Bible Study
See other Bible Study Articles
Title: KING JAMES VS NEW KING JAMES THEY CAN'T BOTH BE TRUE!
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jan 19, 2015
Author: David W. Daniels
Post Date: 2015-01-19 18:43:40 by _V_
Keywords: None
Views: 38960
Comments: 105
Question: What is wrong with the New King James Version (NKJV)? All it does is modernize the words of the King James Bible, right? Why should I read the King James and not the helpful New King James? Answer: The New King James is not a King James Bible. It changed thousands of words, ruined valuable verses, and when not agreeing with the King James Bible, it has instead copied the perverted NIV, NASV or RSV. And this you must know: those who translated the NKJV did not believe God perfectly preserved His words! I have gotten more letters on this question than almost any other. This is very important to those who want God's truth in the English language. I myself used the NKJV for a decade before I learned the truth about the preserved words of God. Here is some of what convinced me to switch to the King James Bible from the "New King James." Changed Words Means Changed Meanings We know that Bible versions disagree on how to translate certain words. Here is an example: Is Jesus God's "Son" or God's "servant"? In Acts 3:26, the NKJV calls Jesus God's "Servant." The KJV correctly calls Him God’s "Son." These are not the same by any stretch of the imagination. Which one is He? If He is God's servant, so are you and I. If He is God's Son, then we all need to listen to what He said, because He is God! Changed words like this make a great deal of difference in how we understand a passage. Loss of "thee" and "thou" Please decide what God is saying to Moses: "And the LORD said to Moses, "How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My laws?" (Exodus 16:28, NKJV) It looks like God is saying, "Moses, you are continuing to refuse to keep My commandments and My laws." But look carefully at the accurate King James: "And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?" Now we understand! It was the people, not Moses, that God was upset with. "Ye" and "you" mean more than one person. "Thee," "thou," "thy," "thine," "doeth," "hast," etc., only mean one person. How do we know? The "y" is plural. The "t" is singular. Isn't that easy? Now you know what Jesus meant when He said to Nicodemus, "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again" (John 3:7). What Jesus said was, "Nicodemus, marvel not that I said unto thee, all of you need to be born again." This is very important. Not only Nicodemus needed to be saved. But everybody, including him, needed to be born again. That's why Jesus used the plural. But there is more of a problem than the thousands of times "thee" and "thou" are removed from God's words. What does a word mean? This is very important, as you shall see. Go to Gehenna? The NKJV claims to be "more accurate" because it leaves untranslated words like "Gehenna," "Hades" and "Sheol." What do they mean? You will know from the King James the exact meaning: "hell." We know what that means. Meaning is very important. When's the last time you heard someone told to "Go to Gehenna"? Which is correct? The NKJV consistently uses terms that don't mean the same as in the King James Bible. Here are some examples: King James Version New King James Version 2 Corinthians 2:17 "For we are not as many which corrupt the word of God" "peddling the word of God" (like the NIV, NASV and RSV) Titus 3:10 "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject" "Reject a divisive man" (like the NIV) 1 Thessalonians 5:22 "Abstain from all appearance of evil." "Abstain from every form of evil." (like the NAS, RSV and ASV) Isaiah 66:5 "Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed." [This means that the LORD shall appear, which shall occur at the Second Coming of Christ.] "Hear the word of the LORD, you who tremble at His word: "Your brethren who hated you, who cast you out for My name's sake, said, 'Let the LORD be glorified, that we may see your joy.' But they shall be ashamed." (Like the NIV, NASV, RSV and ASV, the Second Coming is wholly omitted from this scripture.) Both translations cannot be correct. If one is right, the other has to be wrong. No matter how you slice it, the NKJV does not have the same meaning as the accurate King James Bible. 2. Changed Affections There is a lot of evidence that the translators and publishers did not believe God preserved His words. Thomas Nelson Publishers The NKJV was translated and is printed under the watchful eye of Thomas Nelson Publishers. Here is part of a timeline they published. 1969 Sam Moore purchases Thomas Nelson Publishers, vowing to return it to its once proud place among the leading publishers of the world. 1976 Nelson initiates the creation of a new Bible translation--The New King James Version. 1980's Nelson reclaims its place as a premier publisher of Bibles and Christian Books, expands into international markets, and establishes Markings® as Nelson's Gift division. It is clear the NKJV made Thomas Nelson Publishers a lot of money. Did a King James-type Bible renew their hearts to God? Note the following facts: They are also the publishers of the American Standard Version, the American revision of Westcott and Hort's perverted English Revised Version. They are also the publishers of the Revised Standard Version, the revision of the American Standard. To this day they continue to sell at least six Bible perversions. The NKJV was just one moneymaker that helped Nelson "reclaim its place" as a major publisher. The NKJV repeats the lie that "There is only one basic New Testament used by Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox, by conservatives and liberals." In fact, there are two: the perverted Alexandrian line that was continued by the Roman Catholic religion and the preserved, apostolic, Antiochian line that progresses from the Christians at Antioch of Syria (Acts 11:26) to our precious King James Bible. The New King James translators Marion H. Reynolds Jr. of the Fundamental Evangelistic Association reveals a little-known fact: "The duplicity of the NKJV scholars is also a matter for concern. Although each scholar was asked to subscribe to a statement confirming his belief in the plenary, divine, verbal inspiration of the original autographs (none of which exist today), the question of whether or not they also believed in the divine preservation of the divinely inspired originals was not an issue as it should have been. Dr. Arthur Farstad, chairman of the NKJV Executive Review Committee which had the responsibility of final text approval, stated that this committee was about equally divided as to which was the better Greek New Testament text-the Textus Receptus or the Westcott-Hort. Apparently none of them believed that either text was the Divinely preserved Word of God. Yet, all of them participated in a project to "protect and preserve the purity and accuracy" of the original KJV based on the TR. Is not this duplicity of the worst kind, coming from supposedly evangelical scholars?" Not "the real thing" What Mr. Reynolds points out is very important to understand. There were basically two groups of translators working on the NKJV. One half believed that the perverted 45 Alexandrian manuscripts, from which came the Roman Catholic Bibles and the modern perversions, were better than the manuscripts behind the King James. The other group believed the thousands of manuscripts supporting the King James were better. This is a big problem: No one believed that they held God's words in their hands, only a "better" or "worse" text! The translators believed they had something close, but not an accurate Bible. It is a sad thing when a Bible translator doesn't even believe he has God's words in his hands. It sounds like they don't believe God kept His promise: Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. (Mark 13:31) Perhaps that is why some of them had no problem working on other perversions, both before and after working on the NKJV. This is so unlike the 54+ Bible men who faithfully translated the King James Bible from preserved manuscripts of God's words. The difference between the King James and the "New" King James is the difference between day and night. Compromising God's Words Many Christians are discovering the miracle of God's words in English. But the enemy has tried to insert a monkey-wrench: the NKJV. Pastors approve it, "scholars" promote it, but the NKJV is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The New King James is just a compromise between the liberal, perverted Bible versions floating around and the rock-solid, accurate and preserved words of God, the King James Bible. Brothers and sisters, don't settle for anything less than God's words
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 96.
#2. To: _V_, redleghunter, SOSO (#0)
I see Daniels' books at Amazon. He teamed up with Jack Chick on two of them. So his writings are probably sold in Chick's website too. He has a YouTube channel. Very much a defender of Chick and his tracts. I think he doesn't like Jesuits either.
Thank God, the Greek Orthodox don't have to go through all this crap when they read their Greek untranslated Greek bibles.
In what language did God converse with Moses? Jesus with His disciplines and crowds? In what language would Jesus have written? His disciples? In what language did God communicate at Babel when He deliberately created a multitude of languages to confound man? In what language is the writting on the recently found mummy wrapings? And most importantly, does any of this matter?
In the languages they all understood. If they didn't understand what God was communicating, then they could not write it down. For Moses that would be the original Hebrew. Later the Aramaic and Greek. The NT was written in Koine Greek. Jesus most likely spoke in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. He may have had a short conversation with Pilate in Latin (if you believe Mel Gibson).
For Moses that would be the original Hebrew. Why would it not be Egyptian for Moses? It was the only language he spoke his whole life and "Moses" is an Egyptian name not a Hebrew name.
True, however, YHWH is God's Name in Hebrew.
True, unless it is YHVH.
It is Yod, Hey, Waw, Hey. Today Jews pronounce "W" as "V". How they pronounced it then is unknowable, given the absence of tape recorders. For that matter, we can assume that Jefferson, Washington and Lincoln all spoke with Southern accents given where they were born and who their parents were, but we don't know that for sure. Can't.
Hebrew has no 'w' sound. I assume you're just batting for the Septuagint team here by offering some FUD.
Today it doesn't. Originally, who knows? What it has is a pictograph, a waw or vav, is a tent peg. It's used to link one thing to the next, like a nail. There's no punctuation in Hebrew, but the tent peg tells you that these ideas are still connected with the ones before. If you take the pictographs YHWH. Y - yod - is a strong arm and hand. So, you've got the hand of God here. H - hey - is a pictograph of a man standing arms raised in exciting: HEY! It's sound is that of a breath, and it is used to insert a breath. Now, in Hebrew, breath is spirit, and spirit is breath. W is the tent peg. The word HWH - HaWaH (which we translate as "Eve", and then we continue to translate as "Life" as the MEANING of "Eve" (Adam called her "Eve", because she was the mother of all living - in other words, Adam called her "life"). What is "life" pictographically? It is BREATH linked to BREATH. Breath after breath after breath - that is the pictographic image of life and living in ancient Hebrew, and the WORD for Life, and being. And the "Yah" part - the yod? YHWH, hieroglyphically, is the hand that links breath/spirit to breath/spirit. In other words, the power/thing/being who makes life be. YHWH - The might hand of life - God. Pronunciation varies, and varied. If you followed the letter conventions, without vowels, it would be (today) Yo (yod) - Hey - Wa (or Va) - Hey: Yoheyvahey, or Yohewahey. Of course, "Life", and "Eve" are pronounced "Havah" (as in "Havah nagila", the song). And HWH, the last three letters of YHWH, are Havah, for God is life. Y is often written "Yah", and if we take that, we have "Yahavah". If we go with "Yod", then Yohavah or Yohawah. YHWH is the best way to write this, I think, and if you're got to pronounce it, choose what you prefer. I prefer "Yahawah", because that takes two known elements; Yah and Havah, and carries the meaning Yah is life, and then converts the V to the W to make a distinction that is important not in modern Hebrew but in ancient, when there were no vowel points but W was used as a vowel. V is not a vowel by its fricative nature. W is open, and can be a vowel (in English: Bryn Mwr uses W as a vowel). In Massoretic Hebrew, Vav takes a vowel point to make an "O", but in ancient Hebrew Waw/Vav stood alone. In the Massoretic Text, David is spelled DVD - Dalet - Vav - Dalet, with vowel points. But in the Dead Sea Scrolls, where there are no vowel points, "David" is spelled DWYD: Dalet, Waw (Vav) Yod Dalet - Dawyd, since the Waw is elsewhere employed as a vowel. Or, if you prefer, Davyd. The "Da" sound is carried by the Da-let, maybe W/V was pronounced "V", but elsewhere it works where we would put and "o" - so Da-O-Y-D. Reminds me of the priest in the Princess Bride: "Mawiage. Mawiage when there is wuv, twoo wuv..." Don't really know the ancient pronunciations, but there is revelation in the pictographs.
I'll leave it to you to dictate to the Jews what ancient Hebrew is or is not.
The "Jews", by the fact of being Jewish, do not have any innate knowledge of their ancient language. Nobody speaks it, and they have to learn it academically just like anybody else. You're probably Irish, or German. So, do you speak Irish Gaelic, or German? And if so, do you read Ogham, or can you read and speak old Plattsdeutsch? Not unless you've studied it. Ancient Hebrew had vowels. Middle and Modern Hebrew use vowel points. There are no vowel points in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Rather, the Scriptural texts are spelled differently in them, because consonants are used as vowels. There are very distinct pronunciation differences between Sephardic Hebrew and Ashkenazi Hebrew accents today, and we have recordings to hear the difference. There is no way to record ancient sound. I recall the same lesson from Latin class. The word "magna", as in Magna Cum Laude - back in Latin class I was told it is "Magg-na", though it is always pronounced and sung as "man-ya" in liturgical music. And how do ITALIANS pronounce the "gn"? As n-y. And when ITALIANS learn Latin, how do THEY pronounce "Magna"? They pronounce it as "man-ya". So do the French. But in American schools, we teach (or taught) that the "PROPER" ancient pronunciation is "Guh-N", like magma, but with an "n". There's no ancient tape recording to tell us that, and no ancient grammar that spells it out for us. It's just an academic assertion. At least scholars of ancient Greek admit that ancient Greek was not pronounced the way that scholastic ancient Greek is pronounced. They pronounce it that way to emphasize the spelling. With Hebrew, there was no language spoken for 1000 years. It was dead and gone. The revival of modern Hebrew was a PURELY academic exercise. Modern Hebrew is like Esperanto: it was the product of the university. In the case of Hebrew, it was certain ardent Zionists who took the ancient Hebrew and revived it. But they did not retain the ancient Hebrew verb forms. Why? Because they were modern Europeans, mostly living in Germany and France and England, and they could no more fathom the use of a language that didn't reference time than we can. So, MODERN Hebrew is an Indo-European language in terms of its verb structure, and much more closely related to German than to ancient Hebrew in this crucial aspect. It uses ancient Hebrew letters and words - pronounced like 19th Century Germans. Now, of course, as the Zionists took steam, there were Jews from the Ottoman Empire and North Africa, with their OWN pronunciations, and because these pronuciations came from the sandy areas, they were adopted as more "authentic". Truth: nobody knows how the ancient language was pronounced. There are clues from surviving languages (such as "man-ya" in Italian, for Latin), and various Arabic words. It's based on that that the scholars tells us that once upon a time "Vav" was "W". It doesn't really matter, but it's certainly not ME who is just making things up from wholecloth. But no, being Jewish does not inherently mean one understands ancient Hebrew better, or pronounces it correctly.
JewsAndJoes: The Ben Asher manuscripts (Aleppo Codex and the Leningrad Codex) are considered the earliest complete manuscripts of the Tanakh (10th Century CE). They render the Name as YeH-Vah, removing the "o" (cholam) vowel in order to remind the reader not to say The-Name (the 10th Century Masoretes accepted the rabbinic ban on pronunciation). The scribe of the Leningrad Codex (the LenB19a manuscript) deliberately or mistakenly forgot to remove the cholam 50 out of 6828 times. According to Nehemia Gordon (a Karaite Hakham), there were no other vowels accidentally inserted for the Vov in the Divine Name in this manuscript**. I don't mean to sound contentious here, but it is intriguing how Yahweh-ists belittle the "YeHo-" prefix which was traditionally supported by ancient Jewish scribes... and yet whole-heartedly claim El-ordained inspiration on those very same texts transmitted by the same Jewish scribes. Note: A photographic (lithographic) edition of the original manuscript has been published here: The Leningrad Codex; A Facsimile Edition Are you sure you're not just batting for the Septuagint team here?
Yes, I am sure. The LXX is a wonderful document. But to delve into Genesis, you need the pictographs. Also, the LXX doesn't do the Hebrew imperfect verb any justice. It simply replaces it with the verb tense that fits the Jewish theology of 150 BC. That's good enough for everything else, but it fails utterly when dealing with Genesis 1.
You place a lot of confidence in that chapter being a key to unlock mysteries. Yet we know it has to have one of the most dubious pedigrees of O.T. scripture. Not that I would expect you to agree.
#99. To: TooConservative (#96)
We don't "know" that. The origin of all Scripture is shaky. These documents were copied because people believed in their content. They believed in their content because they believed in tradition, or because they saw miracles.
It doesn't unlock mysteries. It presents them in plain view, right there in the hieroglyphics. Remember how autographs are the actual Scripture, and copies are copies. Well, the autographs have the pictographs, and the pictographs have meaning, and sound. Each word is itself a sentence, in the original, and that's CLEAR with the pictographs. It's not some sort of esoteric or hidden thing. It's right there in plain view...for any ancient Hebrew in the desert out of Egypt who could read Egyptian hieroglyphics to see. 50 generations, 5 language and 6 alphabet shifts later this is obscured, but that's because the details of the autograph are not conveyed in the transmission, not because this is secret or esoteric knowledge. Anybody can learn the pictographs and ancient Hebrew and read it like an ancient, and see it. If you've gotta reduce hieroglyphic pictographs to mere phonetic letters, you are inevitably going to plane off a lot of content. If you then convert to other languages that use the verb very differently, you're going to lose more. You CAN read it in English, but you have to use a lot more words than you use in Hebrew, because you have to translate the pictures as well as the surface words, and for the Hebrew imperfect you have to present about 6 English verb tenses, from the past into the future, to convey the indefinite incompletion of the action. Example: on the fifth day, God did not create fish and birds, rather, he "began to fatten the swimmers and the flyers". "Began to" is not the same thing as "did". "Did" means that he started and finished, but "began to" means that he didn't finish. This addresses one of the charges of conflict between Genesis 2, that things happened in different order. Well, they didn't. On each of the six days, the Powers (God) BEGIN TO do something. These open verbs are not COMPLETED, until the seventh day. And so the challenge that things are in different order between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, which is a valid and true criticism of the English translation, evaporates in the Hebrew. The other reason Genesis 1 matters is because words are presented there for the first time, and defined. Important words, like "day", and "night", and "soul", and what the "image of God" entails. Also, the gender of different aspects of God. Later on, when we're just in the narrative text about what men are doing and saying, these issues all become trivial: there is nothing new under the sun, just a rearranging of the chairs and pieces. But at Creation, there IS the new, there's even the sun itself, new. Also, for everybody but Jews before the destruction of the Temple, all of the commandments that God gives mankind are given in the first 11 chapters of Genesis, with two of them given on the very day of creation of mankind. All the rest of Scripture between Genesis 11 and Matthew 1 is the side story of a particular family and a series of 6 covenants made and repeated to members of that family and its spin offs. Laws are given, policies and procedures stated, all for THEM. Not for us. We do not return to the story as objects of commandments and law until Jesus. When it comes to history and how we got from Babel to Bethlehem, the intervening Scripture is important, but when it comes to LAW, actual binding LAW on Gentiles, nothing in the Old Testament after Genesis 11 is about us. Genesis 1 is, in fact, the most important text in the Old Testament. And Revelation is, in fact, the most important text in the New Testament. Because the first chapter explains how everything got here and gives the Prime Directives that govern human existence. And the last book promises life after this, says what comes next, and says how a soul created in this world can come to enjoy the world to come...and gives the bill of particulars of what will get you killed. If one took three of the first 11 chapters of Genesis and the last two chapters of the Book of Revelation, one would have the whole law of mankind and know everything one needs to know. The rest is all detail for those who wish to know more and see it unfold, to deepen their belief and their understanding. I advocate reading it all, AND looking at the physical miracles.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#3. To: TooConservative, _V_, redleghunter, SOSO (#2)
#4. To: Pericles, TooConservative, _V_, redleghunter, SOSO, Orthodoxa, A Pole, Vicomte13, redleghunter, GarySpFc (#3)
TooConservative, _V_, redleghunter, SOSO
#15. To: SOSO, GarySpFc, Orthodoxa, vicomte13, liberator, TooConservative (#4)
In what language did God converse...?
#33. To: redleghunter, SOSO, GarySpFc, Orthodoxa, vicomte13, liberator, TooConservative (#15)
n what language did God converse...? In the languages they all understood. If they didn't understand what God was communicating, then they could not write it down.
#38. To: Pericles, SOSO, GarySpFc, Orthodoxa, vicomte13, liberator, TooConservative (#33)
Why would it not be Egyptian for Moses? It was the only language he spoke his whole life and "Moses" is an Egyptian name not a Hebrew name.
#39. To: redleghunter (#38)
True, however, YHWH is God's Name in Hebrew.
#49. To: TooConservative (#39)
rue, unless it is YHVH.
#53. To: Vicomte13 (#49)
It is Yod, Hey, Waw, Hey.
#62. To: TooConservative (#53)
(Edited)
Hebrew has no 'w' sound.
#87. To: Vicomte13 (#62)
Today it doesn't. Originally, who knows?
#88. To: TooConservative (#87)
I'll leave it to you to dictate to the Jews what ancient Hebrew is or is not.
#91. To: Vicomte13 (#88)
#94. To: TooConservative (#91)
Are you sure you're not just batting for the Septuagint team here?
#96. To: Vicomte13 (#94)
That's good enough for everything else, but it fails utterly when dealing with Genesis 1.
Replies to Comment # 96. Yet we know it has to have one of the most dubious pedigrees of O.T. scripture
#102. To: TooConservative (#96)
You place a lot of confidence in that chapter being a key to unlock mysteries.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 96.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]