NKJV does not always follow TR of KJB

Hi Scott, I want to comment on a couple things you said. When you say you would consider the providence of God in giving us the KJB if all the editions read exactly the same with no printing errors. Well, sorry Scott, but I don't really believe you.

I imagine that you rejected the KJB as being the true, inerrant and complete words of God for other reasons long before you found out from anti-KJB only sites that there even were such a thing as printing errors in some of them. You most likely assumed that the KJBs all read the same because you didn't know differently, right?

Secondly, I posted and you responded in this way.

"It is the underlying texts of the KJB, the Hebrew and Greek texts, that have not been changed. The same cannot be said for the niv, nasb, rsv, etc. These all have deliberately changed their own TEXTS from one edition to the next, as well as their English renderings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Misinformation.

Scott, please clarify what you mean by "misinformation". Let's limit ourselves to the nasb, and the niv. Are you saying: #1 the nasb, niv do not change their underlying texts; or #2 the nasb, niv do not change the English wording; or # 3 the nasb, niv do not change the underlying texts nor the English wording from one edition to the next?

Please clarify for us, and tell me how what I said is misinformation.

And thirdly, as a hypothetical question, if all the KJB bibles from 1611 to the present day read exactly the same and had no printing errors at all, would you then conclude that the words found in 1 John 5:7 "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" are true, inspired Scripture?

Will

 

Hi AA, you said:,this printing error "thing" is like you said,a "smoke screen," you know,change the subject when things get rough;the thickest plumes come from "where was the word of God in......??"

Yes, brother, I do believe it is a smoke screen for rebellion and unbelief.

It reminds me of this email from Pastor Reagan, who wrote an excellent article about the printing errors in the KJB editions. Here is his email and comments.

 
Dear Pastor Reagan, greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am sending you this E-Mail as I need some help!!!!
 
A bookshop owner here in England (Michael Penfold of Penfold Book and Bible House) has recently produced a leaflet called "Is the King James Version Perfect?" in which he lists all of the 'errors' in the AV, details the differences between the 1611 and the one we have today and also belittles those of us that hold the AV to be the infallible word of God. A couple of brothers and I are preparing a thorough reply to this leaflet. I believe that if we don't it may do some Bible believers some harm. The Lord helping us we have managed to answer nearly all of the points he raises. However he does make reference to a textual change in Ezekiel 24v7.
 
1611 KJV "she powred it vpon the ground to couer it with dust."
 
Current KJV "she poured it not upon the ground, to cover it with dust."
 
Penfold then asks in light of this, which one is the infallible word of God?
 
I have a copy of your article entitled  The Myth of Early Revisions which has been most helpful. However, with regard to the above, it is obviously a textual change with the reading being opposite.  Albeit I note Dr Scrivener records it as being amended in 1613.
 
Although I have some ideas, I would be grateful if you could please offer some advice on this one as if we can 'nail' this point then we can go back to Mr Penfold and God willing help him to change his mind.
Yours in Christ
 
 
ANSWER from Brother Reagan:
 
Brother H,
 
Thank you for your letter.  I am always interested in the latest attacks on the word of God. 
 
Pulling out Ezekiel 24:7 shows me the desperation to which these fellows are driven to attack the King James Bible.  It is so obviously a printing error in the 1611 edition that it hardly needs defense.  However, I will do so for those who need it.
 
Any particular copy of the King James Bible does not have to be error-free for the Bible to be the infallibly preserved Bible in the English language.  Typographical errors continue to occur in Bibles today even with our superior computer checking and long-term correction of errors.  If any particular copy of the Bible is found to have a misprint, we simply correct it in the next printing or in the text of our particular copy of the Bible.
 
The error in the 1611 edition of the King James Bible in Ezekiel 24:7 is clearly a misprint which was spotted and corrected so early that there can be no honest opposition to this truth.  First, let's eliminate the other possibilities.
 
1.  It is not a textual problem--by this I mean that there is no difference in the Hebrew text that would cause them to translate without the "not."  The Hebrew Massoretic text used for the translation of the King James Bible has the Hebrew word "lo", meaning "no" or "not".  I also checked several modern translations.  They all have the negative so there is no problem with a different Hebrew text. 
 
2.  It is not a translation problem.  There is no reason to believe that the King James translators translated this passage which clearly has a "not" without the negative.  In fact, the early correction (1613) proves that this was an error in the first printing.
 
3.  It is not a doctrinal error.  One of the interesting things about the printing errors in the King James editions is that they are either so benign that hardly any difference can be discerned in meaning or they are so obvious (as in this case) that they are simple to correct.  One early edition had "Printers have persecuted me without cause" in Psalm 119:161.  This is not something to lose our religion over.  Rather, it is amusing to consider what "printers" have done to the Bible.  Correct it in the text (write the correct words in) or in the next printing but don't glee over your superiority to the Bible God has given to us. One other thought: even though the Ezekiel 24:7 example is the opposite of what it should be, I would challenge anyone to try and teach any false doctrine from the misprint.
 
What is it then?  It is a printing error.  Either the handwritten copy of Ezekiel handed to the printers had the not inadvertently left out or the printers themselves failed to see the not when they laid out the type.  I believe that the Lord preserved His word through the translation process, but I do not believe that He kept the hundreds of people involved in the process from making any mistakes.  These few and minor errors would be corrected over a period of time.
 
A simple word like "not" is very easy to leave out when making a copy of something.  However, it is also very easy to put back in when the mistake is discovered.  This was done in 1613--only 2 years after the original printing!  So, for the last 389 years (out of the 391 since the original King James printing), we have had the correct printing in Ezekiel 24:7--the one that certainly matches the translation decision of the 1611 translators. 
 
Attacking the King James Bible on the basis of such printing errors shows a profound hatred for the Bible used by God for the saving of more souls, the sending of more missionaries, the establishing of more churches, the strengthening of more believers and the stirring of more revivals than any other edition of the Bible in any language for the last 2,000 years--including those in the original tongues.  I actually feel sorry for people like that.
 
NOTE: You can study this question further in the The Myth of Early Revisions.
 
 By David F. Reagan

 

Scott, talk about "misinformation"!

Try reading the article by Pastor Reagan about the Myth of early revisions to the KJB where he discusses the conditons of type setting in the 1600s and the printing errors.

http://www.learnthebible.org/Myth%20of%20Early%20Revisions.htm

Will

 

Hi skanwmatos, in our posts we read:

The second example of Ram to Lambe again is quite easy. Both words occur in Numbers 6:14 and it would have been very easy to confuse them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
But that is my whole point. The word "Ram" does NOT occur in the edition of 1611 which reads:

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And he shall offer his offring unto the LORD, one hee lambe of the first yeere without blemish, for a burnt offering, and one ewe lambe of the first yeere without blemish, for a sinne offering, and one lambe without blemish for a peace offering."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note the lack of the word "ram" as we see in later editions. (Also note the first "offring" is how it is spelled in the first edition, first printing of the edition of 1611 even though the rest of the times we see "offering" in the verse the spelling is correct.)

Skanwmatos, and you apparently missed my point. The word "lamb" occurs legitimately twice already in Numbers 6:14, and the third time the original 1611 misprinted the word "ram" (which is in the Hebrew and in the present day KJB) and put "lamb". This would have been quite easy to do for the printer who was hand setting the type. He most likely saw the word "lamb" twice already and mistook "ram", which shares both the "a" and the "m", with the word "lamb". Your second example of "offring" even confirms the printing error idea. It is a simple printing error.

Will

 

Tim asks: "Why did God guide the hands and minds of the KJV tranlators to produce a perfect Bible, only to have it corrupted by printers? I'll await your answer. "

Hi Tim, excellent question. It also is like what Scott was asking.

Here is what I believe about this. The production of the KJB mirrors exactly what happened in the case of the originals and all good copies of the correct texts.

God inspired the originals. Scribes then copied these originals into other manuscripts but all of the correct line of good copies introduced "printing errors", inversion of word order, slight omissions, and such like.

God's word was not lost but needed some degree of purification as a result of the human element.

God has preserved His inerrant words Providentially, not miraculously. He did not keep every copyist from making "printing errors", but He guided in such a way as to purify the text and bring it back to its original state.

It seems you would have to admit that the stated purpose of modern scholarship is to accomplish this same end. They believe they need to examine the evidence, purge the texts of errors and false readings, and try to restore the texts to their original state.

Yet their results are exceedingly flawed, and some even admit it is hopeless. Witness the textual differences between the ESV, the NASB, and the NIV. Literally hundreds of words from the texts themselves are different between the ESV and the NASB.

The scholars today, all of whom have had the same degree of training and access to the same information, all come up with very different conclusions, and the various bible versions reflect these differences.

My belief is that God has kept His promises to preserve His inerrant words, and He has already providentially guided certain chosen men through this same "scholarly process" to select both the correct texts and the correct meaning for those texts. Afterall, only God really knows which readings are His and which are not.

The KJB believer first looks to God and His promises to fulfill His words, and believes that God has done what He said He would do.

The Whateverist, or biblical relativist seems to think that he and his cronies are capable "restoring" what God never lost, and denies that God has already preserved His words in the King James Bible or any other bible.

This is a fundamental difference in our approach to the doctines of inspiration and preservation. We KJB believers are convinced God has done what He said He would do. The bible of ther month club member thinks it is still an ongoing process and his results are getting more scattered and divergent as time goes by. Your Nestle-Aland, UBS Greek texts continue to change every few years, and the modern versions have introduced hundreds of variations into the Old Testament Scriptures. Just look at the differences between the KJB, NASB, and the ESV in this regard.

Your side ends up with no inspired, complete, inerrant and sure words of God and maximun uncertainty - "Yea, hath God said...?. The KJB advocate believes he has the inerrant words of God and enjoys maximum certainty and rest in the fulfilled promises of the Almighty - "Thus saith the LORD".

Something to think about.

Will Kinney

Will