KJV Was Not So Easy To Read Before 1900

I can see that I'm wasting my time here. Others have already answered your assertions and there's no need for me to rehash the hash.

The Devil won't touch God's Word with a ten-foot pole- He trembles at it and it's much easier to get Christians to fight each other, to repeat lies, and to waste time arguing about whose Sword is sharpest rather than using them.

Be blessed.

 

First of all you need to understand that I cannot answer everyone at once. Nor can I be on this forum all day. I have asked questions and have not received a direct answer from anyone. Not one person has been able to show that there's no such thing as a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible. No one has proven that its impossible to have an infallible translation. Not one person has had the courage to closely examine the Alexandrian text, where it originated from, and why it isn't trustworthy.

2nd, I am under no obligation to do the work for you. If you believe the KJV and the NKJV are exactly alike in their OT, then you haven't done your homework. Check out Deut 23:17-18, Gen. 2:18, Prov 18:8, 16:10, 11:16. Zech 9:17. These are just a few examples

The NKJV is not the King James Bible, nor is it anything comparable to any of the editions of the KJB. In many places where it differs from the KJV, it agrees with the Alexandrian family of texts and those modern versions following that textual family. Regarding the editions of the Authorized Version of 1611, the revision committee of the American Bible Society said in 1852, “The English Bible as left by the translators has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text.”

The KJV OT is based on the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text. But the NKJV is based on the Biblia Hebraica. .The Textus Receptus follows the Masoretic text. Biblia Hebraica does not. Therefore, the NKJV OT does not truly follow the Textus Receptus, does it?

These are the facts and if you and others only wish to argue, I'm not interested. I think its a shame that there are professing Christians that do not believe we have a 100% inspired Bible!

The Holy Bible is a supernatural gift from God and has been both inspired and preserved by the Holy Spirit. “The Scripture cannot be broken” and we do have a complete, inspired and 100% true Holy Bible on the earth today.

God said: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD." Amos 8:11

 

So I take it you are not going to show where the NKJV deviates from the TR?

Just saying it over and over does not make it true. You could silence your critics with one example.

 

I'm sorry you feel that its a waste of time. I am also sorry that you couldn't care less about answering the questions put to you. It seems you prefer to just give your personal views. You are right about one thing though: There is a lot of rehashing that goes on here but not one person has proven that we no longer have a 100% inspired infallible word of God. Not one person has shown that the KJV has errors.

If you believe satan will not tamper with the Bible, you are sorely mistaken. The devil has used men to do such things for him and we are seeing it through these modern bible versions. He is behind the very fact that many doubt the Inspiration of the Bible. He places clouds of doubt upon the Bible by saying that the Bible is full of errors and contradictions. .He is the author of confusion. This is why many no longer respect the word of God.

 

Since you are convinced that the KJV never deviated from the TR, could you point out the Greek word(s) for 'God forbid' in Romans 6v1-2 in the TR please?

 

There is a separate thread devoted to this issue and the reasons given for the Alexandrian texts to be 'corrupted' are unconvincing.

You say, "it agrees with the Alexandrian family of texts", the reality is that the NKJV doesn't use those texts, however, the translated word the NKJV uses is similar to the translated words because they are a more accurate translation of the underlying language.

?? Now I'm confused. Since when does the Textus Receptus contain the Old Testament?

I haven't seen anyone on this board say the Bible is not 100% inspired. I'd ask you to point that out, but your record in presenting evidence is flaccid.

 

Well, since you asked....


Proverbs 30:28--Spider or Lizard?

The KJV says the animal in question is 'spider'.
The NKJV says 'spider' with a footnote saying 'or lizard'. (I don't see how it can be both.)
The NIV says 'lizard'.
The NASB says 'lizard'.
The ESV says 'lizard'.
The CEV says 'lizard'.



Acts 12:4--Easter, really?

4And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. [KJV]

(NKJV correctly has Passover.)


Deut. 8:9--KJV says you can mine brass

9 A land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness, thou shalt not lack any thing in it; a land whose stones are iron, and out of whose hills thou mayest dig brass. [KJV]

9 a land in which you will eat bread without scarcity, in which you will lack nothing; a land whose stones are iron and out of whose hills you can dig copper. [NKJV]

(brass is a manufactured alloy of copper and zinc and does not occur naturally, therefore thou mayest not 'dig' brass.)

 

Easter is correct, not Passover:

 

The Greek word used in this verse, as written by Luke in the 1st century, does not translate "Easter". End of story.

 

Another example of where the KJV translation, though acceptable, is not 'word for word.'

 

You know, this is getting old and tiring. You are not the first, nor will you be the last to bring this up. Doug Kutilek is the latest to jump on the KJV critic bandwagon.

As for "God forbid," it has been explained many times. It is a rendering of "mE genoito" which is "may it not be" or "let it not be." This is perfect 1611 idiom for "God forbid." It was quite literal in 1611..You can check the Oxford English Dictionary which gives the meaning of "God forbid" in 1611. It is found seven times in the O.T.: (Gen. 44:7,17; Jos. 22:29; 24:16; 1 Sa. 12:23; 1 Ch. 11:19; Job 27:5). It is a rendering of "chalal" which is "may it be something profane" or "may it be far from me." Again, "God forbid" is a perfect 1611 mode of speech..

 

Please do share.

 

It is a cultural idiom - it is not a direct word for word translation. Does that mean that 2011 cultural paraphrase are acceptable today. In other words could we translate this today as 'NO WAY!!'

The NKJV is MUCH more literal with it's 'certainly not!' Why would you choose a cultural idiom over a literal translation?

 

.

I gave examples. Guess you chose to ignore them.

The NKJV, omits "hell", "blood", "repent", "heaven", "Lord". numerous times. The terms "devils", "damnation", "JEHOVAH", and "new testament" are completely omitted. It demotes Jesus Christ. In John 1:3, the KJV says that all things were made "by" Jesus Christ, but in the NKJV, all things were just made "through" Him. The word "Servant" replaces "Son" in Acts 3:13 and 3:26. "Servant" replaces "child" in Acts 4:27 and 4:30. The word "Jesus" is omitted from Mark 2:15, Hebrews 4:8, and Acts 7:45. The list goes on. But it hardly matters if your mind is already made up.

If someone is convinced the KJB is not the inspired word of God, no matter if all copies in its long history read exactly the same, his mind would not be changed by this fact

 

You have yet to show a single deviation from the TR just some random charges. Just one example of where the NKJV chooses a CT rendering over the TR, that would do it. You claim to have 1,200. Just post the CT rendering, the TR rendering, and show where the NKJV chooses the CT. It should be easy with 1,200 choices.

 

< Snip list >

The differences between the KJV and NKJV in your examples are differences of scholarly TRANSLATIONAL opinions. They are not examples of where the NKJV uses the Critical Text in place of the Textus Receptus.

 

I am convinced the KJV is not inspired, and thousands of Bible believers through the past 400 years have believed the same. God never promised to inspire translators- a fact with which the KJV translators themselves were well aware.

From the Preface to the reader of the KJV:

The KJV is a good translation. No modern translation reads as beautifully (although not quite as easily understood by the majority of modern readers), IMHO. But it is no more or less inspired than the NIV (which I am not particularly fond of), the NASB, the ESV,... etc.

You need to stop reading and parroting Jack Chick, Ruckman, Riplinger, Waite and so forth and start doing some serious study on your own. I have, I know what I believe, and I have the utmost confidence that the Bible that I am studying and will be preaching out of this Sunday IS the Word of God- even if it isn't the KJV.