New King James Version – Post #2 on Versions
16 Comments so far
Leave a comment
May 5, 2008, 4:51 pm
Filed under: Bible Study | Tags: King James Version, New King James, New Versions, Word of God
Filed under: Bible Study | Tags: King James Version, New King James, New Versions, Word of God
What are your thoughts on the following link and article?
16 Comments so far
Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
I agree 100% with the article.
Dave
Comment by Dave May 5, 2008 @ 6:57 pmhmmmmmm
Comment by stephen May 6, 2008 @ 3:13 amMy NKJV doesn’t have that funky mark. Does that mean mine is ok? (LOL)
Comment by Stephen May 7, 2008 @ 12:54 amMine doesn’t either. I guess I’m in the clear too. Also, I’m unclear from this article if all symbols are bad or if it’s just this one.
Either way, Led Zeppelin rocks! (I also thought the dig at Hillary Clinton was sophomoric at best, but what should I expect).
Comment by Hardin May 7, 2008 @ 5:06 pmThe issue is not whether the man writing this article is perfect or right about everything. Are there any facts worth accepting?
I have an original NKJV that does have the symbol but realize that most newer bindings do not. For me the symbol is one small part of a bigger picture.
I will post something soon about Helena Blavatsky and the New Age Doctrine.
Thanks for your comments so far.
In case anyone thinks I’m being sarcastic or joking I really am considering this issue with an open heart and mind. Call me a nut if you like, but in the end I am going to do what I see as the right thing to do! If you don’t agree with me I’m not going to call you names or make fun of you as I hope you won’t of me.
THE QUESTIONS ON THE TABLE ARE:
Comment by Billy May 7, 2008 @ 6:34 pmDo we have the preserved Word of God or do we have translations full of errors? And… Can God be behind something full of errors? If we do have the preserved Word of God, which one is it? Is there more than one? Do they agree? (all of these questions are in ref. to the English language)
I won’t call you names for this subject, but can I do it just for fun?
I wasn’t trying to make light of the issue, but c’mon, whenever the author is approaching the NKJV as some subversive occult manuscript I find it a little laughable.
I don’t think we have one translation that is perfect and I’m perfectly comfortable with that. I think the idea that the KJV is more accurate is extremely flawed. Since that was translated, we have found other manuscripts that are decidedly older than the ones used for the KJV. I mean, we now have a manuscript of Isaiah that is over 1000 years older than the one used for the KJV. There are also verses in the KJV that almost every serious Bible scholar believes weren’t in the earliest manuscripts.
My only real contribution is to suggest that those of you who feel compelled to study this spend time studying the writings and views of people who are bona fide experts in the subject. There are plenty of people who have high academic credentials because they have really dug into this from a historical (as in hard core archaelogical, language, cultural, etc.) and spiritual perspective.
Comment by Hardin May 8, 2008 @ 1:32 amSorry Billy I wasn’t tryin to be sarcastic. I believe we do have the preserved word of God. In the case of which translation is the best or most accurate, for me I have to compare them to the original languages. I do believe there are some translations better than others. I would like to see some more on this New Age Doctrine. There is no doubt that there are those out there who are trying to pervert the truth. I don’t believe God could or can be full of any kind of error. But on the other hand I realize men can and are. Man as far as the rest of the questions at hand I’ve got to think a bit more before I answer.
Comment by Stephen May 8, 2008 @ 1:46 amIf you get deeper into the stuy of that symbol, it is a symbol for the trinity that has been perverted. Just like the cross, images of jesus, the Christian fish (like the darwin one with legs). It has roots in scottish free-masonry. That cult…errr…group is graced by many of the “fathers” of good ole’ ABA landmarkism. I really do question why Nelson chose to symbolize thier translation with it! maybe it is a mason thing??
I think an even more serious question is why did KJV translators choose to add verses that didn’t appear in the oldest manuscripts? What does that say?? Also how can we say the KJV is infallible and reject the apocrypha since it was a part of the original 1611 KJV? If we are not careful we will become like the Jehovah’s Wittness cult who believes that their translation is the one and only. Why? Because it best fits their box.
Herein lies the problem…Men Translate! We had this same debate in 1611 because the KJV wasn’t the “god approved” Latin.
Ooh and my King james Bible has a damnible heretical symbol on it too!!!! It is a big gold lettered symbol that says…”King James Version” The name of a Homosexual! Yep…What do I do now???
Comment by Nathan May 8, 2008 @ 2:04 pmAnd what is this symbol that appears with my comments????? Maybe we should throw out my comments too!!!
Comment by Nathan May 8, 2008 @ 2:05 pmCan anybody tell the difference, for example, in Genesis 22:8?!!!!
God does not provide [b]for Himself[/b]the lamb!!! God did not need to save Himself!!!
The KJV had it right! “God will provide himself a lamb”. Jesus, God the Son, came and took upon Himself human flesh so that He might be the shed blood sacrifice for our sins!
Comment by younglandmarker May 9, 2008 @ 3:35 amCorrect me if I am wrong but according to the article on av1611.org the arguments against the NKJV center on a symbol and verse by verse criticism? Is it possible for the main criticism of the newer translations is a verse by verse comparison to the KJV?
If this is the case, those who follow this system of belief are on dangerous ground. Men such as Peter Ruckman have used this logic to come to many false ideas.
If the KJV is the standard for all translations, then it must be inspired by God.
And, if the KJV is inspired by God, where does that leave the original texts?
Do differences with the Authorized Version render them useless?
Should the Greek and Hebrew be corrected in areas where it differs with the KJV?
Does the use of another translation define a Christian or Church as false?
Do translations in another language such as Spanish have to be based on the KJV?
We must remember there is a difference between translation and inspiration. Are our translations perfect? No. This knowledge should not cause us to despair, but motivate us to be even more diligent in our personal studies of our God and His Word.
Comment by Jeff May 9, 2008 @ 6:59 amJust a secondary thought,
Comment by Jeff May 9, 2008 @ 7:08 amDo any of the KJV only people commenting here have any arguments based on original texts?
Thanks to everyone for their comments.
I want to point out that we do not have the original texts. You cannot refer to the original texts today. We have the carefully preserved copies of the original texts. For this reason understanding God’s promise of preservation is a key issue in this study/debate (as some may view it).
As you know preservation was a very meticulous process. Letters were counted and whole copies were destroyed if one letter was added or taken away. Today we have many different copies being used called the preserved Word with errors. So it would depend on which text you refer to as the preserved Word of God in order to compare. Many copies have been translated and were not thrown away after the adding and subtraction of words and even whole verses. NOTE: My 1599 Geneva also includes the verses omitted in many newer versions. Since we do not have the “original” inspired text today, in order to have the inspired preserved Word of God, God had to continue the preservation process as He said He would in His Word. (Ps. 12:6-7) (2 Tim 3:16-17).
The first major work and promotion of the scriptures in English (not translated from Latin) is the 1611 King James Bible. This also includes and is connected to the beginning works of Tyndale. Forty Seven (47) scholars were called on to translate the King James Bible. These scholars were not Episcopal! The outcome was that God used a powerful King to publish and promote His Word in the English language on a very large scale. NOTE: The 1611 did include the Apocrypha, but it is clearly stated in the preface that these books were not considered inspired by God, but were for historical references. Later spelling issues became a problem with the changing language and the 1611 KJV was revised for spelling purposes (only) in 1769.
Today all new translations are compared to it and are used to point out “errors” with in it. They claim to be easier to read. They claim to be more accurate because many texts were used, even the works of warlocks like Wescott and Hort. They are never compared to other new versions, always the KJV.
Is anyone prepared to say that the King James Bible as the first major published and promoted version in English is a work of the Devil? That it is not the preserved Word of God? That God was not involved in it?
Can God preserve His word in any language and it be without error? If God carefully inspired His Word through men, could he not carefully preserve His inspired Word through men as He said He would?
6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Ps 12:6-7
If you believe the KJV is full of errors point those out in the new post above and write which manuscript you are comparing it to.
Comment by Billy May 9, 2008 @ 3:25 pmBTW- I’m trying to get copies of the Secret Doctrine before I comment on Blavatsky, the New Age Movement, and New Versions.
Comment by Billy May 9, 2008 @ 4:04 pmI like how you delete my comment and avoid open discussion. I like how I try to help you and yet you spurn it. So I’ll follow my Lord and Savior and rebuke you with harsh words to deflate your big ego.
If you want to be a cultish, vain traditionalist failure go ahead. I don’t care. I guess that’s why you took down the post about swallowing your pride, because you didn’t. YOU GO AHEAD AND SHUT OUT PEOPLE FROM THE GOSPEL BY BEING SO IRRELEVANT THAT NO ONE LISTENS!!!
I’m wiping the dust off my feet with you. Have a great life and good riddance.
I know I’m a dork!
Comment by Jeffrey Turpin May 13, 2008 @ 6:01 pmAdios Jeff! Keep your word and don’t come back you windy little punk. I’m not angry with you or anything, just don’t have time to discuss anything with you. In my opinion you are one of those “tossed to and fro” leaches. The dork comment (edited by me) might not be right, but it sure is funny!
Comment by Billy May 13, 2008 @ 10:08 pm