Featured Why do you think that by Sowing Changes to the Meanings in God's Word, has Reaped such a Harvest?

Most (if not all) of the same types of differences can be found between earlier pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible and Bishops' Bible when compared to the KJV as can be found when the KJV is compared to the NKJV.

Sometimes the KJV has more words than the 1560 Geneva Bible or 1568 Bishops’ Bible, and sometimes it has fewer words. At times the makers of the KJV sometimes changed one part of speech or one grammatical form in one or more of the earlier pre-1611 English translations into another one. Many actual differences between the Geneva Bible and the KJV can be found in number of words, in meaning of words, in whether a noun or pronoun is used, in number or person of pronouns, in whether a phrase, clause, adjective, or adverb is used, in shifting of the position of words, phrases, or clauses in a sentence, in use of italics, etc. Several of the many differences between the 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1611 KJV can be considered significant, and at least a few of the differences were textual. There are greater textual differences between the 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1611 KJV than any of the one claimed between the KJV and the NKJV.

The Church of England makers of the KJV borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament translated from an edition of Jerome's Latin Vulgate's NT, but that does not make the KJV a translation of the Latin Vulgate. The makers of the KJV made use of Hebrew-Latin lexicons and Greek-Latin lexicons that often had renderings of Jerome's Latin Vulgate as their definitions of original-language words of Scripture. Along with being a revision of multiple, varying pre-1611 English Bibles, the KJV is based on multiple, textually-varying original-language texts and multiple varying translations in other languages.

 

Those articles do not give a fair evaluation of the NKJV since they fail to apply the same exact measures to the textual and translation decisions involved in the making of the KJV. They are biased, one-sided, unfair articles.

Concerning 1 Chronicles 6:28 in the NKJV, Malcolm Watts claimed: “(Vashni), the name of Samuel’s firstborn son, is changed to Joel after the Septuagint, Syriac, and Arabic. He appears to be called both names (see verse 33 and 1 Samuel 8:2), but there is no textual justification for the other name being included here” (NKJV: A Critique, p. 2). D. A. Waite listed this rendering in the NKJV as a dynamic equivalency and claimed that it came from a non-Masoretic text (NKJV compared to KJV, p. 36).

Concerning this verse, E. W. Bullinger asserted: “Here there is an Ellipsis of the name of the firstborn: while the [Hebrew] word, Vashni, when otherwise pointed means ‘and the second’ so that the verse reads, ‘And the sons of Samuel; the firstborn [Joel] and the second Abiah. This agrees with the Syriac Version’” (Figures of Speech, p. 5). Bullinger added: “’Joel’ is supplied from verse 33 (see also 1 Sam. 8:2, and the note in Ginsburg’s edition of the Hebrew Bible)” (Ibid.). Bullinger maintained that “Vashni is not a proper name, but means ‘the second’” (p. 104 note). The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia also noted: “The explanation of this is that in 1 Chronicles 6:28 the word taken as a proper name is really ‘and second’” (Vol. 5, p. 3046).

Is there actually no sound justification to supply words in italics when there is a use of a Hebrew figure of speech such as an Ellipsis that omits a word or words since the KJV translators do the same thing in several other verses? One example would be at 2 Kings 25:3 where the makers of the KJV added two words in italics to supply words omitted in an Ellipsis [“And on the ninth day of the fourth month”]. Bullinger noted: “The Hebrew reads, ‘and on the ninth month.’ But the Ellipsis is correctly supplied from Jeremiah 52:6” (Figures of Speech, p. 20).

Would D. A. Waite and other KJV defenders likewise consider the places where the KJV supplies words omitted in an Ellipsis dynamic equivalent renderings?

 

Cross reference 1 Chronicles 6:33.

 

Some of this is just plain silly.

 

Just because a symbol may have been used by others with a different meaning is not actually proof that is its meaning as used by the NKJV’s publisher Thomas Nelson. Can knowledge of the publisher’s own actual meaning for its symbol be gained?

In its 1991 KJV-NKJV Parallel Bible, Thomas Nelson identified its logo on the NKJV’s title page as “an ancient symbol for the Trinity.” The publisher maintained that its triquetra “comprises three interwoven arcs, distinct yet equal and inseparable, symbolizing that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct yet equal Persons and indivisibly one God.” Therefore, this publisher has clearly stated and identified its authentic meaning determined for its use of this symbol.

Gary Zeolla maintained that “the triquetra is not an ‘image’ of God that people create to worship” and that “it is a symbol used to illustrate a very difficult theological concept” (Differences Between Bible Versions, p. 192). Dean Moe wrote: “The triquetra is a three-pointed trinangular figure portraying the ‘three-in-one’ of the Trinity” (Christian Symbols Handbook, p. 32). In KJV-only seeming attempts to smear the NKJV by use of a guilt-by-association argument, do KJV-only advocates ignore the possibility that the same symbol can be used with different meanings just as the same word can be used with different meanings? How does this symbol have any bearing on the accuracy or inaccuracy of the translating in the NKJV? For example, should the symbol or token of a rainbow (Gen. 9:13) be considered to have the same meaning for believers as it may have for many unbelievers or pagans?

Would KJV defenders use the same measures and condemn the KJV if a publisher included any symbol or symbols for God? Did the first 1611 edition of the KJV have any symbols or images to depict God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, or the Trinity? Laurence Vance acknowledged that “the engraved title page depicts the Trinity in the upper panel in the form of the Divine Name, a dove, and a lamb” (King James, His Bible, p. 55). Gordon Campbell maintained that “the godhead is represented by symbols rather than pictorial representation” (Bible, p. 100). Concerning the engraved 1611 title page, Alister McGrath maintained that “the upper panel depicts the Trinity in a conventional style” (In the Beginning, p. 207). McGrath noted that “the ‘lamb and flag’ is generally interpreted as a symbol of the resurrection of the crucified Christ” (p. 209). Benson Bobrick affirmed that the 1611 title page depicted “the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove” (Wide as the Waters, p. 252). At the bottom of the title page of the 1611 KJV, Geddes MacGregor observed that it has “a traditional symbol of the redeeming work of Christ, especially in the Eucharist--a pelican ‘vulning’ herself, that is, wounding herself with her beak to feed her young with her own blood” (Literary History, p. 205). Concerning the 1611 title page, Derek Wilson asserted that “an interesting feature is the inclusion of Catholic imagery” (People’s Bible, p. 123). Gordon Campbell claimed: “The figure of Peter is strikingly Catholic: not only is he the sole possessor of the keys (whereas on the Coverdale cover all apostles have been issued with keys), but he is paired with Paul on either side of the godhead, which is the normal arrangement in Catholic altarpieces” (Bible, pp. 100-101). Derek Wilson noted: “The apostles are shown with the traditional symbols of their martyrdom and, at the foot of the page, there is a drawing of a pelican in her piety (a heraldic device depicting a pelican feeding her young with her own blood), which Catholic convention employed to represent the sacrifice of Christ in the mass” (People’s Bible, p. 123). Steve Halla wrote: “Boel’s choice of iconography reflects King James’s desire for Christian unity by combining both traditional ‘Catholic’ iconography, such as Peter and Paul and the Pelican feeding its young, with iconography distinctly reflective of Protestant iconoclastic sensibilities” (Neste, KJV400, p. 119). Alister McGrath observed: “There is a curious irony to this symbol. In the Middle Ages, the image of a pelican came to be linked with the Lord’s Supper or Mass, especially with the medieval ecclesiastical feast of Corpus Christi” (In the Beginning, p. 210). Benson Bobrick maintained that the 1611 title page has “a pelican (symbol of Christ) shown feeding her young with blood from her own breast” (Wide as the Waters, p. 252).

In an example of another KJV edition, a Family and Library Reference Edition published by Good News Publishers (with a 1968 copyright date by Royal Publishers) has a page of historic Christian symbols that are also used on its border designs and other special pages. These symbols include a symbol for the Trinity. Did the publisher of the 1982 NKJV possibly or likely get the idea of using a symbol for the Trinity from an earlier edition of the KJV?

 

Would KJV-only advocates use the same measures and condemn the 1611 KJV if its publisher used any pagan symbols or images in it? At Psalm 141 and 1 Peter 3, the 1611 edition of the KJV has an initial letter with a figure of the Greek god Pan. In the initial letter for Matthew 1 and Revelation 1, the 1611 KJV has an illustration with the Roman god Neptune with sea horses. At Romans 1, the 1611 edition of the KJV has an initial letter with a naked, sprouting nymph Daphne. It may be that some of the initial letters in the original 1611 KJV edition with mythological scenes may be from the same source as those used in an edition of the Bishops’ Bible.

T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule suggested that some of the ornamental initials in the 1611 resemble “those used in folio editions of the Bishops’ Bible” (Historical Catalogue, I, p. 135). In introductory articles in Hendrickson’s reprint of the 1611 KJV, Alfred Pollard pointed out: “In the New Testament two of the mythological ten-line set, the use of which in the Bishops’ Bible had justly been censured, reappear at the beginning of Matthew and Romans” (p. 45, footnote 2). John Eadie affirmed that the printers of the 1611 used some of “the same head pieces, woodcuts, and other embellishments, which had appeared in the Bishops’” (English Bible, II, p. 291). Eadie pointed out that “the figure of Neptune with his trident and horses, which appears so often in the Bishops’, stands at the beginning of Matthew” (p. 291). H. W. Hoare noted that the figure “of Neptune with his trident and horses was borrowed from the Bishops’ Bible” (Evolution, pp. 274-275). William Loftie affirmed that “the figure of Neptune, which in the largests of the Bishops’ was made frequently available, now headed the gospel of St. Matthew” [in the 1611] (Century of Bibles, p. 6). The initial letters can be seen in the large 1611 digital reproduction by Greyden Press, in the 2010 reprint of the 1611 by Oxford University Press, and in the 2011 reprint by Zondervan, but the 1611 reprints in Roman type published by Thomas Nelson or Hendrickson Publishers do not have them. David Norton has a page of illustrations that included three initials from the 1611 in his book, and he asserted that it is unlikely that the KJV translators approved of their use (Textual History, pp. 51-52). Gordon Campbell wrote: “The initials portraying Daphne and Neptune had been used in the Bishops’ Bible, and had attracted censure from some quarters, so their reuse must have been deliberate. In any case, there was no reason for the translators to disapprove” (Bible, p. 101). Donald Brake commented: “Many consider it a mystery why the King James translators, all ministers of the gospel, allowed pagan images to illustrate the initial letters of God’s Word. While readers today might consider depictions of mythological images contrary to the biblical message, the translators likely did not view them as a threat to Christian belief” (Visual History of the KJB, pp. 179-180). Donald Brake asserted that the 1611’s initial letter at Hebrews 1 is a “demonic face with bat wings” (p. 178). Brake maintained that the 1611’s initial letter at 2 Corinthians 1, Galatians 1, Philippians 1, 2 Thessalonians 1, Philemon 1, and 1 Peter 1 is “two demons depicted with horns and pitchforks” (p. 179). In addition, the 1611 KJV edition referred to the signs of the Zodiac in its calendar: “Sol in Aquario” (p. xvii), “Sol in Piscibus” (p. xviii), “Sol in Aries” (p. xix), “Sol in Tauro” (p. xx), “Sol in Gemini” (p. xxi), etc.

Some publishers have printed editions of the KJV with lodge or masonic symbols on the cover, title page, or presentation pages. Some examples of these would be a 1928 edition printed by Oxford University Press, a 1940 edition printed by A. J. Holman, a 1941 edition printed by A. J. Holman, a 1946 edtion by the National Bible Press, a 1949 edition by John A. Hertel, a 1984 edition entitled Master Mason Edition by Heirloom Bible Publishers, an undated edition by World Publishing Company, and an undated edition printed by the Oxford University Press with lessons of the Order of the Eastern Star. The 1928 Oxford KJV edition has a masonic symbol [a square & compass with a G in the middle] on its cover and on presentation pages. The 1940 A. J. Holman KJV edition also has this same masonic symbol on its front cover and on presentation pages. This 1940 edition also has copyright dates of 1924, 1925, 1929, 1930, 1932, 1933, 1935, and 1939, indicating that this masonic edition may have been printed other years. The 1984 Master Mason Edition of the KJV has the same masonic symbol on its cover. Three of the above mentioned KJV editions have a star on the cover for the Order of the Eastern Star.

How does a publisher’s use of a symbol have any direct bearing on the accuracy or inaccuracy of the translating in a Bible translation? Would allegations concerning a symbol on the cover or title page possibly be an example of use of a red herring fallacy? It also seems to be an improper effort to associate the NKJV translators with unbelievers that had no part in its making [fallacy of guilt by association]. Furthermore, sound evidence clearly demonstrated that KJV-only advocates have not applied their own allegations about symbols to those that have been printed in or on editions of the KJV. Would that suggest that their allegations concerning this symbol on editions of the NKJV involved use of double standards or unjust measures?

 

This same Greek word found at Acts 4:27 and 30 was also used of Jesus at Matthew 12:18a where it was translated "servant" in the KJV. However, it was translated "child" in Wycliffe's, 1534 Tyndale's, Matthew's, Great, and Bishops' Bibles and as "son" in 1526 Tyndale's. Why is this difference important in Acts 4:27 and 30 but unimportant in Matthew 12:18? The KJV itself translated this Greek word pais as "servant" 10 times, "child" 7 times, and "son" 3 times. Does the KJV’s rendering at Matthew 12:18 demonstrate that the NKJV translators used one of renderings which the Greek NT text would allow?

The prophet Isaiah had referred to Christ as the servant of the Lord (Isa. 42:1-4, Isa. 52:13). James D. Price explained that the real reason for this choice of rendering in the book of Acts in the NKJV is that the translators thought that in this context Peter was alluding to Isaiah 52:13, which identifies Christ as the Servant of the LORD (False Witness, p. 25). This first-hand statement from a NKJV translator clearly states the sound reason for the NKJV's rendering.

Does professed love for the KJV justify such false and seemingly malicious attacks on other Bible translations such as the NKJV?

 

Are you blindly repeating Gail Riplinger's accusations? Gail Riplinger claimed in her tract that the "NKJV omits the word ‘God’ 51 times” (Church Bus News, April-June, 1996, p. 26). This inaccurate claim seems to be based on a simple comparison of the NKJV to the KJV and not on a comparison to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. The NKJV does not omit the name God 51 times where the Hebrew OT text or Greek NT text has an original language name for God.

This count likely does not even take into consideration the places where the KJV has the word “God” added in italics. In response to this misleading charge, James D. Price noted: "The truth is that the KJV added the word "God" in fifty one or more places where the Hebrew or Greek text did not contain it--and that without using italics in most cases. This was because the KJV used dynamic equivalence paraphrases such as "God forbid," "God save the king," or "God speed" instead of a more literal expression in good English. In all these places the NKJV made the KJV more literal and more faithful to the Hebrew and Greek
texts without undermining the place of God in the Bible" (False Witness of G. A. Riplinger's Death Certificate for the NKJV, p. 4).

Dr. James D. Price then discussed these times and demonstrated the faithfulness of the NKJV to the Hebrew and Greek texts underlying the KJV.

D. A. Waite claimed that the NKJV rendering "Rock" at Habakkuk 1:12 "changes noun," "omits noun for Deity," and "omits adjective" (NKJV compared to KJV, pp. 15, 68). In his introductory remarks, Waite asserted that the examples he cited from the NKJV are "not faithfulness in translation," "not accuracy in translation," "not reliability in translation," and "diabolical dynamic equivalency" (pp. xi-xv). This is another inconsistent, inaccurate, and unfair attack on the NKJV based on use of unjust measures. In the margin of the 1611, the KJV translators themselves gave the literal meaning of the Hebrew word as follows: "Heb. rock." Kirk DiVietro asserted: “One does not pervert the word of God when he translates what he finds in the text accurately” (Anything but the KJV, p. 58). The NKJV has a literal, accurate rendering of the Hebrew, not a dynamic equivalency as Waite alleged. In other references, the KJV translators themselves rendered this same Hebrew word as "rock," including references where this word was used of God. At Deuteronomy 32:4, the same Hebrew word was translated “mighty God” in the Geneva Bible and “most mighty God” in the Bishops’ Bible while it was revised to “Rock” in the KJV. Would Waite claim that the KJV omits adjective and omits noun for Deity at Deuteronomy 32:4 when compared to the Geneva Bible or to the Bishops’ Bible? Would Waite suggest that this change made in the KJV to the pre-1611 English Bible at Deuteronomy 32:4 was not faithfulness and accuracy in translation? At Deuteronomy 32:15 and 32:30, the Geneva Bible translated the same Hebrew word as “strong God” which the KJV translated it “Rock” in both verses.

It is again clear that KJV-only advocates fail to apply their own reasoning and claims consistently and justly. Over and over, it is evident that KJV-only advocates will attack other translations such as the NKJV for being more consistent, faithful, or accurate to the same Hebrew and Greek texts used by the KJV translators.

 

The KJV was very inconsistent in its attempt to update and revise the pre-1611 English Bibles so does this assertion also condemn the KJV?

In some places, the KJV followed the more up-to-date language in the 1560 Geneva Bible while in other places it followed the more archaic language in the 1568 Bishops' Bible.

 

Not true. You blindly repeat false accusations that have been refuted. Evidently you did not carefully check out the bogus KJV-only accusations before you repeated them.

 

Mark 2:15, And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him.

The Greek translated ". . . Jesus . . . ." where it says "Jesus sat at meat" is αυτον.

Hebrews 4:8, For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

Is speaking about Joshua.

Acts of the Apostles 7:45, Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David; . .

Again. is speaking about Joshua.

 

Incorrect.

All your repeated list of claimed omissions in the NKJV came from Gail Riplinger's tract. You may have picked it up second hand or third hand from someone else who copied and repeated the claims from Gail Riplinger.

The truth remains that the Hebrew name for God or Greek name for God is not in the KJV's underlying texts in those places.
You still demonstrate that you are applying divers measures [double standards] since you do not make the same accusation against the KJV in places where one or more of the pre-1611 English Bibles have "God forbid" while the KJV omits the name "God" in its different rendering. That demonstrates that you judge unrighteous judgment with your selective, inconsistent accusation, involving use of divers measures/standards.

At Acts 10:14, Tyndale's and Matthew's Bibles have "God forbid" while the KJV has "Not so."

At Acts 11:8, Tyndale's, Matthew's, Whittingham's, and Geneva Bibles have "God forbid" while the KJV again has "Not so."

At 2 Samuel 20:20, the Geneva and Bishops’ Bibles have “God forbid” twice while the KJV has “Far be it” twice. This verse has the same Hebrew word twice that the KJV rendered “God forbid” several other times.

At 1 Samuel 20:9, the 1560 Geneva’s rendering [“God keep it from thee”] and the Bishops’ rendering [“God keep that from thee”] were revised in the KJV [“Far be it from thee”].

Would you, Gail Riplinger, and other KJV-only advocates claim that the KJV omitted the name of God at these verses?

Instead of keeping the rendering of the pre-1611 word of God in English, the KJV translators corrected the addition of the word "God" in several of them at 1 Kings 1:31. At Nehemiah 2:3, Coverdale’s and Matthew’s have a rendering with the name of God [“God save the king’s life for ever”] and the Geneva and Bishops’ have a similar rendering [“God save the king for ever”]. The KJV does not add the name of God at this verse [“let the king live for ever”]. At Daniel 2:4, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, and Bishops’ Bible have the name of “God” [“O king, God save thy life for ever”] where the Geneva and KJV does not. Coverdale’s and Matthew’s also have a similar rendering at the following verses (Dan. 3:9, 5:10, 6:6, 6:21).

 

Do KJV-only advocates claim that the KJV omitted the name "God" in the following verses?

Genesis 23:6 [1611 margin—“Hebr. a Prince of God”]

a prince of God [1537 Matthew’s Bible; 1560 Geneva Bible; 1602 Bishops’ Bible]

a mighty prince [1611 KJV]

a prince of God [YLT] [LSV]


1 Samuel 14:15 [1611 margin—“Hebr. a trembling of God”]

with fear by God [1560 Geneva Bible]

the fear that was sent of God [1602 Bishops’ Bible]

a very great trembling [1611 KJV]

a trembling of God [YLT] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible] [LSV]


Psalm 36:6 [1611 margin—“Hebr. the mountains of God”]

the great mountains [1611 KJV]

mountains of God [YLT] [LSV]

the hills of God [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]


Acts 7:20 [1611 margin—“Or, fair to God”]

a proper child in the sight of God [1537 Matthew’s Bible]

acceptable unto God [1560 Geneva Bible; 1602 Bishops’ Bible]

exceeding fair [1611 KJV]

fair to God [YLT] [LSV]

well pleasing to God [NKJV]

beautiful to God [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

 

Regardless of your vain denial, the truth remains that the makers of the KJV did sometimes use dynamic equivalence paraphrases.

The KJV's use of "God forbid" involves only a few of the 51 claimed times. The KJV's rendering "God forbid" is not a literal, word-for-word, form-equivalent rendering.

Your inconsistent, selective arguments concerning that rendering do not apply to all the other places where the KJV added "God" when the Hebrew name for God or Greek name for God is not found in the KJV's underlying texts.


At Matthew 28:9, Tyndale's 1526 New Testament and Coverdale's Bible have "God speed you." The KJV translators corrected this addition of the word "God" although they kept it at 2 John 10 and 11. In his introduction to his translation of the Bible, Noah Webster suggested that God speed may be a mistake for good speed (p. ix). Webster noted that the adjective good in Saxon was spelled god. He continued: "In the phrase used in scripture, which seems to have been formerly proverbial, the Saxon god for good has continued to be written with a single vowel, and the word being mistaken for the name of the Supreme Being, it came to be written with a capital initial, God" (Ibid.). Webster declared: "God speed, as now used, is as improper as God welfare, God success, or God happiness" (p. x). At the entry for God speed, David Cloud noted that it is “an old English phrase for greeting” and that “the same Greek word is translated “hail” (Matt. 26:49), “rejoice” (2 John 4), “greeting” (Acts 15:23, James 1:1), and “farewell” (2 Cor. 13:11)” (Way of Life Encyclopedia, p. 166; Concise KJB Dictionary, p. 40). Wright maintained that it was “a salutation, signifying literally, good speed or success” (Bible Word-Book, p. 290).

The KJV corrected the addition of the phrase "to God" at Galatians 5:12 in the earlier English Bibles ["I would to God"]. On the other hand, the KJV retained this same addition from the earlier English Bibles at 1 Corinthians 4:8. In his introduction, Noah Webster noted: "These phrases ["Would God, would to God"] occur in several passages in which they are not authorized by the original languages, in which the name of the Supreme Being is not used; but the insertion of them in the version, has given countenance to the practice of introducing them into discourses and public speeches, with a levity that is incompatible with a due veneration for the name of God" (p. ix). In his 1833 Bible, Webster corrected the addition of the name of God at 1 Corinthians 4:8 just as the KJV translators had at Galatians 5:12. At its entry would to God, William Swinton as edited by T. J. Conant maintained “this exclamation is purely English, and is not found in the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures” (Bible Word-Book, p. 106). In the O. T., the KJV has these renderings [would God, would to God] at several verses where a Hebrew name for God is not found (Exod. 16:3, Num. 11:29, 14:2, 20:3, Deut. 28:67, Josh. 7:7, Jud. 9:29, 2 Sam. 18:33, 2 Kings 5:3). At Deuteronomy 28:67, the 1535 Coverdale's Bible had not added the name of God in its rendering ["Who shall give me evening"] as the KJV had ["Would God it were even"]. Webster also corrected this addition of the name of God at this verse with his rendering ["O that it were evening"]. At eight other verses, one or more of the earlier English Bibles have the rendering “would God” or “would to God” where the KJV does not have the name “God” (Gen. 30:34, 2 Sam. 23:15, Est. 7:4, Job 13:5, Job 16:4, Job 19:24, Job 23:3, Jer. 9:2).