS

    2:23 NU omits "have taken"
    2:37 NU omits "to the church"
    7:30 NU omits "of the Lord"
    7:37 NU omits "Him you shall hear"
    9:5 NU omits "It is hard for you to kick against the goads"
    10:6 NU omits "will tell you what you must do"
    10:21 NU omits "who had been sent to him from Cornelius"
    10:32 NU omits "When he comes, he will speak to you"
    15:24 NU omits "saying, 'You must be circumcised and keep the law'"
    17:5 NU omits "who were not persuaded"
    18:21 NU omits "I must by all means keep this coming feast in Jerusalem"
    21:8 NU omits "who were Paul's companions"
    21:25 NU omits "that they should observe no such thing, except"
    22:9 NU omits "and were afraid"
    22:20 NU omits "to his death"
    24:6 NU omits "and wanted to judge him according to our law"
    24:8 NU omits "commanding his accusers to come to you"
    24:15 NU omits "of the dead"
    24:26 NU omits "that he might release him"
    25:16 NU omits "to destruction"

    ROMANS

    1:16 NU omits "of Christ"
    3:22 NU omits "and on all"
    8:1 NU omits "do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit"
    8:26 NU omits "for us"
    9:31 NU omits "of righteousness"
    9:32 NU omits "of the law"
    10:15 NU omits "preach the gospel of peace"
    11:6 NU omits "But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work"
    14:6 NU omits "and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks"
    14:21 NU omits "or is offended or is made weak"
    15:24 NU omits "I shall come to you"
    15:29 NU omits "of the gospel"

    1 CORINTHIANS

    5:7 NU omits "for us"
    6:20 NU omits "and in your spirit, which are God's"
    9:18 NU omits "of Christ"
    10:23 NU omits "for me"
    10:28 NU omits "for 'The earth is the Lord's, and all its fullness'"
    11:24 NU omits "Take, eat"
    11:29 NU omits "in an unworthy manner"
    15:47 NU omits "the Lord"

    2 CORINTHIANS

    8:4 NU omits "that we would receive"
    12:11 NU omits "in boasting"
    13:2 NU omits "I write"

    GALATIANS

    3:1 NU omits "that you should not obey the truth"
    3:17 NU omits "in Christ"
    4:7 NU omits "through Christ"

    EPHESIANS

    3:9 NU omits "through Jesus Christ"
    3:14 NU omits "of our Lord Jesus Christ"
    4:17 NU omits "rest of the"
    5:30 NU omits "of His flesh and of His bones"

    PHILIPPIANS

    3:16 NU omits "rule, let us be of the same mind"

    COLOSSIANS

    1:2 NU omits "and the Lord Jesus Christ"
    1:14 NU omits "through His blood"
    2:2 NU omits "both of the Father and"
    2:11 NU omits "of the sins"

    1 THESSALONIANS

    1:1 NU omits "from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ"

    2 THESSALONIANS

    2:4 NU omits "as God"

    1 TIMOTHY

    2:7 NU omits "in Christ"
    3:3 NU omits "not greedy for money"
    3:16 NU replaces "God" with "Who"
    4:12 NU omits "in spirit"
    5:4 NU omits "good and"
    5:16 NU omits "man or"
    6:5 NU omits "from such withdraw yourself"
    6:7 NU omits "and it is certain"

    2 TIMOTHY

    1:11 NU omits "of the Gentiles"

    HEBREWS

    1:3 NU omits "by Himself"
    2:7 NU omits "And set him over the works of Your hands"
    3:6 NU omits "firm to the end"
    8:12 NU omits "and their lawless deeds"
    10:9 NU omits "O God"
    10:30 NU omits "says the Lord"
    11:11 NU omits "she bore a child"
    11:13 NU omits "were assured of them"
    12:20 NU omits "or thrust through with an arrow"

    JAMES

    4:4 NU omits "adulterers and"

    1 PETER

    1:22 NU omits "through the Spirit"
    4:1 NU omits "for us"
    4:14 NU omits "On their part He is blasphemed, but on your part He is glorified"

    1 JOHN

    2:7 NU omits "from the beginning"
    4:3 NU omits "Christ has come in the flesh"
    5:13 NU omits "and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God"

    REVELATION

    1:8 NU omits "the Beginning and the End"
    1:11 NU omits "I am the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, and"
    1:11 NU omits "which are in Asia"
    1:20 NU omits "which you saw"
    4:3 NU omits "And He who sat there was"
    5:14 NU omits "Him who lives forever and ever"
    11:1 NU omits "And the angel stood"
    11:17 NU omits "and who is to come"
    14:8 NU omits "is fallen, that great city, because"
    14:12 NU omits "here are those"
    15:2 NU omits "over his mark"
    16:5 NU omits "O Lord"
    16:7 NU omits "another from"
    16:14 NU omits "of the earth and"
    19:1 NU omits "the Lord"
    21:6 NU omits "It is done"
    21:24 NU omits "of those who are saved"


    Seems clear to me the KJV stands alone as the infallible,Word without error,Word of God.

    Brother Miller.


    "
     
  17. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    Brother Miller,
    Might I suggest that you provide a brief description of material and provide a link to view the whole article instead of posting it all. It saves a lot of space when you do.
     
  18. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,457
    Likes Received:
    93
    Isn't it too bad Jesus was "deceived" since he did not read and cite the KJV?
     
  19. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks Steven M, for a list of places where the KJV has added to the word of God. ;)
     
  20. neal4christ

    neal4christ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Misuse of Scripture! And these people want us to believe their KJVO nonsense? This verse refers to just the book of Revelation, not the whole Bible.

    And when will you ever come up with your own views, Steve, rather than simply blindly following what others feed you? What if you are following a blind guide? :eek:

    Neal
     

Share This Page

Loading...