Why the KJV: Part 1

[Brother Ben]

Greetings in the name of My Beloved, Jesus.

I would like to make some observations about the version issue.

1. Apples and oranges. When doing a comparative study one must remember the source manuscripts from which we derive our versions. You have two basic sources the first being the, what I call, Asia Minor manuscripts. When Erasamus compiled the text for the Textus Receptus (the root manuscript for the Martin Luther Bible, The Tyndale Bible, The Geneva Bible, the KJV, as well as other tremendous manuscripts,) he examined literally thousands of documents. He had full availability to the Vaticanus from where the "new versions" come. When Wescott and Hort compiled their documents for trans. of the RV in 1881 they rejected the TR for the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Strangely the V and S manuscripts where we get the supposed superior NIV, RV, RSV, ASV, NASB, NRSV, NCV, CEV, TLB, Good News for Modern Man, and the misnomer NKJV (which is not a "new" King James at all.) The men who compiled the Wescott Hort manuscripts were destitute of Christian experience. They were members of a group called the ghostly guild that spent time trying to get in touch with departed spirits. They believe in worship of Mary and redemption of demons. NOTE: If you are a born again Catholic please don't be offended, these are just facts. The point I'm making is Drs. Wescott and Hort had allegiances to the Catholic church and used Catholic manuscripts to make the work from which ALL modern translations come. The translators of the modern version, with their scholarship, were merely slamming on the KJV because most people do not have any idea about manuscipt evidences and the ever popular, "thee's and thou's" arguement leads many astray. So it's apples and oranges, by this I mean, You cannot rightly compare a KJV with a NIV (or other versions) because they come from totally different families of manuscripts. Also, the Vaticanus and Sinaticus are "older", but they are corrupt. They differed with each other over 3000 times in just the four gospels alone.
2. Fundamental doctrinal attacks. Consider the following doctrines: The virgin birth, the sinlessness of Christ, regeneration, the blood atonement, the Trinity. Are these important or are these "B" issues that shouldn't be made a big deal out of?
Revised Version: Is. 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el.
Question: How many times a day do young women conceive? How often do virgins? Remember ALL modern translations are re-translations of the RV! When the modernist translators, who got in much hot water for attacking the virgin birth which Wescott and Hort did not believe, they opted for the Textus Receptus wording "virgin." The "denominations" that represent the scholars who have done the "new translations" are plagued with modernist infidels who deny crucial funamental bible doctrines. Beware!
Revised Version: Matt. 5:22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, `You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire.
Question: Was Jesus angry when he drove the money changers out of the temple with a scourge of cords? Yes! So, was he liable to judgement? You can stand in judgement of Jesus if you'd like, I'll opt out of that one. This puts a question mark on the sinlessness of Christ.
Revised Version: Acts 8:36,37 [36] And as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What is to prevent my being baptized?"
[38] And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.
Question: Where did verse 37 go? The scholars and their ancient manuscripts say it wasn't there. Does verse 37 teach anything important? Yes, salvation by grace through faith prior to baptism. The KJV says, And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The false teaching of baptismal regeration found its origin in the the early Catholic church. Constantine needed a quick method for making the pagan men of his army members of the church so he baptized them in! So if water puts you into Christ the sooner the better, thus infant baptism. When the babies drowned on occasions they changed the method from immersion (scriptural) to sprinkling (man-made.) Error begets error. Also, if the superior manuscripts OMIT verse 37, then why isn't verse 38 called verse 37? When thinking about OMISSIONS consider Rev. 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. This is the last admonition God makes about His word. It would be wise to heed it.

Interesting article: Why You Should Use The King James Bible
logosresourcepages.org/why_use.htm



MORE NEXT POST, Bro. Ben

[Brother Ben]

Here is the renunciation of his endorsement of the NASV BY Dr. Frank Logsdon, member of the translation committee.

www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/articles/translator.asp

[hszoo]

Thank you so much for all the work you're putting into teaching here. It's a real blessing, Brother.

[funnyd]

Wasn't the NKJV New Testament solely based on the Textus Receptus as well? It's preface defends the the Byzantine text type on which the TR is based.

[Brother Ben]

The NKJV translation is best understood as a hybrid. It is a combination of the Nestle-Aland and Unger translation which is a retranslation of the Wescott Hort manuscripts. Though the Byzantine Text or Textus Receptus was used, it must be made clear tha the NKJV translators were not desiring to make a new up to date translation of the Received Text. Many times in the NKJV the translators prefer the Nestle-Aland Unger (NU as it is refered to in the reference notes.) Many times you will be reading and the reference note will say, "The NU manuscripts did not have this verse included." The verses left out of these NU manuscripts are the same verses left out of the ALL the other new translations. It is no coincidence that many of these verse attack key bible doctrines such as, the virgin birth, the sinlessness of Christ, regeneration, the blood atonement, the deity of Christ, and the Trinity.

If the NKJV translators would have been honest, they wouldn't have called it the New KJV, for it is not a new KJV at all, but another translation altogether with the Testus Receptus intermingled. Let me make an illustration, take a glass of water, add 5% manure to it, now, do you want that NEW version of water? I hope your answer is no.

Now, lest I be misunderstood as happens many times (not prticularly by you, David, but I want any who read this to know) one is not saved by a version, they are saved by the blood of Jesus. Also, having a KJV does not make you a spiritual Christian. If someone is not obeying their KJV they are holding the truth in vanity. Though I would not encourage anyone to do it, one is better reading and heeding his NIV, then owning a KJV and being a backslidden rascal.

As I heard a quartet sing once, 'What's wrong with the Old Black Book my Daddy used to read from, Is it so outdated, by modern translation, Revised Standard and Good News everywhere I look, Oh, won't somebody tell me, what's wrong with the Old Black Book?'

Ben

[funnyd]

I honestly cannot see how the NKJV can be considered a "hybrid" as the text faithfully follows the TR throughout. For example, if the NKJV was truly a hybrid, it would have used the phrase "tree of life" at Rev 22:19, as even the Byzantine or Majority text has this reading.

Instead, faithfully following the TR, the NKJV reads "book of life", a result of Erasmus in his original work having to backtranslate the phrase out of the Vulgate (Erasmus' lone Greek manuscript of Revelation was missing the final 6 verses. Why Beza later failed to correct this remains a mystery.).

The NKJV does indeed footnote the variances with the Alexandrian Critical text (I understood the U in NU as the United Bible Societies rather than Unger) as well as where the TR differs from the Byzantine, or majority text, but doesn't make the relative value judgements that the NIV's footnotes make).

One of the reasons I like the NKJV is that it does the most thorough job of documenting the variant readings among the manuscripts. The comparison of the Alexandrian vs. Byzantine texts has been the cause of much passionate debate, and I have read persuasive, but not compelling, arguments from proponents of both camps. After a year or better of studying these, I have found it preferable to study versions of both text types (usally NKJV and NASB) and examine the evidences to support the reading most likely to be original.

As far as the KJV is concerned, it is a shame that the orignal translators' notes are rarely published anymore. Even in the more expensive Cambridge printings, they are often lacking. According to Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener, there were 765 footnotes in the original printing of the KJV in 1611 (including the "tree of life" reference mentioned above. I was able to find a KJV that had the marginal notes and they have been educational in my study. It is still my preferred version to memorize.

One other thing I've found in my studies of the texts and translations, which has taken over a year so far. Not all modern translations are descendents of the RV. While the RSV and the NRSV certainly fall into that category (neither of which have found favor with evangelicals as it is), as does the ESV (which was the result of conservatives reworking the RSV, especially Isa 7:14), most other translations can trace their lineage back to the American Standard Version of 1901, from which descended the NASB, Living Bible, NLT, and several others. Interestingly enough, the NIV was a wholly orignal translation as is the Southern Baptist produced HCSB.

I have sought to be a devoted student of the Scriptures, and as anyone who knows me can attest, if I take an interest in something, I will tend to research it to a far degree. All my studies have done nothing but reinforce my passionate belief in the inerrancy of Scripture, as the degree of consistency in even the most varied of manuscripts is so remarkable, that it would be impossible to accomplish if it were solely a work of human hands. May God continue to bless his Word and the reading and understanding of it.

- David

[Brother Ben]

The NKJV does not always follow the NU (United Bible Societies, I stand corrected) text options, but it does it enough to be considered corrupted. How many times does the influene of a corrupt manuscipt like that produced by Wescott and Hort have to be used to bring suspicion from any serious student. With over 5000 manuscripts in agreement with the KJV, why would anyone want to intermingle the work of inferior scholarship like the Wescott and Hort revision and it's children.

I've heard this arguement before, and perhaps my philosophy is too simple, but I don't have to have a complete working understanding of all the textual issues to know that it boils down to a scriptual defense of scripture. God said He would keep His word pure. Psalm 12:6,7, 119:89, 140, Prov. 30:5,6, Matt. 24:35, I Peter 1:23-25 Not one porducer of other versions claims that their work is the pure, preserved word of God. Only God said He would keep His word pure.

Please hand me a copy of it.

No takers. If you ask me for a copy of "the" pure preserved word of God (for the English speaking people,) I am going to give you a AV 1611 every time. Check and see if the NKJV board was preparing for you the inerrent, infallible, pure, preserved word of God. they never claim it because they do not think it exists. If you are convinced the NKJV fits the bill (even though it has Alexandrian influence,) good, that it what you should stand on. That is what you'll be judged for.

Throughout the Bible, the writers thereof claimed God would keep His word preserved and pure for us. Pick one and let the battle begin, it is your sword.

Bro. Ben