Thoughts on the NKJV

[Guest Guest]

You're exactly right. I wish whoever wrote the song that says "Just a few more weary days and then I'll fly away" would have realized that.

Does that mean you acknowledge that the NKJV is a corruption of the truth where says: "Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way" ?

[John81]

Does that mean you acknowledge that the NKJV is a corruption of the truth where says: "Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way" ?

I don't see any of this as being applicible to the above mentioned song. Even Paul was weary of the constant battles here on earth and longed to be with the Lord.

Even conquering soldiers get weary.

I pray each day to walk in the Spirit and not in the flesh yet as long as I live in this world each day will be a challenge and a battle to one extent or another. I look forward to the ceasing of all this when the day comes that I "fly away". That doesn't mean I don't accept victory in Christ here and now; it doesn't mean I don't know the joy of the Lord or the peace of Jesus. It just means that it will be great when the war is over and I can spend peaceful time with the Lord in heaven.

[Annie]

Annie,

Please look at these verses.

The NKJV says:

Matthew 7:14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

But the Bible says:

Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

The NKJV implies in that verse that it is difficult to get to heaven. That is not true. The way IS narrow as the KJV says though. It is through Christ alone. Narrow is not difficult, big difference. If the way was "difficult" for us that would make salvation of our works.


Lets look at another place.

Th NKJV says:

"1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

But the Bible says:

"1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."

The NKJV is implying in this passage that getting saved is somehow a long drawn out process instead of a one time act of justification as the bible teaches. Satan is subtle.

There are quite a number of passages like these but hopefully this is enough to show that the NKJV does indeed corrupt the Word of God and changes the meanings of certain verses.

Thanks for responding to my question, Revelation 3:20. I'd like to get a response from Jerry, though, since he's the one that used the word poisonous. (See my previous post.) I don't see anything "poisonous" about the changes that are made here...In fact, I'd agree with whoever said that the NKJV actually seems to be a better translation of the Greek in these verses. Be that as it may, these NKJV verses don't even come close to contradicting any major Christian doctrine, which is what I would expect from a "poisonous," or deceptive book that claims to be the Word of God. Christ made it obvious that it is difficult to overcome self-love, pride, pleasure and other things ("let me first go and bury my father") in order to follow Christ wholeheartedly. "He that putteth his hand to the plough and looks back is not fit for the kingdom of God," etc. In fact, He made it sound so hard that his disciples wondered who could enter heaven. His answer: "With God all things are possible." This Rev. verse simply echoes Christ's teachings that there will be relatively few people that find eternal life with Him...Broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many there be that go that way. In contrast, narrow and difficult is the way that leads to life everlasting. I don't see anything "poisonous" or contradictory in this verse at all. :puzzled:

I don't see anything contradictory in the other verse mentioned, either...In fact, this one seems to be echoing the meaning of the word saved that is expressed in this verse (forgot the reference): "But he that endureth to the end shall be saved." This verse speaks of salvation in a future sense as well. If you say that this NKJV verse is contradictory b/c it speaks of salvation in a different way than "the one-time act," then you must acknowlege, if you are consistent in your reasoning, that this other verse (quoted directly from the KJV) is contradictory as well. Can't we acknowledge that words like "saved" do not have ONLY one meaning, i.e. the one-time act of trusting Christ's finished work?

[Jerry]

Last I checked, you are not being saved or perishing - you are lost or found, lost or saved, alive or dead spiritually.

[Annie]

Last I checked' date=' you are not being saved or perishing - you are lost or found, lost or saved, alive or dead spiritually.[/quote']I completely agree...What does "he that endureth to the end shall be saved" mean? Are those people (the ones of whom He is speaking) not Christians ("saved") now? Or can the word "saved" mean different things? I'm really interested in your thoughts about these ideas, because it is on the basis of these ideas that the NKJV has been accused of being "poisonous."

My point is that the KJV talks about salvation in many different ways...salvation from sin/hell is different than "being saved through childbearing" and "he that endureth to the end shall be saved," and the "save" mentioned in James 5:20.

My overriding point is that the one who accuses the NKJV of perverting God's words/meaning when it refers to salvation in terms of a different tense than "past" has to also believe that the KJV contradicts itself when it refers to a future "salvation" for those who are already God's children, or a woman being "saved through childbearing" (a "works salvation???"), or a Christian brother "saving" someone else's soul from death (James 5:20--salvation through someone else than Christ???) I don't think any of these things are contradictory at all...because "salvation" has different connotations depending on the context. IOW, this argument against the NKJV doesn't appear to have a leg to stand on.

[Jerry]

Those particular contexts we are referring to are referring to spiritual salvation - therefore changing the wording and indicating it is an ongoing process is false doctrine - it is the doctrine of cults.

Yes, there are other passages that refer to being saved physically (whether from enemies, from a sickness, from death, etc.), but that is not the case here. He that endures to the end will be saved from dying (not saved from sins - as these were ALREADY believers in view in the passage) during the Tribulation period, and will be alive to see the return of Christ.

[Revelation3:20]

I'd like to get a response from Jerry, though, since he's the one that used the word poisonous.

It is poisonous. There, I said it too. :Bleh

In fact, I'd agree with whoever said that the NKJV actually seems to be a better translation of the Greek in these verses.

It would seem you are coming with a predisposition to believe that, which is one thing I suppose, but I don't see how anyone could get that out of the facts presented.

Be that as it may, these NKJV verses don't even come close to contradicting any major Christian doctrine, which is what I would expect from a "poisonous," or deceptive book that claims to be the Word of God.

Your expectation would be incorrect.

"Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"

The devil is subtle. If he can't get away with a complete lie he will tell half truths and introduce error where he can.

I don't see anything contradictory in the other verse mentioned, either...In fact, this one seems to be echoing the meaning of the word saved that is expressed in this verse (forgot the reference): "But he that endureth to the end shall be saved." This verse speaks of salvation in a future sense as well. If you say that this NKJV verse is contradictory b/c it speaks of salvation in a different way than "the one-time act," then you must acknowlege, if you are consistent in your reasoning, say that this other verse (quoted directly from the KJV) is contradictory as well. Can't we acknowledge that words like "saved" do not have ONLY one meaning, i.e. the one-time act of trusting Christ's finished work?

I believe you are speaking of this verse:

"Matthew 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."

This verse is not stating that the the subject will be "saved"(as we normally speak of salvation) at the end, instead, it is speaking of salvation in the sense found in the following places:

"Philippians 1:19 For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ,"

"Romans 13:11 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed."

Salvation just means deliverance. So yes it can have more than one meaning. Today we usually use it to mean the one time act of justification we receive through faith in Christ. In the majority of places in the NT where it speaks of "saved" it is indeed speaking of our one time justification. The NKJV changes many of those places to make it seem like justification before God is a process.

By changing 1 Corinthians 1:18 to "being saved" instead of just saved Satan casts doubt on the one time act of justification. Yea hath God said.... You may not consider that a serious doctrinal error or a "poison" but I sure do.

It does the same thing in 2 Corinthians 2:15.

The NKJV says:

" For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing."

While the Bible says:

"2 Corinthians 2:15 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:"

Once again we see the NKJV subtly casting doubt on the one time justification we have through Christ and implying a works salvation.

[Guest Guest]

Hey msKJ!

I don't of course, trust his writings more than those of the teachings of the Holy Spirt (or Holy Ghost). However, I do trust the definitions of Greek words found in the Strong's Concordance. Multiple sources will corroborate this definition. In fact, so will the King James version. Other passages in the KJV translate thilbo otherwise:

In 2 Corinthians 1:6, the KJV translates thilbo as "afflicted". "And whether we be afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation, which is effectual in the enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer: or whether we be comforted, it is for your consolation and salvation."

In 1 Thessalonians 3:4, the KJV translates thilbo as "tribulation": "For verily, when we were with you, we told you before that we should suffer tribulation; even as it came to pass, and ye know."

In 2 Thessalonians 1:7, thilbo is translated as "troubled" in the KJV. "And to you who are troubled, rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels."

In 2 Thessalonians 2:2, again, the KJV translates thilbo as "troubled"

In 1 Timothy 5:10, the KJV translates thilbo as "afflicted".

In Hebrews 11:37, the KJV translates thilbo as "afflicted": "They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented.

In 2 Thessalonians 1:6, thlipsis, which is derived from thilbo, is translated as "tribulation". The Strong's definition of thlipsis is "pressure, afflicted, anguish, burdened, persecution, tribulation, trouble." Again, this is slightly different from the word "thilbo" used in Matthew 7, but it is derived directly from it. See also Romans 5:3, Ephesians 3:1, and 2 Thes 1:4. It can also translate affliction, see Mat. 24:9, Mark 4:17, Mark 13:19, Acts 7:11, 2 Cor 2:4, 2 Cor. 4:17, 2 Cor. 8:2, Phil. 1:16, Phil. 4:14, 1 Th. 1:6, 1 Th. 3:7, James 1:27.


I'm sure thilbo is used more times in the NT, but those are the ones that I was able to find with my limited time. :frog The occurrence in Matthew 7 seems to be the only case where thilbo is translated narrow in the King James Bible.

So essentially, based on the renderings of thilbo in the KJV, it is more associated with trouble, trial, and tribulation than narrowness. However, the word itself seems to carry the connotations of all of that. So if you were reading the original Greek, when you read the word "thilbo", it would evoke an idea of "tribulation, trial, trouble, and difficulty characterized by narrowness, and pressing in at all sides"--or at least, that's the idea I get from it based on Strong's and the context surrounding the passages in the KJV. The problem is, there are many words in Greek that we don't have a direct translation for in English (such as logos, which is translated "Word" in John 1), so translators, rather than trying to give the whole meaning of those words, give the part of the meaning that they believe best fits the context. And for this reason, an English translation of a the NT is never going to be perfectly inerrant and convey the original meaning 100%.

So the KJV and the NKJV are both correct in their translations of the word "thilbo". Narrow is correct, and difficult is correct, but a full translation of the word would require a word in English which connotes both of those words simultaneously, along with perhaps a few others. But we do not have such a word.

I also looked up the word strait from Matthew 7:13-14 in Strong's. It is the Greek word "Stenos", which is defined "narrow (from obstacles standing close about):--strait. Sounds pretty similar to thilbo.

So truly, the NKJV translation of the passage is the truest to the Greek, in that it species difficulty AND narrowness. The only two occurrences of this word I see are the two in Matthew 7.

Essentially, my position is that there is no such thing as a perfectly translated and inerrant translation of the Bible. In its original form, the Bible was perfectly as God intended. However, by the fact that there are Hebrew and [especially] Greek words that cannot directly translate into English and must be substituted with a word of lesser meaning, some things have been slightly modified or lost. This is especially true in the areas of the King James that were actually translated from a translation, the Latin Vulgate. The amazing thing however, is that, among most of the major English translations, the major doctrines and beliefs of the Bible remain intact and are not harmed. Even though some translations are more accurate in some places than others, this fact still remains thanks to God's preservation of His words to mankind.

I hope you better understand where I am coming from now.

Have a blessed Fourth!

Thank you for your response BTL, now would you look up James Strong's definition of 'Lucifer' , and post what he has listed.Please post exactly what he has and nothing else.

Thanks,
mksj1611

[Annie]

Those particular contexts we are referring to are referring to spiritual salvation

How do you know that it isn't referring to salvation in the "spiritual deliverance" sense? Here is the verse:

"1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." (KJV)
"1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (NKJV)

"Them that perish" doesn't indicate people who have already perished, does it? It is obviously talking about people who ARE PERISHING...who are on the road to destruction b/c they have not believed in Christ for salvation. Perishing--spiritual death--is their final destination. Then comes the word but, which indicates a direct contrast, expressed in parallel language.That's why it makes perfect sense for it to read, "but to us who ARE BEING SAVED," or are being delivered from death. Yes, we have already been "saved," in the justification sense, but our salvation will be fully realized sometime in the future, and hence is ongoing. God is (very much in an ongoing sense) "keeping that which I have committed unto Him against that day." He who BEGAN the good work in me SHALL PERFORM it until the day of Christ Jesus. Salvation is ongoing...As a matter of fact, it is everlasting...ongoing for eternity! We never stop being saved, right? It has nothing to do with how we live, or good/bad works we commit. That's why I don't understand how, just from this one verse, someone can get the idea that we are saved by works. It's just not in the verse! Rather, the opposite is true, when compared with the whole of Scripture (yes, in the NKJV). Assuming that this verse in the NKJV makes salvation a "process" is reading your own ideas into it. Salvation isn't a process...but it is very much an ongoing work (PTL).

- therefore changing the wording and indicating it is an ongoing process is false doctrine - it is the doctrine of cults.

Cults are adept at taking verses out of context and unjustifiably making major doctrines based on erroneous interpretations of them...That's the standard operating procedure of cults. The fact that a cult could use this verse to support their beliefs means nothing. Using your argument, we would have to throw out the whole book of James for the same reason. This verse (as the NKJV renders it) comes nowhere near advocating a works salvation. I honestly don't see how anyone could get that out of this verse at all, especially b/c the NKJV clearly confirms and emphasizes the one-time act "salvation" many times over.

IMO, those who would pick this verse out to stand alone as advocating some false doctrine (without acknowledging that the NKJV does very much emphasize the aspect of salvation that is a "finished work") is treating it just as the cults do. I'm not accusing anyone of intentional deception...just suggesting that there's some mistaken teaching going on. Why not treat this verse the same way you do verses in the KJV that make you go, "Huh?" instead of jumping on it and saying that it promotes false doctrine? I'm sure we all know that proper hermeneutical technique calls for us to compare Scripture with Scripture. I know that if you would take a good, honest look at this verse, compared with the whole of the NKJV Scriptures regarding salvation, you would have to acknowledge that the NKJV is not "soft" on this doctrine.

Honestly, I wouldn't care enough about this issue to enter a discussion like this except for the fact that I've seen firsthand the divisiveness these ideas have caused unnecessarily in the body of Christ.

EDITED TO ADD: Another thought that occurred to me this morning is that those who label certain versions as "poison" are in danger of blaspheming God if their position is incorrect. Think about this for a minute, if you would: what if the NKJV is actually the preserved Word of God? Wouldn't those who are calling it "poison" and "Satan's tool" and "wicked" be on the unholy ground of blaspheming...of attributing the work of God to the devil himself? It's certainly not a place I'd want to be. Of course, God knows our hearts and motives...but it's still not a place I'd want to be.

On the other hand, people who, like me, believe that it is possible for different versions to be the preserved Word of God are in no such danger, since we are careful not to label these versions as "poison," or other derogatory (and potentially blasphemous) terms. I LOVE the KJV...was born and raised on it...memorized major portions of it...am teaching my children from it. I've never called the KJV "poisonous." It is the Word of God preserved in Elizabethan English, which is a beautiful language indeed. But I do fear for my well-intentioned brothers and sisters who, deceived into thinking that they are "fighting for the truth," are actually putting themselves in a dangerous place, eternally speaking...as well as hurting the body of Christ unnecessarily.

[Guest Guest]

If I may quote Bromatt from the sticky at the top of this forum:

"It seems we go in circles talking about these issues and neither side gets anywhere. It is a waste of my time and yours if you will not listen to answers when they are given. If you do not like our stand that is fine just remember that you are the one who came here to fellowship with us."



:Green

[Behold the Lamb]

Thank you for your response BTL, now would you look up James Strong's definition of 'Lucifer' , and post what he has listed.Please post exactly what he has and nothing else.

Thanks,
mksj1611

heylel: From 1984 (in the sense of brightness); the morning star--Lucifer.

Morning star is the literal rendering of heylel. Hence, "son of the morning."

[Annie]

"It seems we go in circles talking about these issues and neither side gets anywhere.

Yeah, I know what you mean. That's exactly why I usually just ignore threads like this one...As you said:

It is a waste of my time and yours

This is the part I'd quibble with:

if you will not listen to answers when they are given.

and this:

If you do not like our stand that is fine

I have no problem with hearing KJVO's explain their positions. I'm listening. So far, all of the arguments I've heard (ones that carelessly throw around labels like "poison" and "devil's tool") are unconvincing, to say the least, because they are not reasonable. It's not that I personally don't like your stand. Many people that I love and respect hold a KJVO position in a spirit of meekness. (And, as I said before, I LOVE the KJV!) I think that what jumped out at me on this thread were the careless ways of reasoning and totally unfounded accusations leveled at God's precious, preserved Word. I just get tired of the sloppy rhetoric that gets "amened" by so many well meaning but misinformed brothers and sisters in Christ, and I guess this thread was just what broke the camel's back. I've decided not to post on this thread anymore; I've said my piece, and, as you have observed, my comments are falling on deaf ears...which is to be expected, I suppose, given the position of this board on the issue.

[Guest Guest]

Quibble with it if you like, those are the words of the board admistrator, not mine, although I certainly agree with them.

[Annie]

Last post on this thread, I promise. Just wanted to clear something up. I'm quibbling with these statements because they were applied (incorrectly) to me. I am listening. I am interacting--or trying to, anyway. I do not mind your stand at all, as I explained in my previous post. So, these words do not apply to me.

The only thing I have taken issue with has been the fallacious and sloppy reasoning and rhetoric going about when it comes to this issue. No person should "stand behind" such reasoning as the basis for any position. It is entirely possible to be KJVO without resorting to the overbearing rhetoric and derogatory labels given here.

I wish all of you grace and peace in Christ.

[Guest Guest]

It is entirely possible to be KJVO without resorting to the overbearing rhetoric and derogatory labels given here.

:puzzled: As far as I can tell nobody said anything personally insulting to you; the NKJV was called "poisonous" and a few other things so maybe that is what your talking about? If that is what you speak of, the belief that other available English versions contain "poison" is why we are KJVO in the English language. If we did not believe that the other English versions were corrupt we wouldn't be KJVO, we either wouldn't care at all or at most would be KJV preferred. I am KJVO in the English language and I have no qualms about giving a corrupt version a "derogatory label". It is the truth... we can't say a corrupt version is ok when it isn't.