KJV Only...which one!

[CadyandZoe]

If having all the correct doctrines or truth is important to you… then this issue or topic is not an a waste of time.

I didn't say the topic was waste of time did I? Maybe I did. What remains a waste of time is arguments over various translations and text families and manuscripts etc.

The only authoritative written record of the words of God are the original autographs. Everything else is a translation and ALL translations, including the KJV are interpretations of the autographs.

 

[Nancy]

I made the switch to MAC because I had a lot of PC problems in the past. You don’t have to worry about virus trouble so much with MAC like you do with a PC. Once I made the switch I never looked back. The downside is running Windows on my MAC and having it run smoothly forever. It works for a few years and then starts to run sluggish (Unless I upgrade my MAC - which I don’t want to do because it costs money). MAC is geared more towards the arts and writing. Seeing I am into both, this is a perfect computer for me. My current favorite is the IMAC (the computer built into the screen). They are pricey, but they last longer then your average PC (At least in my experience anyways).

The trick to using a MAC is knowing your keyboard shortcuts and getting used to the Magic Mouse. Once you got that down, it’s easy. There are also some other differences of where to find things like your programs, etcetera (But it is all quick to learn seeing there is Google and YouTube).

Well, from what you mentioned, "less viruses" would be the only reason I would put that kind of money onto a computer, I use mine for very few things and, have not had a virus in many years and do NOT have an antivirus program as, the computers software includes it. So, I only have Malwarebytes. I have a good friend who's job it is to fix computers all over the place and, he told me this years ago and since then, I have saved money and also have not gotten a single virus.
If I were into the things you are then I would consider it but, I have the laptop I am using now, and also a back up one in case this one crashes.
My one brother uses the MAC, at first it was difficult for him, but he said "I'm just not accustomed to it yet, but I'll get there" Lol. And he did. :)

 

[Enoch111]

Everything else is a translation and ALL translations, including the KJV are interpretations of the autographs.

So what you mean to say is that Christians do not have an authoritative Word of God. Which is TOTAL NONSENSE. All translations are not interpretations at all, since those which adhere to word for word translation do provide an accurate and reliable representation of the original languages. Naturally they have to also be idiomatic, therefore they will differ in the word order.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

@Berserk

Brother. May God’s good ways be upon you this fine day (Whether we agree or disagree on this topic). Anyways, as a side note, it seems like you don’t know how to multi-quote. In order to help: I created an instructional tutorial for another Christian on how to do this at ChristianForums (Which appears to use the same software as ChristianityBoard (seeing the tools are the same for both forums in their layout).

Here is the video (that may help):

For example: If you want to quote my words, simply use the quote feature in the tool bars (as shown in the video), and add an = symbol and then my username Bible Highlighter.

I will keep the video up until you have watched the short video (if it interests you).

May it bless you.

Not true. The Bible does claim that it is inerrant or perfect. See Psalms 12:6-7, Proverbs 30:5-6, and Psalms 119:140.

Psalm 12:6-7 refers to the purity of God's promises, not the OT as we know it.

Okay, lets look at Psalms 12:6-7 in what it actually states, my friend.

Psalms 12:6-7 says,

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.”
​

You said that Psalms 12:6-7 refers to the purity of promises of the OT and not the actual OT (i.e. the words of the OT). But Psalms 12:6-7 or Psalms 12 does not make this distinction. Psalms 12:6 does NOT say, “The promises of The words of the LORD are pure words”

The words in purple above is what would need to be in Psalms 12:6 in order for you to be correct in what you say here in that it is the promises of the words of the LORD are pure words.

In fact, Jesus cares about the details of His Word because He refers to jots and tittles.

For Jesus says,
“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matthew 5:18).

Jots and tittles is from Biblical Hebrew writings. It would sort of be like the crossing of a “t” or the dotting of an “i” in our English writings (that would make up a letter and thus a word).

The word “law” here in Matthew 5:18 is in context or reference to
“the law, or the prophets” mentioned in Matthew 5:17 (the previous verse).

So Jesus is saying that heaven and earth shall not pass away until the law and the prophets have been fulfilled (i.e. the OT writings). “This law, or the prophets” is also referred to as the “Law and the prophets” in other parts of Scripture (Matthew 7:12) (Matthew 22:40) (John 1:45). We know that the Law portion of the Law and the prophets has been fulfilled with Christ’s death upon the cross. Meaning, the 613 Laws given to Israel by Moses (from GOD) has been fulfilled and it no longer applies as a contract anymore seeing we are under a New Contract (New Covenant or New Testament). We now follow the commands that come form Jesus and His followers. But the prophets portion of the Law (i.e. the Law and the Prophets) has yet to be fulfilled. For there are many end times prophecies that need to be fulfilled in the writings of the prophets.

Jesus is saying not one jot or one tittle (not even the slightest detail in the Hebrew writings that makes up those words) will pass away until all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall not pass away until every last jot or tittle is fulfilled. So this means God’s very words have not passed away in the slightest details (jots and tittles).

Even in Jesus' day the OT canon was not closed.

I agree with this statement (if you are not referring to the End Time prophecies in the OT that still need to be yet fulfilled in the future). But yes. The Old Covenant itself in regards to our faith, and obedience to God has been fulfilled. We are technically not under the 613 Laws of Moses given to Israel, but we are under the Laws of Christ.

For the apostle Paul says,

“To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.” (1 Corinthians 9:21).

Proverbs 30:5-6 only says, "Every word of God proves true," but that says nothing about biblical stories and words that don't directly include what God says. In any case, Proverbs isn't even referring to an established canon as we know it.

Proverbs 30:5-6 says,
“5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”

So you think that the actual biblical stories are not the very words of God?

Jesus referred to various bibles stories by Scripture (Matthew 6:29) (Matthew 12:40) (Matthew 19:4), and Jesus said that He spoke by way of commandment by the Father (John 12:49), and said that God the Father’s words were truth (John 17:17).

The book of Daniel refers to the Scriptures as being called, the Scripture of truth (See: Daniel 10:21).

John 10:35 says the Scriptures cannot be broken. But what you said so far, I get the impression that the Scriptures are not truth and they can be broken in the fact that they have errors within them.

The apostle Paul says,
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Think. Something imperfect cannot make one perfect.

As mentioned, there are 400,000 variant readings in NT manuscripts. So you need to ask yourself: "If God didn't care enough to preserve the original text of Scripture, why imagine that He would inspire an originally inerrant text, especially since the Bible never even claims to be inerrant.

Also, you have to understand that your statement is faith based.

Nope! It's based on what the Greek of the NT Texts that claim inspiration mean and don't mean and the fact that these texts refer only to the OT.

I was referring to the fact that Textual Criticism is a religion that is faith based and must be learned by faith whereby they give you statements of faith for you to believe in like 400,000 variants in God’s words, etcetera. The scholars no more know of the exact science of what they affirm. They are making guesses as to their interpretations and or beliefs in their approach to the Bible (Which actually runs contrary to the Bible itself seeing God gives warnings in Scripture not to add or take away from His word - See: Revelation 22:18-19) (Note: Oh, and if you want Revelation 22:18-19 to only refer to the book of Revelation alone, this does not really help you because Modern English bibles and the Critical Text alters words in the book of Revelation away from the faithful Received Text and or the King James Bible).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The NT can't comment on its own inspiration because it takes centuries before disputes about the limits of the canon are settled. For example, 1 Clement is a first-century epistle that is included is some early NT canons and even claims to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. But of course the Catholic church eventually decides to reject its canonicity.

Please do not take this the wrong way, brother; But by your statement here, this sounds like you make man made church history or the Catholic Church your authority over what the Bible actually says. My final word of authority is in the Bible for all matters of faith and practice. For faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17), and faith does not come by hearing church history or believing the Catholic Church and their dogmas. I have already stated to you before how 2 Timothy 3:16-17 clearly establishes how ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine and instruction in righteousness so that the man of God may be perfect unto all good works. The problem is that you do not appear to believe that passage, my friend. I sincerely hope I am wrong and I am merely misunderstanding you. But if not, and you don’t actually believe 2 Timothy 3:16-17, then you believe in a holey bible (full of holes) and not a HOLY BIBLE that is perfect and divine and without error. For who gets to decide what is true or not? The Catholic Church? Fallible human history written by men? If God’s Word is not your primary source for establishment of truth, you are building your house on the sand (See Matthew 7:26-27).

Your claims lack integrity because you haven't read a rigorous modern book on Text Criticism that lays out the objective criteria for accepting and rejecting various specific biblical texts and words and lays out the actual criteria by which these texts are assessed for originality.

Sorry, I have no interest in doubting God’s Words. That is what Textual Criticism is really about. It would be copying the tactics of the serpent in the Garden when he said to Eve, “Yea, hath God said,….?” This is why there are footnotes in Modern Bibles getting a person to doubt what God’s words really say when the Textual Critics or scholars say that this verse or passage is not in the best or original manuscripts. Instead of just reading and believing the Bible and live by faith so as to please God, a person walks in doubt and disbelief in many various portions of what His word says. This is the danger of Textual Criticism. It seeks to Criticize the text of God’s holy words. I see this as wrong, brother.

In any event, may the Lord bless you (even if we disagree).

Peace, love, and all manner of goodness from the Lord be upon you today.

 

[JesusFan1]

Grace, peace, and love to you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
May His blessings shine upon you greatly.



It’s only false if you provide evidence that such is the case and you explain carefully away the evidence I have put forth. So far I have not seen anyone really do that. You have to explain away the false doctrines in Modern Bibles. You have to explain away how Jesus appears to sin in Modern Bibles. You have to explain away how the devil’s name is placed in Modern Bibles where they do not belong. You have to explain away how not only Westcott and Hort held to heretical beliefs but you have to explain away how many Textual Critical scholars and or those who worked on Modern bibles held to heretical beliefs vs. how the line of manuscripts that led to the King James Bible were the kind of men who were martyred for their faith. You have to explain away the dark origins of the Alexandrian manuscripts which is tied to Gnosticism and their denial of the Trinity (of which we see with the removal of 1 John 5:7). The list goes on and on.

Can you show me the list where ANY scholar on the nas/esv/Nkjv translation teams became heretics, or denied the full inerrancy and inspiration of the originals?

 

[JesusFan1]

"The Comma Joanneum, 5:7-8 of the Vg. is missing in all Gk MSS except four later MSS and in the Oriental versions. It is quoted by no Church father before Priscillian(380). There is no doubt that it is a gloss on the preceding lines, probably added in Africa or the Iberian peninsula."
John L. McKenzie, S.J., Dictionary of the Bible


"The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed even in RSVn, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early trinitarian controversies. No repectable Greek MS contians it. Appearing first in a late 4th cent. Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the NT of Erasmus."
Peake's Commentary on the Bible


"We need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8: that from the Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim." F.H.A.Scrivener -A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament 1883 third ed., p. 654.

Pretty much accepted by all save the Kjvo as not Beijing part of the Original book penned down by Apostle John!

 

[JesusFan1]

Please do not take this the wrong way, brother; But by your statement here, this sounds like you make man made church history or the Catholic Church your authority over what the Bible actually says. My final word of authority is in the Bible for all matters of faith and practice. For faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17), and faith does not come by hearing church history or believing the Catholic Church and their dogmas. I have already stated to you before how 2 Timothy 3:16-17 clearly establishes how ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine and instruction in righteousness so that the man of God may be perfect unto all good works. The problem is that you do not appear to believe that passage, my friend. I sincerely hope I am wrong and I am merely misunderstanding you. But if not, and you don’t actually believe 2 Timothy 3:16-17, then you believe in a holey bible (full of holes) and not a HOLY BIBLE that is perfect and divine and without error. For who gets to decide what is true or not? The Catholic Church? Fallible human history written by men? If God’s Word is not your primary source for establishment of truth, you are building your house on the sand (See Matthew 7:26-27).



Sorry, I have no interest in doubting God’s Words. That is what Textual Criticism is really about. It would be copying the tactics of the serpent in the Garden when he said to Eve, “Yea, hath God said,….?” This is why there are footnotes in Modern Bibles getting a person to doubt what God’s words really say when the Textual Critics or scholars say that this verse or passage is not in the best or original manuscripts. Instead of just reading and believing the Bible and live by faith so as to please God, a person walks in doubt and disbelief in many various portions of what His word says. This is the danger of Textual Criticism. It seeks to Criticize the text of God’s holy words. I see this as wrong, brother.

In any event, may the Lord bless you (even if we disagree).

Peace, love, and all manner of goodness from the Lord be upon you today.

Textual criticism is NOT to doubt the word of God, but to confirm to us what the true and Original word from Him actually was!

 

[JesusFan1]

Interesting that Bible Highlighter calls 1John 5:7: “the one and only clearest verse on the Trinity.”

That says a lot.

I think that the doctrine of the Trinity will still be very well established even when it is not listed as valid!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Can you show me the list where ANY scholar on the nas/esv/Nkjv translation teams became heretics, or denied the full inerrancy and inspiration of the originals?

Again, not all NKJV's say the same thing. The most recent NKJV's had created changes that favor the corrupt Critical Text.

The NKJV is a perfect bait and switch Bible.
In other words, it was clearly created as an attempt to deceive unlearned or ignorant KJB Only Christians.
Don’t believe me? Just watch this video:

The Critical Text is based on the Nestle and Aland Critical Text (Which is based upon Westcott and Hort's work; Hence, why it's in the 28th edition and it is not given an entirely new name with an entirely new edition separate from the Westcott and Hort New Testament Greek Critical Text - WH). That's why you will see things like the letters NU in the footnotes in your Modern Bibles when they speak about the supposedly so called better and older manuscripts do not contain a certain portion of Scripture, etcetera (i.e. Yea, hath God said,...?). The letter N stands for Nestle & Aland. The letter U stands for United Bible Societies. Most likely you are probably unaware that the Nestle and Aland Critical Text is influenced by the Roman Catholic Church. In other words, all your Modern English Bibles today are based off the Nestle and Aland (influenced by the Vatican).

Proof?

See post #53 to learn more.

To my knowledge so far, there are 14 points in Scripture that shows the Vatican's influence.
You can check them out on page 21 of this PDF document here:

http://www.keithpiper.org/storage/books/NIV-Omissions-Cimatu-7July2018-pdf.pdf

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Textual criticism is NOT to doubt the word of God, but to confirm to us what the true and Original word from Him actually was!

I strongly disagree.

If it's not about doubting God's Word then why do they put footnotes saying that certain verses are not in the better and older manuscripts? If I believe Textual Critics, I will not believe the ending in Mark, I will not believe that the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery in John 8 really happened. I will not believe 1 John 5:7 is supposed to be in my Bible. It's a... “Yea, hath God said,...?” approach to the Bible.

Textual Criticism that was popularized by Westcott and Hort was an attack upon the Received Text or the Traditional Text of the Bible (and the King James Bible) of which Hort said the Text Receptus was villainous and vile. You think the Critical Text is better but it's not. It's a never ending shape shifter Bible in a language no man today can possibly know. Their work is never done and they are constantly updating their NT Greek text when new manuscript evidence arises. But the Nestle and Aland text (Influenced by the Vatican) still uses the corrupt Westcott and Hort NT Greek text as it's textual basis.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I think that the doctrine of the Trinity will still be very well established even when it is not listed as valid!

This is what Rome wants. They want you to get away from trusting the Bible as your final Word of authority (Seeing they are against Sola Scriptura). Note: I prefer to call Sola Scriptura as: “The Bible Alone + the Anointing to Understand It.” Anyways, it's a fact of history that the Catholic church used to burn their own people if they possessed the Holy Scriptures at one point in time within history. When the King James Bible translation was being done, a Catholic named Guy Fawkes wanted to take out King James and his translation with a super bomb (See the documentary: KJB: The Book that Changed the World hosted by John Rhys-Davies). The KJB was about getting the Bible into the hands of the common man. But Rome did not want that to happen because they wanted to control the interpretation of Scripture to their puppet priests or “yes men.” In fact, I have even talked with Catholics who believe that I should not interpret Scripture but I should look to their priests to tell me what the Bible actually says. For they do not think no Roman Catholic priest is not truly capable of knowing the depths of God's Word. So naturally Rome changed it's tactics. Instead of killing people (or attempting to kill) to take away the Bible out of the hands of the common man, they have now resorted to changing God's Word to their own liking. Don't believe me? Check out post #53 to learn how your Modern Bibles are influenced by the Vatican.

 

[JesusFan1]

This is what Rome wants. They want you to get away from trusting the Bible as your final Word of authority (Seeing they are against Sola Scriptura). Note: I prefer to call Sola Scriptura as: “The Bible Alone + the Anointing to Understand It.” Anyways, it's a fact of history that the Catholic church used to burn their own people if they possessed the Holy Scriptures at one point in time within history. When the King James Bible translation was being done, a Catholic named Guy Fawkes wanted to take out King James and his translation with a super bomb (See the documentary: KJB: The Book that Changed the World hosted by John Rhys-Davies). The KJB was about getting the Bible into the hands of the common man. But Rome did not want that to happen because they wanted to control the interpretation of Scripture to their puppet priests or “yes men.” In fact, I have even talked with Catholics who believe that I should not interpret Scripture but I should look to their priests to tell me what the Bible actually says. For they do not think no Roman Catholic priest is not truly capable of knowing the depths of God's Word. So naturally Rome changed it's tactics. Instead of killing people (or attempting to kill) to take away the Bible out of the hands of the common man, they have now resorted to changing God's Word to their own liking. Don't believe me? Check out post #53 to learn how your Modern Bibles are influenced by the Vatican.

Do you read hebrew and Koine Greek though, as those texts have authority over the Kjv!

 

[JesusFan1]

I strongly disagree.

If it's not about doubting God's Word then why do they put footnotes saying that certain verses are not in the better and older manuscripts? If I believe Textual Critics, I will not believe the ending in Mark, I will not believe that the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery in John 8 really happened. I will not believe 1 John 5:7 is supposed to be in my Bible. It's a... “Yea, hath God said,...?” approach to the Bible.

Textual Criticism that was popularized by Westcott and Hort was an attack upon the Received Text or the Traditional Text of the Bible (and the King James Bible) of which Hort said the Text Receptus was villainous and vile. You think the Critical Text is better but it's not. It's a never ending shape shifter Bible in a language no man today can possibly know. Their work is never done and they are constantly updating their NT Greek text when new manuscript evidence arises. But the Nestle and Aland text (Influenced by the Vatican) still uses the corrupt Westcott and Hort NT Greek text as it's textual basis.

Getting to what the originals texts stated is what textual criticism does, and its not to make us doubt it!

 

[JesusFan1]

This is what Rome wants. They want you to get away from trusting the Bible as your final Word of authority (Seeing they are against Sola Scriptura). Note: I prefer to call Sola Scriptura as: “The Bible Alone + the Anointing to Understand It.” Anyways, it's a fact of history that the Catholic church used to burn their own people if they possessed the Holy Scriptures at one point in time within history. When the King James Bible translation was being done, a Catholic named Guy Fawkes wanted to take out King James and his translation with a super bomb (See the documentary: KJB: The Book that Changed the World hosted by John Rhys-Davies). The KJB was about getting the Bible into the hands of the common man. But Rome did not want that to happen because they wanted to control the interpretation of Scripture to their puppet priests or “yes men.” In fact, I have even talked with Catholics who believe that I should not interpret Scripture but I should look to their priests to tell me what the Bible actually says. For they do not think no Roman Catholic priest is not truly capable of knowing the depths of God's Word. So naturally Rome changed it's tactics. Instead of killing people (or attempting to kill) to take away the Bible out of the hands of the common man, they have now resorted to changing God's Word to their own liking. Don't believe me? Check out post #53 to learn how your Modern Bibles are influenced by the Vatican.

The geneva Bible people had same issues when the Kjv came out, as many felt that the Geneva was superior to the kjv!

 

[JesusFan1]

Again, not all NKJV's say the same thing. The most recent NKJV's had created changes that favor the corrupt Critical Text.

The NKJV is a perfect bait and switch Bible.
In other words, it was clearly created as an attempt to deceive unlearned or ignorant KJB Only Christians.
Don’t believe me? Just watch this video:

The Critical Text is based on the Nestle and Aland Critical Text (Which is based upon Westcott and Hort's work; Hence, why it's in the 28th edition and it is not given an entirely new name with an entirely new edition separate from the Westcott and Hort New Testament Greek Critical Text - WH). That's why you will see things like the letters NU in the footnotes in your Modern Bibles when they speak about the supposedly so called better and older manuscripts do not contain a certain portion of Scripture, etcetera (i.e. Yea, hath God said,...?). The letter N stands for Nestle & Aland. The letter U stands for United Bible Societies. Most likely you are probably unaware that the Nestle and Aland Critical Text is influenced by the Roman Catholic Church. In other words, all your Modern English Bibles today are based off the Nestle and Aland (influenced by the Vatican).

Proof?

See post #53 to learn more.

To my knowledge so far, there are 14 points in Scripture that shows the Vatican's influence.
You can check them out on page 21 of this PDF document here:

http://www.keithpiper.org/storage/books/NIV-Omissions-Cimatu-7July2018-pdf.pdf

the Nkjv translators did not use the Critical greek text as one of their primary source documents though!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Can you show me the list where ANY scholar on the nas/esv/Nkjv translation teams became heretics, or denied the full inerrancy and inspiration of the originals?

Everyone who has worked on the NASB committee is not really listed anywhere that is easily found. Frank Logsdon worked on the NASB translation committee. But he came out and exposed what the others were doing.

See minute 4:40.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

the Nkjv translators did not use the Critical greek text as one of their primary source documents though!

Not true.

Proof?

You may or may not know this but the 1881 Revised Version is Westcott and Hort's first English translation that was based on their New Testament Greek Critical Text (that departed from the Traditional Text or Received Text of which the King James Bible is based off of). The Westcott and Hort Greek Critical Text is still the textual basis even for the Nestle and Aland Critical Text for the New Testament.

Let's compare the KJB vs. the NKJV, vs. the RV English 1881 (Westcott and Hort).

#1. Acts of the Apostles 12:4:

Acts of the Apostles 12:4 KJB

“And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.”
​

Acts of the Apostles 12:4 NKJV

“So when he had arrested him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four squads of soldiers to keep him, intending to bring him before the people after Passover.”
​

Acts of the Apostles 12:4 RV (1881)

“And when he had taken him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to guard him; intending after the Passover to bring him forth to the people.”

RV Source:
Acts 12 - Revised Version 1881​

To learn more about the importance of this difference, check out this article here.

#2. 1 Timothy 6:10:

1 Timothy 6:10 KJB

“For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”
​

1 Timothy 6:10 NKJV

“For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”
​

1 Timothy 6:10 RV (1881) (Westcott and Hort)

“For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil: which some reaching after have been led astray from the faith, and have pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”

RV Source:
1 Timothy 6 - Revised Version 1881
​

There is a difference between “all evil” and “all kinds of evi.”
The correct rendering is in the KJB. This is explained in the second view mentioned in this article here.

#3. 2 Timothy 2:15

2 Timothy 2:15 KJB

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
​

2 Timothy 2:15 NKJV

“Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
​

2 Timothy 2:15 RV (1881) (Westcott and Hort)

“Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth.”

RV source:
2 Timothy 2 - Revised Version 1881
​

Clearly we are to study to show ourselves approved unto God because 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says all Scripture is profitable for doctrine and instruction in righteousness so that the man of God may be perfect unto all good works. But God knows that His people are destroyed for lack of knowledge (Hebrews 4:6). No doubt the devil does not want God's people to know about how God commands His people to study. Modern bibles muddy the waters on the meaning of what we must do (Which is to study God's Word).

#4. Jude 1:15

Jude 1:15 KJB

“To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”
​

Jude 1:15 NKJV

“to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”
​

Jude 1:15 RV (1881)

“to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their works of ungodliness which they have ungodly wrought, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”
​

RV Source:
Jude 1 - Revised Version 1881
​

There is a difference between speeches and things.

​

As for the Old Testament:

​

The NKJV translators also followed the Westcott Revised English Version of the Old Testament (that used the Hebraica for the Old Testament). Note: The Hebraica was created in recent history by Anti-Semitic German named Rudolf Kittel. See this article here at Encyclopedia.com to learn more.

#1. Zechariah 13:6

Zechariah 13:6 KJB

“And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.”
​

Zechariah 13:6 NKJV

“And one will say to him, ‘What are these wounds between your arms?’ Then he will answer, ‘Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.”
​

Zechariah 13:6 RV (1881) (Westcott and Hort)

“And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds between thine arms? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.”​

Source:
Zechariah 13 - Revised Version 1881​

The NKJV is in error here because it admits in Psalms 22:16 that His hands and feet were pierced.

#2. Genesis 3:5

Genesis 3:5 KJB

“For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”
​

Genesis 3:5 NKJV

“For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
​

Genesis 3:5 RV (1881) (Westcott and Hort)

“for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.”
​

Source:
Genesis 3 - Revised Version 1881
​

The NKJV is wrong because it is suggesting that Adam and Eve can be as God Himself vs. be as gods (little “g”). In either case, the verses here show that the NKJV at times favors the Critical Text.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The geneva Bible people had same issues when the Kjv came out, as many felt that the Geneva was superior to the kjv!

The Geneva Bible is clearly in error.

The King James Bible correctly says:

2 Samuel 21:19 KJB
“And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.”

So Elhanan slew the brother of Goliath. Sounds good.

2 Samuel 21:19 Geneva Bible
“And there was yet another battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaare-Oregim, a Bethlehemite slew Goliath the Gittite: the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.”

Is that the correct answer?
Did Elhanan kill Goliath?

Wrong! Bad Geneva Bible! Everyone knows David killed Goliath. For 1 Chronicles 20:5 in the Geneva Bible has Elhanan killing the brother of Goliath. So this is an error in the Geneva Bible that was clearly made clear in the King James Bible.

Oh, and the NASB follows this same error or problem in the Geneva Bible. It's like the NASB folk did not learn from the mistake on the Geneva Bible.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Do you read hebrew and Koine Greek though, as those texts have authority over the Kjv!

Why would I do that when I have God's very preserved words that I can hold in my hands right now (i.e. the KJB)?

Do you know how to speak, write, and speak Koine Greek fluently?
Is your faith in what different Lexicons says vs. Your experience of knowing that language intimately in growing up in that culture?

Well, the problem is that Biblical Hebrew, and Biblical Greek are not living languages anymore. So there is a form of guessing involved. You don't have a Moses (for the Biblical Hebrew), and an apostle Paul (for the Biblical Greek) to make sure you are always 100% correct. So the only alternative is trusting that God preserved His Word in a language we do understand or a language that is pretty close to the one we speak (Which I believe is 1600's English with the King James Bible).

It would be like your trying to correct Chinese people on the true meaning of a great literary work they created by using a Chinese to English Dictionary. Most Chinese people would look at you crazy if you tried to do something like that.

Which Greek manuscripts do you follow?
Not all Greek manuscripts say the same thing or are of the illogical James White position in that they the contradicting manuscripts say the same thing if you piece them together?
Are you looking for general truths that you and other Modern Scholarship Believers deem as what you feel are important or are you after specific truth from what God’s Word says?