Corruptions of the NKJV

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Jordan Kurecki, Jan 1, 2014.

  1. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    60
    The following taken from
    http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/scripture/new-king-james-version.php

    NKJV
    II Kings 23:29
    In his days Pharaoh Necho king of Egypt went to the aid of the king of Assyria, to the River Euphrates; and King Josiah went against him. And Pharaoh Necho killed him at Megiddo when he confronted him.

    II Chron 35:20
    After all this, when Josiah had prepared the temple, Necho king of Egypt came up to fight against Carchemish by the Euphrates; and Josiah went out against him.

    KJV
    II Kings 23:29
    In his days Pharaohnechoh king of Egypt went up against the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates: and king Josiah went against him; and he slew him at Megiddo, when he had seen him.

    II Chron 35:20
    After all this, when Josiah had prepared the temple, Necho king of Egypt came up to fight against Charchemish by Euphrates: and Josiah went out against him.

    Pharaoh Necho of Egypt fought against Assyria during the days of Josiah. King Josiah was killed in a battle at Megiddo, when he went against Pharaoh unadvisedly. But the NKJV changes the history to make Pharaoh Necho an ally of Assyria in one place to deny the inspired history and to contradict itself in another place. If the account in Kings is true in the NKJV, then what of Chronicles in the NKJV?

    NKJV
    Hebrews 3:16
    For who, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, was it not all who came out of Egypt, led by Moses?

    KJV
    Hebrews 3:16
    For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.

    Paul taught that not all Israelites from Egypt died in the wilderness, due to the exceptions of Joshua and Caleb. The NKJV denies Old Testament history that they entered Canaan and charges them instead with rebellion!

    NKJV
    Hebrews 2:16
    For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham.

    KJV
    Hebrews 2:16
    For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

    Paul taught that Jesus Christ was incarnated in humanity rather than the nature of angels, but the NKJV totally corrupts the verse, loses the sense, violates the context, and denies Scripture (I Tim 5:21).

    NKJV
    Proverbs 16:1
    The preparations of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD.

    KJV
    Proverbs 16:1
    The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the LORD.

    Man’s heart is depraved (Jer 17:9). Man cannot improve it; God must do it for Him (Pr 21:1; Jer 10:23; Phil 2:13; Rev 17:17).

    NKJV
    Proverbs 25:23
    The north wind brings forth rain, And a backbiting tongue an angry countenance.

    KJV
    Proverbs 25:23
    The north wind driveth away rain: so doth an angry countenance a backbiting tongue.

    Solomon never saw men as a rule angered by backbiting; in fact, they often enjoy it. He taught that an angry hearer will silence a backbiting tongue. The metaphor requires wind rejecting rain.

    And the list could go on and on.
     
    #1 Jordan Kurecki, Jan 1, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 1, 2014
  2. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    60
  3. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    It's an historical fact that Egypt was an ally of Assyria and Judah was an ally of Babylon. Thus, indeed Necho was going to HELP Assyria against Babylon, as well as try to extend his own sway into Syria even more. The small army of Judah was brushed aside by the much-larger Egyptian force; GOD was angry with Judah despite Josiah's righteousness. However, necho left a force in Judah large enough to control it; that force remained even after Babylon won the battle of Carcemish. At that time, Babylon wasn't strong enough to conquer both Assyria and Egypt, even after winning that big battle.

    Sir, you need to read the verse a little closer in both versions. We all know that only Joshua and Caleb lived to reside in Canaan. Now, the KJV's rendering shoulda ended with a question mark, which would make it read almost the same as the NKJV. And it's kind of a rhetorical question, same as the Pharisees' saying the WHOLE WORLD had gone after Jesus.

    You should study the GREEK here. The Greek rendered "took on" actually means "help, aid, succor by taking hold". I'm sure some of the Koine Greek readers will verify this, unless they're also KJVO, since the word has several English meanings.

    And that's what the NKJV sez in plainer language than the KJV does. Man DOES often prepare his heart for depravity, unless he asks JESUS to save him & the HOLY SPIRIT enters that person's heart.

    HORSE FEATHERS!

    The Hebrew here means "twist or writhe" A north wind in that parta the world often brings a storm. And rain can be good or bad, as we all know. So, just as a north wind often brought rain, a backbiting tongue often brought an angry countenance to he whose back was bitten, same as it does today.

    Sir, you REALLY should stop believing all that KJVO chicken teeth you're finding in those trashy KJVO sites and literature. You're buying into a false, man-made myth that's as phony as a football bat, that has absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT whatsoever. There are NO true doctrines of worship not found in Scripture!
     
  4. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Do you blindly believe whatever any KJV-only web site claims or do you check out the facts yourself?

    Perhaps the so-called contradiction is based on lack of knowledge of history of that period.

    Do you ignore Jeremiah 46:2 that indicates that Pharaoh-necho was enemies with Babylon and that Babylon smote Carchemish?

    If according to history, Babylon had already conquered Carchemish and had taken it from Assyria, Egypt could be fighting against Carechemish in order to take it from Babylon, and thus there would be no contradiction if Egypt was seeking to aid Assyria against a common enemy Babylon.

    After Egypt takes or frees Carchemish from Babylon, Babylon would take it back again a few years later according to sources I checked.
     
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    NKJV agrees with Geneva at Lev. 11:16

    Variation can be found in the KJV-only view’s line of good Bibles at Leviticus 11:16. The 1395 Wycliffe’s Bible has “lare,” which means “a seagull” according to the Oxford English Dictionary (VIII, p. 656). This would be close to the rendering of the 1560 Geneva Bible: “seameaw.” On the other hand, the other earlier pre-1611 English Bibles including the KJV have “cuckow” [their spelling varies with the 1611‘s “cuckow” being an old spelling for “cuckoo” in some present-day KJV editions]. Which is the better or more accurate rendering on this good line?

    Several sources maintain that the Hebrew wordin this verse referred to the type-birds indicated by the rendering in Wycliffe’s or the Geneva Bible instead of the rendering in the KJV. At its entry cuckoo, Smith’s Bible Dictionary noted: “There does not appear to be any authority for this translation of the A. V.” (p. 179). The Illustrated Dictionary of the Bible maintained that “there is no obvious reason why the cuckoo would be considered an unclean bird (Lev. 11:16, Deut. 14:15)“ (p. 53). In their commentary, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown suggested at the cuckoo: “Evidently some other bird is meant by the original term, from its being ranged among rapacious birds” (I, p. 80). Cansdale asserted: “Cuckoos cannot be identified in the scriptures, the word shachaph of Leviticus 11:16 being more probably translated ’sea-gull’” (All the Animals, p. 188). Samuel Clark wrote: “There seems to be nothing to favour the claims of the cuckoo. The Greek name denotes a gull, and it is likely that some sea-bird is meant” (Cook, Bible Commentary, I, p. 549). Green’s Concise Lexicon defined the Hebrew word as “sea-gull, a ceremonially unclean bird” (p. 230). Young’s Analytical Concordance has the following definition: “sea maw, sea gull” (p. 214). Gensenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon noted that “according to LXX and Vulgate larus, gull, an aquatic bird so-called from its leanness” (p. 815). Aryeh Kaplan translated it “gull” [shachaf in Hebrew, laros in Greek (Septuagint); moison in Old French (Chizzkuni, equivalent to the modern French mouette)“ (Living Torah, p. 319). Henry Ainsworth (1571-1622?) translated it “sea-gull” in his Annotations on the Pentateuch. Ellicott’s Commentary maintained that the Hebrew word “literally means the thin, slender, or cadaverous bird, and is taken by the ancient authorities to denote the sea-gull, which is ‘the raven of the sea’” (I, p. 379). Unger’s Bible Dictionary suggested that the Hebrew word “is probably generic for [any] bird of the sea gull family” (p. 57). The1855 Union Bible Dictionary observed that “the prevailing opinion is, that it was what we call, the sea-mew or gull” (p. 188). The 1905 Magil’s Linear School Bible and the 1917 Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text by Jews have the same rendering as the Geneva.

    On its chart of unclean animals, the New Pilgrim Bible with two KJV-only advocates as consulting editors has “sea gulls” in parentheses after “cuckow” (p. 170). H. L. Willmington has “seagull” in parenthesis after “cuckow” in his list of animals (Complete Book, p. 24). Waite’s Defined KJB has this note for this rendering: “Hebrew meaning unknown, possibly an extinct bird; perhaps a sea gull” (p. 160). In his tract “King James Bible Dictionary,“ O. Ray Smith defined “cuckow” as “gull.“ A Bible Word List printed by the Trinitarian Bible Society and “A Bible Word List” in the back of the Cambridge Standard Text Edition of the KJV both explained “cuckoo” as “gull.” The Companion Bible [KJV] has this marginal note: “cuckow, probably=sea-gull” (p. 147). The King James Easy-Reading Bible gave “gull” as its explanatory word for cuckow at Deuteronomy 14:15 (p. 306). The NKJV has "sea gull" in its text at Leviticus 11:16.

    Cansdale observed: “Gulls are mixed feeders, taking fish when they can but scavenging for much of the time” (All the Animals, p. 177). Cansdale maintained that gulls “would certainly rank as unclean” (Ibid.).
     
  6. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    NKJV and Geneva more clear on deity of Christ at 2 Pet. 1:1

    Several early English Bibles and many modern translations clearly, precisely, and accurately identify Jesus Christ as "our God and Saviour" at 2 Peter 1:1. William Tyndale in 1534 and John Rogers in 1537 translated the last part of this verse as "righteousness that cometh of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ." The Great, Whittingham's, Geneva, Bishops', Haak’s 1657 English translation of the Dutch Bible, Wesley's, 1842 Baptist or Bernard's, NKJV, Majority Text Interlinear, and many other translations render it "righteousness of our God and Saviour [or Savior] Jesus Christ."

    James White maintained that this is the proper translation of the Greek according to the Granville Sharp's rule (King James Only Controversy, p. 268). Granville Sharp (1735-1813) cited 2 Peter 1:1 as his first example “of sentences which fall under the first rule, and are improperly rendered in the English version [KJV]“ (Remarks, p. 20). James D. Price noted that “the Greek grammatical construction here identifies Jesus Christ as God and Savior” (King James Onlyism, p. 323). Concerning this verse in his multi-volume commentary, David Sorenson wrote: “Though it is not quite as evident in English, in the Received Text, the phrase literally reads, ‘the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ’” (p. 228). Kenneth Wuest asserted: “The expression, ‘God and our Saviour’ is in a construction in the Greek text which demands that we translate, ‘our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ” (In These Last Days, p. 17). John Ankerberg and John Weldon maintained that “Greek scholars Dana and Mantley, in their A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, confirm the truth of Sharp’s rule, and then explain: ‘Second Peter 1:1 … means that Jesus is our God and Savior” (Facts On Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 24).


    John Dagg indicated that the rendering in our common English version at 2 Peter 1:1 should be emended to “the righteousness of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ” (Manual of Theology, pp. 183-184). Timothy Dwight (1752-1817) wrote: “According to the original, of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ” (Theology Explained, I, p. 525). Thomas Goodwin asserted that “Beza reads it, ‘our God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” and that “it is clearly meant one person, viz. Christ” (Works, VIII, p. 283). Goodwin contended that “as by God and the Father is meant God the Father so by God and our Saviour is meant Jesus Christ” (p. 283). In his commentary on 1 and 2 Peter, Gordon Clark translated the phrase as “of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (New Heavens, New Earth, p. 170). Clark noted: “Other references to ‘our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ’ do not diminish the deity asserted here in 1:1” (p. 171). At his verse, the MacArthur Study Bible stated concerning “our God and Savior Jesus Christ:” The Greek construction has only one article before this phrase, making the entire phrase refer to the same person” (p. 1952). At this phrase at this verse, The Henry Morris Study Bible stated: “This expression could better be rendered as ‘our God and Saviour Jesus Christ’” (p. 1947). In his commentary on 2 Peter & Jude, John MacArthur noted: “The Greek construction places just one article before the phrase God and Savior, which makes both terms refer to the same person. Thus Peter identifies Jesus, not just as Savior, but as God (cf. 1:11; 2:20, 3:2, 18; Isa. 43:3, 11:45, 21; 60:16; Rom. 9:5; Col. 2:9; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8), the author and agent of salvation. The apostle made the same relation clear in his Pentecost sermon, in which he took the Old Testament truth of God and applied it to Jesus (Acts 2:21-36; cf. Matt. 1:21; Acts 4:12; 5:31)” (p. 23).


    At 2 Peter 1:1, the 2005 Cambridge edition of the KJV has this note taken from the standard 1762 Cambridge edition: “Gr. of our God and Saviour.” KJV editions printed at Oxford in 1810, 1821, 1835, 1857, 1865, 1868, and 1885, and at Cambridge in 1769, 1844, 1872, and 1887 also have this same note indicating the accurate translation and meaning of the Greek. An earlier KJV edition printed in London in 1711 had the same note and a cross reference to Titus 2:13. Granville Sharp observed: “In the margin of our present version the proper reading is ‘of our God and Saviour,‘ manifestly referring both titles to one person” (Remarks, p. 22). Concerning 2 Peter 1:1 in the Westminster Annotations printed in 1645, this note was also given: “Gr. Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” Thus, the Bible scholars at the Westminster Assembly agreed with the pre-1611 English translators and the editors of some standard KJV editions.

    Surprisingly, the 1611 edition of the KJV has a comma after God at 2 Peter 1:1 [God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ], and that comma seems to have remained in most KJV editions printed up to the 1769 Oxford edition. The 1743 Cambridge and 1760 Cambridge editions had actually removed it before the 1769. Even the first KJV edition printed in America in 1782 and KJV editions printed at Oxford in 1788 and in 1795 still have a comma after God at 2 Peter 1:1. How does this comma in most KJV editions up to the 1769 Oxford affect the understanding and interpretation of this verse? Concerning this verse in his 1633 commentary on 2 Peter, Thomas Adams observed: “Some read these words by disjoining them; of God, and of our Saviour,“ which would seem to refer to the rendering in the 1611. In his commentary on several books of the Bible including 2 Peter, Thomas Holland attempted to defend the rendering in the KJV as he asserted: “While the phrase our God and Savior Jesus Christ is a clear testimony to Christ’s deity, the phrase God and our Savior Jesus Christ likewise has reference to God and Savior being the same person, namely Jesus Christ” (p. 289).
     
  7. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    60
    The KJV translates Strongs G1949 (Took On) in the following manner: take (7x), take by (3x), catch (2x), take on (2x), lay hold on (2x), take hold of (2x), lay hold upon (1x).

    Strong's:
    ἐπιλαμβάνομαι
    to seize (for help, injury, attainment, or any other purpose; literally or figuratively)
    Derivation: middle voice from G1909 and G2983;
    KJV Usage: catch, lay hold (up-)on, take (by, hold of, on).

    G1909 G2983
    Thayer:
    1) to take in addition, to lay hold of, take possession of, overtake, attain, attain to
    1a) to lay hold of or to seize upon anything with the hands, to take hold of, lay hold of
    1b) metaph. to rescue one from peril, to help, succour
    Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words
    Catch
    Hold (down, fast, forth, on, to, up), Held, Holden, (take) Hold
    Take

    The context clearly shows that to aid is a horrible translation considering the next verse.
    Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things.
     
  8. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    60
    You just danced around the issue in Proverbs 16:1. They do not say the same thing.
     
  9. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    60
    You guys are something else.
     
  10. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    I'll be happy to respond at length when I have some more time, perhaps tomorrow, but I will point out one thing, that the updates in the NKJV are generally due to several things:

    1. Better hermeneutical and exegetical skills as relates to the original languages.
    2. Better archeological data to explain idiomatic language, confusing place names, etc.
    3. Overall better textual basis for understanding the original text and not a non-scientific reconstruction.
    4. Updated to reflect changes to the English language.

    Obviously there's plenty of things to disagree with above if you've taken up the KJVO position. Having knowledge of the original languages (or at least how they work) also explains some issues. :)
     
  11. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Things that are different are not the same. The NKJV is not the same as the. KJV. THe various editions of the KJV are not the same either.

    I love the KJV, so won't post about the supposed 'corruptions' there.
     
    #11 NaasPreacher (C4K), Jan 2, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 2, 2014
  12. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    There are many places where the 1611 KJV does not say the same thing as one of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revison.

    There are places where the original language words are the same but where the KJV does not say the same thing in its varied renderings.

    There are places where varying editions of the KJV do not say the same thing.
     
  13. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    No, I didn't. The KJV's rendering is an incomplete statement. You simply took some hooey from a trashy website and for some strange reason BELIEVED it.

    Here's Proverbs 16:1 from the Young's Literal translation: "Of man [are] arrangements of the heart, And from Jehovah an answer of the tongue."

    You really should check these sites for VERACITY before accepting & copying/pasting stuff from them.
     
  14. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    That's what we Freedom Readers say about KJVOs. We wonder how a Christian of normal intelligence can be deceived into believing a non-Scriptural, man-made doctrine derived from a CULT OFFICIAL'S book, and then try to defend it when ALL the evidence is against it.

    One statement from Scripture immediately comesta mind: "WISDOM IS JUSTIFIED OF HER CHILDREN."
     
  15. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,186
    Likes Received:
    611
    Yes, because the KJV has got it wrong. One only need read the whole of Proverbs 16 to get the theme and in particular look at Proverbs 16:9 to see the basic idea of Proverbs 16:1 repeated.

    9 A man's heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directeth his steps. [KJV]

    Now if you want to compare verse 1 and verse 9 in the KJV side-by-side, I would submit that you have a potential contradiction.

    1 The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the Lord.

    9 A man's heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directeth his steps.



    The Geneva Bible has this:
    1 The preparations of the heart are in man: but the answer of the tongue is of the Lord.
     
  16. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    PHP:
    It would be interesting, my young friend, if you kept track of your posts here and looked back at them in 40 years time to see if your views have tempered any.
     
  17. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Cuckoos are not common in Israel today, & there's no indication they were in Biblical times. However, several species of seagulls are quite common in the coastal areas.

    However, cuckoos are, and were, common in England and almost all of Europe. Several European species lay their eggs in the nests of other bird species; the cuckoo eggs generally hatch first, giving cuckoo chix a much-better chance of survival if food is scarce. They also often throw the actual offspring of the parent birds outta the nest. Perhaps for that reason, as well as the fact they're unappetizing as a meal for people, the BRITISH clerics considered them "unclean" and used "cuckow" for the name of a bird where the Hebrew wasn't clear.
     
  18. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    The KJV's rendering has no clarifying verb in the first part of the sentence, making it an incomplete statement.
     
  19. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I did some study of history yesterday eve(after the football action was over) & found there were two Pharaohs called Necho. (Pharaoh is the Hebrew name for the monarch of Egypt, male or female.) The one in Scripture is Necho II. He was in a forced alliance with Assyria, and dared not come to Assyria's aid against Babylon. At that time, the Assyrian empire was beginning to crumble, while Babylon's was on the rise, under Nabopolasser & his son and his son Nebuchadnezzar, who took over military command when Nabopolasser became ill. Judah had made an alliance with Babylon to protect her from Assyria, whom they considered to be the greater threat, as Assyria had carried off the kingdom the ten northern tribes.

    However, when Godly King Josiah ruled Judah, he perceived Babylon as the greater threat, perhaps because of Isaiah's prophecy to Hezekiah concerning Babylon, or perhaps he realized that Assyria was weakining. It's known that Josiah had made overtures to Babylon already, and perhaps wanted to show Nabopolasser his loyalty by trying to block the Egyptians from taking the shortest route to Carcemish & Harran. However, GOD was ready to begin punishing Judah, and so Josiah was slain by the Egyptians, with the last kings of Judah all being idolators.

    But at any rate, Neco was going to AID the Assyrians. The end result was that Babylon defeated the combined armies of Assyria and Egypt, making Egypt an enemy of Babylon, and Judah lost her independence, first to Egypt & then Babylon.

    BTW, there's NO Hebrew word for "against" in the first part of 2 Kings 23:29. However, there IS, in the 2nd part of the verse stating Josiah went AGAINST the Egyptians.

    Thus, Mr. Kuricki is arguing for a KJV statement that's not supported either by its source from which it was translated, nor by secular history.

    (BTW, I've found that Scriptural narratives of ancient events is VERY accurate. However, in this case, the KJV's TRANSLATION is inaccurate.)
     
  20. agedman

    agedman
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,255
    Likes Received:
    185
    This thread is why after ages of prefering the KJV, I decidedly moved to what is considered the most accurate translation of the Scriptures.

    The NASB.

    Far superior to the KJV or NKJV.
     

Share This Page

Loading...