The NKJV is a Hack Job Translation

[brandplucked]

The New KJV is a Hack Job Translation

The following are just a few of the many places where the NKJV 1982 does not follow or translate the literal Hebrew texts. The NKJV translates hundreds of verses in such a way that they completely change the meaning found in the King James Bible, of which it is supposedly a modern revision. The NKJV also contains many misleading footnotes designed to discredit the Authorized King James Bible. We will look at just a few of these.

MICAH

Micah 7:19 - ?and thou wilt cast all THEIR sins into the depths of the sea.?

?THEIR sins? is the reading of the Hebrew texts as well as that of the Geneva Bible 1599, the RV 1881, ASV 1901, NASB 1963-1995, Darby, Young?s, Rotherham?s Emphasized Bible 1902, Jewish Publication Society 1917, Hebrew Names Bible, 2001 Judaica Press Tanach.

NKJV - ?You will cast all OUR sins into the depth of the sea.? Footnote- literally ?THEIR?

Agreeing with the the NKJV bogus reading of OUR sins (instead of THEIR sins) is the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV and Holman. The ESV footnote also tells us that the Hebrew reads ?THEIR sins? just as the KJB and the Jewish translations have it. The NRSV also reads ?our sins? like the NKJV now does, but the NRSV informs us in their footnote that the reading of ?OUR sins? comes from the Greek LXX, the Syriac and the Vulgate, while the Hebrew says ?their sins.?

Micah 2:6 ?PROPHESY ye not, say they to them that prophesy: they shall not prophesy TO THEM, that THEY SHALL NOT TAKE SHAME.?

NKJV - ?DO NOT PRATTLE, you say to those who prophesy, So they shall not prophesy TO YOU; THEY SHALL NOT RETURN INSULT FOR INSULT.?

Here the NKJV needlessly changes the word ?prophesy? to ?prattle? even though it still translates the same word as ?prophesy? in the same verse. Then it changed ?prophesy TO THEM? to ?prophesy TO YOU?, and then in a footnotes tells us the literal reading is ?to them? (not ?to you?). Then in the NKJV footnote they try to imply that the KJB got its reading of ?that they shall not take shame? from the Vulgate rather than the Hebrew by stating: ?Vulgate reads ?he shall not take shame?.?

The fact is the Hebrew itself can be translated as ?that they shall not take shame? and so do the Geneva Bible, Bishops? bible, and the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the Complete Jewish Bible, and the Judaica Press Tanach!

Micah 2:12 KJB - ?I will put them together as the sheep of BOZRAH, as the flock in the midst of their FOLD.?

NKJV - ?I will put them together like sheep of THE FOLD, like a flock in the midst of their PASTURE.? Then the NKJV footnotes ?Hebrew - BOZRAH?

Micah 3:2 KJB - ?Who hate the good, and love the evil; who pluck off their skin from OFF THEM, and their flesh from off their bones.?

NKJV - ?who strip the skin from MY PEOPLE? Footnote - Literally THEM.

Micah 3:12 KJB - ?...and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of THE HOUSE as the HIGH PLACES of the forest.?

NKJV - ?...Jerusalem shall become heaps of ruins, and the mountain of THE TEMPLE like BARE HILLS of the forest.? Footnote - literally HOUSE (not ?temple?)

Micah 6:5 KJB - ?...what Balaam the son of Beor answered him from SHITTIM unto Gilgal...?

NKJV - ?what Balaam the son of Beor answered him, from ACACIA GROVE to Gilgal...? Footnote - Hebrew - SHITTIM.

Micah 6:14 KJB - ?Thou shalt eat, but not be satisfied; and THY CASTING DOWN shall be in the midst of thee; AND THOU SHALT TAKE HOLD, but shall not deliver...?

NKJV - ?You shall eat but not be satisfied, HUNGER shall be in your midst. YOU MAY CARRY SOME AWAY (18), but shall not save them.? Footnote: Targum and Vulgate read ?you shall take hold? (as the KJB has it).

First of all, the KJB says ?THOU SHALT TAKE HOLD? and so do the Geneva Bible, Bishops?, Coverdale, and the KJV 21st Century versions. Even the Holman Standard has ?you will acquire? while the NIV has ?you will store up?, but the NKJV says ?You may carry some away? and then casts doubt on the legitimacy of the KJB reading by saying that the Vulgate reads ?you shall take hold?, as though the Hebrew could not possibly be read this way.

Micah 6:14 -The KJB says ?THY CASTING DOWN shall be in the midst of thee? and so do the Geneva Bible, Bishops?, Coverdale, the KJV 21 and the Spanish Reina Valera (tu abatimiento), but the NKJV says ?hunger?, while the ASV has ?humiliation?, the NASB has ?vileness? and the NIV says ?your stomach will be empty?. Hey, it?s all pretty much the same ?message?, right?

Micah 7:11 KJB - ?In the day that thy walls are to be built, in THAT DAY SHALL THE DECREE BE FAR REMOVED.?

In the day of Israel?s restoration, the decree to judge her for her sins will be far removed. So read the Geneva Bible, Bishops? bible, Revised Version, the American Standard Version and the KJV 21st Century. However the NKJV says ?in that day THE DECREE SHALL GO FAR AND WIDE.? - the opposite meaning.

Micah 7:12 KJB - ?In that day HE shall come even to thee from Assyria...?

NKJV - ?In that day THEY shall come to you from Assyria...? Footnote - Literally HE.

Micah 7:15 KJB - ?According to the days of thy coming out of the land of Egypt will I shew unto HIM marvellous things.?

NKJV - ?I will show THEM marvelous things.? Footnote - Literally HIM.

NAHUM

Nahum 1:5 KJB - ?The mountains quake at him, and the hills melt, and the earth IS BURNED at his presence, yea, the world, and all that dwell therein.?

NKJV - ?And the earth HEAVES at His presence? - Footnote: Targum reads BURNS.?. Thus the NKJV implies that the KJB translators got their reading of ?burned? from a Targum rather than a possible meaning of the Hebrew.

First of all, note the context ?He rebuketh the sea, and maketh it dry, and drieth up all the rivers? (v.4) ?Who can stand before his indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? his fury is poured out like fire...?(v.6)

The Hebrew word in question has many meanings including ?accept, arise, burn, forgive, bring, set up, lift up, went, bear, regard, respect, carry away, fetch, and to pardon.?

The same Hebrew word is used in 2 Samuel 5:21 where we read in the KJB of when David and his men fought against the Philistines and burned up their idols - ?And there they left their images, and David and his men BURNED them.?

So read the Judaica Press Tanach (And they forsook there their images, and David and his men BURNED them.), the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960 and 1995 (?David y sus hombres los QUEMARON?), Bishops? Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster?s 1833, and the KJV 21st Century version.

However the NKJV joins many modern versions and says: ?And they left their images there, and David and his men CARRIED THEM AWAY.? Did they keep them for themselves or did they burn them up?

In Nahum 1:5 not only does the King James Bible say ?the earth IS BURNED at his presence? but so do the Bishops? Bible, the Geneva Bible, Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569 (y la tierra SE ABRASA delante de su presencia), the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, Webster?s, and the KJV 21st Century.

Nahum 2:2 KJB - ?For the LORD HATH TURNED AWAY the excellency of Jacob, as the excellency of Israel: for the emptiers have emptied them out, and marred their branches.?

So read or mean Wycliffe 1395, the Geneva Bible, the 1936 Hebrew Publication Society translation (For the Lord hath turned away the excellency of Jacob), Douay, Webster?s, and the KJV 21st Century version.

However the NKJV says the exact opposite with: ?For the LORD WILL RESTORE the excellence of Jacob like the excellence of Israel.?

It is not a question of the Hebrew word, for such versions as the NASB has translated this same word as ?turn back? 43 times, and ?turn away? another 42 times, but it is one of interpretation. Yet here the NASB and NKJV are in basic agreement reading: ?The Lord WILL RESTORE the splendor of Jacob?.

As is usually the case, the ?scholars? as well as the multiple-choice bible versions are in radical disagreement about both the text and its meaning. What one affirms another denies. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown comment: ?For the Lord hath turned away the excellency of Jacob--that is, the time for Nineveh's overthrow is ripe, because Jacob (Judah) and Israel (the ten tribes) have been sufficiently chastised. The Assyrian rod of chastisement, having done its work, is to be thrown into the fire. If God chastised Jacob and Israel with all their "excellency" (Jerusalem and the temple, which was their pre-eminent excellency above all nations in God's eyes, Ps 47:4; 87:2; Eze 24:21; see on Am 6:8), how much more will He punish fatally Nineveh, an alien to Him, and idolatrous? MAURER, NOT SO WELL (caps are mine) translates, "restores," or "will restore the excellency of Jacob."

Likewise John Wesley notes: ? Israel and Jacob were more to God, yet he punished them; much more will he punish Nineveh. Turned - Laid low.?

And Matthew Henry comments: ? The Lord has turned away the excellency of Jacob, as the excellency of Israel, that is, The Assyrians have been abusive to Jacob, the two tribes (have humbled and mortified them), as well as to Israel, the ten tribes, have emptied them, and marred their vine-branches.?

John Calvin remarks: ?God has taken away the pride of Jacob as he has the pride of Israel.?

Nahum 2:3 KJB - ?...the chariots shall be with flaming torches in the day of his preparation, and THE FIR TREES SHALL BE TERRIBLY SHAKEN.?

So read the Spanish Reina Valera, the Geneva Bible, the 1936 Jewish translation, Young?s, Websters and the KJV 21st Century.

However the NKJV says: ?...in the day of his preparation, AND THE SPEARS ARE BRANDISHED.? Then it footnotes: Literally ?the cypresses are shaken?.

The NIV says ?The PINE trees are brandished?, NASB has ?the Cypress spears are brandished?, the RSV, NRSV read: ?THE CHARGERS PRANCE?; the Douay has ?and THE DRIVERS ARE STUPIFIED?, Wycliffe says ?THE LEADERS THEREOF BEEN ASLEEP?, Bishops?s has ?THE FIR STAVES ARE DRENCHED IN POISON?, the Bible in Basic English 1960 says: ?THE HORSES ARE SHAKING?, Coverdale reads: ?HIS ARCHERS ARE WELL DECKED AND TRIMMED?, and the New English Bible 1970 says: ?ARE LIKE FLICKERING FIRE.? Yep, it?s just like noted author and scholar James White says. ?Having a variety of translations helps us to better understand the Bible.? Don?t you agree?

Nahum 2:7 KJB - ?And HUZZAB shall be led away captive..? So read the Geneva Bible, Bishops? bible, the Revised Version and others, but the NKJV says: ?IT IS DECREED?, then footnotes - Hebrew - Huzzab.

But don?t worry, the RSV, ESV say ?its mistress? and the NET versions says ?Nineveh?.

Nahum 2:13 KJB - ?...and I will burn HER chariots in the smoke..? NKJV - ?I will burn YOUR chariots in smoke..? Footnote: Literally HER.

HABAKKUK

Habakkuk 2:7 KJB - ?Shall they not rise up suddenly THAT BITE THEE, and awake that shall vex thee, and thou shalt be for booties unto them??

NKJV - ?Will not YOUR CREDITORS rise up suddenly?? Footnote- Literally ?those who bite you?.

Habakkuk 3:9 KJB - ?Thy bow was made quite naked, according to the oaths of the TRIBES, even thy WORD.?

NKJV - ?Oaths were sworn over YOUR ARROWS.? Footnote: Literally tribes.

ZEPHANIAH

Zephaniah 1:12 KJB - ?...I will search Jerusalem with candles, and punish the men that are settled ON THEIR LEES...? So read the RV, ASV, Darby, the 1917, 1936 Jewish translations and several others.

NKJV - ?...and punish the men who are settled IN COMPLACENCY? Footnote: Literally ?on their lees?.

HAGGAI

Haggai 1:4, 8; 2:3 - KJB- ?Is it time for you, O ye, to dwell in your cieled houses, and this HOUSE lie waste?? ?Go up to the mountain, and bring wood, and build the HOUSE; and I will take pleasure in it, and I will be glorified, saith the LORD.? ?Who is left among you that saw this HOUSE in her first glory??

NKJV - ?...in your paneled houses, and this TEMPLE to lie in ruins...and build the TEMPLE that I may take pleasure in it...? ?Who is left among you who saw this TEMPLE in its former glory?? Footnote for all three verses: Literally HOUSE.

ZECHARIAH

Zechariah 1:21 KJB - ?...but THESE are come to fray them, to cast out the horns of the Gentiles...? NKJV - ?but THE CRAFTSMEN are coming to terrify them, to cast out the horns of the nations...? Footnote: - literally THESE.

Zechariah 5:6 KJB - ?And I said, What is it? And he said, This is AN EPHAH that goeth forth.? NKJV - ?And he said, It is a BASKET that is going forth? Footnote: Hebrew EPHAH.

Zechariah 7:2 KJB - ?When THEY had sent unto the house of God...? NKJV - ?When THE PEOPLE sent...? Footnote: Literally THEY.

Zechariah 9:17 KJB - ?For how great is HIS goodness, and how great is HIS beauty!? Many commentators like Calvin, John Gill, Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke and John Wesley have all seen this verse as a reference to the goodness and beauty of God the Messiah.

Other translations that refer to HIS goodness and HIS beauty are the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, Darby, Young?s, 1936 Jewish translation, Douay, NRSV and the ESV. However this has all been changed in the NKJV, for it says: ?For how great is THEIR goodness and how great is THEIR beauty.? Then in a footnote the NKJV informs us: Literally HIS!!! Versions like the NASB, NIV, and Holman also change the text to read ?THEIR? goodness and beauty.

Zechariah 14:5 KJB - ?And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains:...ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with THEE.?

So read the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the Judaica Press Tanach, Hebrew Names Version, the Revised Version, ASV, Youngs, Darby, Green?s, KJV 21, Rotherham?s Emphasized Bible 1902, the Geneva Bible, and Webster?s 1833 translation.

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, John Wesley, and other Bible commentators have seen a reference here to God Himself. JFB comments- ?Lord my God . . . with thee--The mention of the "Lord my God" leads the prophet to pass suddenly to a direct address to Jehovah. It is as if "lifting up his head" (Lu 21:28), he suddenly sees in vision the Lord coming, and joyfully exclaims, "All the saints with Thee!" So Isa 25:9. ?

The Geneva Bible notes read: ?Because they did not credit the Prophets words, he turns to God and comforts himself in that that he knew that these things would come, and says, "You, O God, with your angels will come to perform this great thing."

Matthew Henry comments: ?The Lord my God shall come, shall come to the comfort of all that are his; for, "Blessed Lord, all the saints shall be with thee, and it shall be their everlasting happiness to dwell in thy presence; and therefore come, Lord Jesus." The Lord my God shall come, shall come to the comfort of all that are his; for, "Blessed Lord, all the saints shall be with thee, and it shall be their everlasting happiness to dwell in thy presence; and therefore come, Lord Jesus."

John Calvin notes: ?All the saints WITH THEE (caps are mine). There seems to be here a kind of indignation, as though the Prophet turned himself away from his hearers, whom he observed to be in a measure prepared obstinately to reject his heavenly doctrine; for he turns his discourse to God.?

Though the NKJV still reads: ?The LORD my God will come, and all the saints with YOU.? YET it footnotes: ?The ancient versions and some Hebrew manuscripts read HIM.?

Versions that do read ?The Lord my God will come, and all the saints with HIM? are the RSV, (which footnotes that HIM comes from the Greek LXX, Syriac, Vulgate and Targum, but the Hebrew reads YOU), NIV, NASB, the NRSV, ESV and Holman Standard.

Back to the beginning - GENESIS

I?m not going to list every one of the scores upon scores of examples of where the NKJV unnecessarily paraphrases or changes the Hebrew texts. (Gen. 9:9 ?your descendants? Ft. Lit. seed = KJB; Gen. 18:11 ?had passed the age of childbearing? Ft. Lit. ?the manner of women had ceased to be with Sarah? = KJB; Gen. 27:36 ?Esau? Ft. Lit. ?he? = KJB; Gen. 29:30 ?Jacob? Ft. Lit. ?he? = KJB) It would be exhausting and of little value. If you can?t see the weight and significance of the changes by now, then producing a hundred more examples will not change your mind about the NKJV.

What I will do is mention a few of the more salient examples of where the NKJV misses the whole point, or tries in subtle and not so subtle ways to discredit the King James Bible by its misleading footnotes.

Genesis 20:16 presents us with another example of paraphrasing found in the NKJV and other modern versions which misses the whole point of the passage and results in confusion.

Abraham had been told by God that He would give him a son by his wife Sarah. Yet we see the faltering steps of faith in our spiritual father as he and Sarah sojourned in the land of Gerar. Upon entering the region of king Abimelech, Abraham thought "Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake." So he told Sarah to say that he was her brother. The result of this was that Abimelech took Sarah into his house, thus putting her into a very precarious position. Then God came to Abimelech by night in a dream and told him that Sarah was Abraham's wife and that he was "but a dead man".

Abimelech arose early in the morning and called Abraham and asked him why he had done this. Then the king gave Abraham sheep, oxen, men and womenservants and restored him Sarah his wife and told him to dwell where he pleased. Then in verse 16 we read: "And unto Sarah he said, BEHOLD, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver: BEHOLD, HE IS TO THEE A COVERING OF THE EYES, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: THUS SHE WAS REPROVED."

"Covering of the eyes" is the literal reading of the Hebrew and is also found in the Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535 - (lo, he shalbe vnto the a couerynge of the eyes, for all that are with thee); Bishops? bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the 1917 and 1936 Jewish translations, the 2001 Judaica Press Tanach, the RV, ASV, Young's, Darby, Douay, the KJV 21st Century version and the Spanish Reina Valera bibles. Even the NKJV shows in its Footnote that the literal Hebrew is "COVERING OF THE EYES FOR YOU.?

The Spanish Reina Valera?s from 1909, 1960 and 1995 read just like the King James Bible with: ?mira que

[Guest Guest]

Whenever they translate something differently then the KJV it's because Satan is trying to cover something up he doesn't want us to know. Either some heresie is being pushed , he's trying to "muddy up the waters" and make the passage more confusing, or destroy any cross references so the Holy Spirit can be limited on revealing more about the subject.

Wil

[brandplucked]

Hi Wil, Yes, Satan does muddy the waters and this is why fewer and fewer Christians today believe that The Bible (any bible) is now the inspired and inerrant word of God. I believe all of this is just part of the predicted "famine of hearing the words of God" - Amos 8:11-12.

May God open our spiritual eyes and increase our faith in His Book.

Will K

[brandplucked]

HABAKKUK

Habakkuk 2:6 KJB - "...Woe to him that increaseth that which is not his! how long? and to him that ladeth himself with THICK CLAY!"

NKJV - "Woe to him who increases What is not his--how long? And to him who loads himself with MANY PLEDGES?"

Then the NKJV footnotes: "Syriac and Vulgate read 'thick clay'", thus implying again that the KJB translators got this reading from these foreign language versions rather than from the Hebrew. It should be noted that the Hebrew word used here is found only one time in the entire Bible, and there are many different ways the various versions have translated it.

Secondly, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac does not read "thick clay" but "How long will he load himself with EARTHLY GOODS?" I also noticed that this time the modern versions did not make any reference to the so called Greek LXX. Maybe this is because this fabled version reads: "Woe to him that multiplies to himself the possessions that are not his! How long? AND WHO HEAVILY LOADS HIS YOKE."

And thirdly, it should be asked Why do all these bible correctors always try to discredit the King James readings by referring to the Vulgate? Isn't it more than likely that the Latin translations are often right? If the Vulgate says 'Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead" are we then to toss this out of our Bible? I think not.

Not only does the King James Bible read "to him that ladeth himself with THICK CLAY" but so also do Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishops's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602 and 1909 "amontonar sobre s

[suitman]

... ??? ...

I'm still amazed about how little IFBs know about how the KJV was translated. Whether the NKJV is right or not is questionable but many things that it says in the footnotes are facts. And no it wasn't put there to discredit the KJB.

seriously if you are going to hold to KJVOism then show the greatness of that version rather than making throw away statements about how the MVs are "of the devil" despite the fact you've never read them and got your information from a completly biased source.

[Jerry]

Suitman, Will Kinney does his own personal research - so he didn't get it from some biased source. How about your info? Have you actually sat down with different Bible versions side by side and compare them? If so, how many, and how much of their content have you personally compared?

No, the NKJV footnotes are not true - they are very biased in favour of the Critical Text, which they are promoting, even though the NKJV claims to be based on the same underlying texts as the KJV (which it is not).

[brandplucked]

... ??? ...

I'm still amazed about how little IFBs know about how the KJV was translated. Whether the NKJV is right or not is questionable but many things that it says in the footnotes are facts. And no it wasn't put there to discredit the KJB.

seriously if you are going to hold to KJVOism then show the greatness of that version rather than making throw away statements about how the MVs are "of the devil" despite the fact you've never read them and got your information from a completly biased source.

Hi suitman. Sir, I do in fact read the modern versions and I do the research myself. I did not get this information from some other source. You are mistaken.

The main issue I am trying to show is that most Christians today do not believe that any Bible in any language is now the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God. I will wager that this is also your view. If I am wrong about what you believe, then please tell us where we can get a copy of what you think is the pure and complete words of God, so we can compare what you recommend to our beloved King James Bible.

Thanks,

Will K

[brandplucked]

Here is another faith destroying footnote in the NKJV, and utter confusion in today's Bible Babel.

18:24 "A man that hath friends MUST SHEW HIMSELF FRIENDLY: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother."

Agreeing with the King James Bible word for word or in sense are Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Barker's Bible 1615, the Italian Diodati, Young's, Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, The New Life Version 1995, NKJV 1982, the Third Millenium Bible 1998 and the Modern Greek Bible.

The Spanish reads: "El hombre que tiene amigos ha de mostrarse amigo; Y amigo hay m

[suitman]

Hi suitman. Sir, I do in fact read the modern versions and I do the research myself. I did not get this information from some other source. You are mistaken.

The main issue I am trying to show is that most Christians today do not believe that any Bible in any language is now the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God. I will wager that this is also your view. If I am wrong about what you believe, then please tell us where we can get a copy of what you think is the pure and complete words of God, so we can compare what you recommend to our beloved King James Bible.

Thanks,

Will K

first off thanks for a great post.

my belief is that the bibles teachings are complete, inspired and inerrant. and the words used in the hebrew and greek were complete, inspired and inerrant. but translating greek and hebrew into english is not easy and as such some of the 100% accuracy or the depth of meaning in words will get lost. this does not mean that what is taught in the translation is not inspired or wrong. it may have lost some(though very little) completeness and inerrancy but this is not essential unless a doctrine or teaching is to be built but for reading and meditation it is useful. I do agree that Many of the MVs are miles of the mark and there are not many I would recomend but when people say "all but the KJB is the devil trying to sneak in his lies and deicieve mankind." that I disagree with.

And my other point is that even if the KJB is 100% complete and inerrant... I still cant read it well. For the words in the KJB may have a different meaing or useage now than it did back in ...1611 I think... and so I would literally need to personally not only interpret but infact translate what the KJB says into a wording I understand easily. natually you will realise that this will bring about error. and so it is harder to interpret correctly by people who are not used to the way people spoke in the 17th century. and Ib honestly think that more error will come from the interpretation rather than the translation.

As I said I do not like ALL MVs infact I like very few and Though I do not use the KJB myself (as I explained) I do understand it to be a brilliant translation that is accurate and do not wish to stop any IFBs using the KJB and go to MVs.All I wish is that they would not make a mockery and judgements apon them.

as for the NKJV I do not use it never read it and as far as I know it is not a good translation but some of the footnotes are just stating fact and are not there to bring down the KJV... but I already said that so I'll shoosh now

[brandplucked]

my belief is that the bibles teachings are complete, inspired and inerrant. and the words used in the hebrew and greek were complete, inspired and inerrant.

So, if the Hebrew and Greek WERE complete, and the Bibles teachings ARE complete, do you have such a Book in any language you can show us?

And my other point is that even if the KJB is 100% complete and inerrant... I still cant read it well. For the words in the KJB may have a different meaing or useage now than it did back in ...1611 I think...

Why forsake a 100% complete and inerrant Bible for something that is not. As some others have remarked about people who say they can't understand the KJB - "Either you're not reading it enough, or you need to get saved."

Will K

[suitman]

So, if the Hebrew and Greek WERE complete, and the Bibles teachings ARE complete, do you have such a Book in any language you can show us?




Why forsake a 100% complete and inerrant Bible for something that is not. As some others have remarked about people who say they can't understand the KJB - "Either you're not reading it enough, or you need to get saved."

Will K

*holds up an interlinear*

this shows the greek and hebrew words as they are written originally then underneath the closest english word that fits. The most accurate bible in english possible. Why settle for the KJB when you have this?

and I have actually been putting some research into the KJB and tried reading it. the problems I faced were that when I read a passage I thought it meant one thing based on the translation. that went against what was written in the other versions. Now some would say "thats cause the MVs are of the devil" when actually it was because the usage of the word in the 17th centuary when it was written is different from what it is now. and so I will end up in greater error using the KJB than the MV. This does not bring down the KJB if you can read it easily and understand the words used then fine but to condem those who can't is not wise.

one last thing - Might I recommend that you do not call peoples salvation into question. You do not know me all you know is that I am here trying to defend what I know to be the word of god. and this view does not agree with yours. That does not give you any right to say I need to be saved.
I shall not do this to anybody here and I would appreciate it if people showed equal curtisy

[brandplucked]

*holds up an interlinear*

this shows the greek and hebrew words as they are written originally then underneath the closest english word that fits. The most accurate bible in english possible. Why settle for the KJB when you have this?

Hi suit, I asked you for the name of what you think is the pure word of God. You didn't give me one. What is "an interlinear"? What is it called? Are you aware that there are dozens of "interlinears" out there and none of them agrees with any other?

I have actually been putting some research into the KJB and tried reading it. the problems I faced were that when I read a passage I thought it meant one thing based on the translation. that went against what was written in the other versions. Now some would say "thats cause the MVs are of the devil" when actually it was because the usage of the word in the 17th centuary when it was written is different from what it is now. and so I will end up in greater error using the KJB than the MV. This does not bring down the KJB if you can read it easily and understand the words used then fine but to condem those who can't is not wise.

Can you give us an example and then provide us with what you think is the best translation of the passage from your "interlinear"? Again, do you seriously think your 'interlinear" IS the complete and inspired word of God? Tell us the name.

one last thing - Might I recommend that you do not call peoples salvation into question. You do not know me all you know is that I am here trying to defend what I know to be the word of god. and this view does not agree with yours. That does not give you any right to say I need to be saved.
I shall not do this to anybody here and I would appreciate it if people showed equal curtisy

I wasn't saying you are not saved, but I apologize if you took it this way. It is a fairly common saying that I think makes a lot of sense. "If you don't understand the KJB either you are not reading it enough (which is probably the case with you), or you need to get saved."

Some people say they can't understand the Bible, and the simple reason is that they are not yet saved. So they have little interest in reading it, and they lack the Holy Ghost Who begins to open our eyes to spiritual truth.

Now, if you wouldn't mind getting back to us about a specific verse you don't understand in the KJB because of its wording, I would like to see what type of thing you are talking about. Don't forget to tell us what your "interlinear" is called and whether you really think it is the complete and pure words of God or not.

Thanks,

Will K

[MatthewDiscipleOfGod]

I own several NKJV Bibles and the NKJV MacArthur Study Bible is my main Bible. The footnotes being talked about in this thread are very helpful. The NKJV Bible shows you what the minority text says and also what the majority text says in the footnotes. So it is possible to have 3 readings for a verse total. It never suggests that the minority or majority readings are the right readings. The main text is based off the same texts as the KJV which is the TR.

[brandplucked]

I own several NKJV Bibles and the NKJV MacArthur Study Bible is my main Bible. The footnotes being talked about in this thread are very helpful. The NKJV Bible shows you what the minority text says and also what the majority text says in the footnotes. So it is possible to have 3 readings for a verse total. It never suggests that the minority or majority readings are the right readings. The main text is based off the same texts as the KJV which is the TR.

Hi Matthew. And so you end up not knowing for sure WHAT the Bible REALLY says or which texts are the insired ones and which are the phony. God did NOT write 3 different readings for a single verse!

MacArthur does not believe in an inspired and inerrant Bible except only in the never seen by him "originals". He has a phantom Bible, just like you do. MacArthur wrote one of the lamest and most poorly thought out anti-KJB aricles I have ever seen. The man simply does not have nor believe in a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible in any language.

He is another example of the blind following the blind.

Will K

[brandplucked]

Here is an example from the NKJV footnotes that show the confusion of modern scholarship.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 - ?Now we command you, brethren, in the name of OUR Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which HE received us of.?

There are two conflicting textual readings in this verse and the Critical Text continues to change and the multiple-choice versions are in disagreement even among themselves.

First, the word ?our? (hemoon) is found in the majority of all texts including Sinaiticus and A, but Vaticanus omits it. ?OUR Lord Jesus Christ? is the reading of the Geneva Bible, Bishops?, Coverdale, the RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, and Holman Standard.

However the NIV and TNIV follow Vaticanus here and omit the word ?our? from the text. So too do the more modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible and the Jerusalem Bible, though the word ?our? was in the previous Douay-Rheims.

Westcott and Hort, and the early Nestle-Aland critical texts originally omitted the word too, but later on the Nestle-Aland text began to put the word back in, but in brackets as it appears today.

The second textual error is found in the last phrase where it says: ?as HE received of us? referring back to the ?brother that walketh disorderly?. It is singular in the Greek found in several Greek copies (5, 76, 218, 234, 1962, and others) and in the Greek texts of Stephanus, Beza, Elziever and Scrivenir. It is also the reading of many Old Latin copies, the Syriac translation of Lamsa, the corrections done to Sinaiticus and D, and in the Modern Greek text used throughout the Greek Orthodox churches today.

?which HE received of us? is the reading found in Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible, Bishops? bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Wesley 1755, Lamsa 1936, Italian Diodati 1649, Webster?s 1833, Darby, the NKJV 1982, and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.

The NKJV 1982 reads the same as the King James Bible,(which HE received from us) but it tells us in a footnote: ?Nestles, UBS text and Majority text read ?they?.? Well, this isn?t entirely true. The ?majority text? reads differently from the present Nestle text. The ?majority text? has the word parelabON (which can be either ?I? received or ?they? received, while the previous Nestle text actually has ?parelabETE?, which means YOU (plural) received, but the more recent Nestle-Aland text has once again changed and it now reads ?parelabOSAN?, which means ?they received?.

This confusion is further seen in the versions. Those that read ?YOU received?, following the previous Nestle-Aland critical texts, are the NASB, NIV, ESV 2001, RSV 1954, and TNIV 2004. Apparently these versions are now ?out of date? according to the lastest whims of modern scholarship.

But the versions that follow the Alexandrian manuscript (not the reading of Vaticanus or even Sinaiticus correction, which both disagree with each other), and say ?which THEY received from us? are the RV, ASV, NRSV 1989, and the up and coming ISV. The Holman Standard just omits the ?troublesome? reading and paraphrases it as ?the tradition received from us?.

The whole point of this little study on this single verse is to show the ever changing opinions of modern scholarship, and how the modern versions continually disagree even with each other. The Critical Text ?scholars? keep going back and forth between two different readings in just this one verse, and the modern versions reflect this confusion. They simply have no settled text and no infallible Bible.

Will K