# The NKJV symbol question?



## Free Christian (Nov 6, 2013)

Hello everyone.
I thought I would pose the question here so as to not hijack the other thread on the KJV and NKJV.
There are people who use the NKJV like Bill, Jimmy and Steve J/Blade and others too I guess.
My question is how do people reconcile the use of a bible that contains an image or representation of the Godhead in or on it?


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 6, 2013)

For the same reason that a cross is acceptable while a crucifix is not. The cross may remind us of Christ, but it is not an actual image of Christ. In the same way, the symbol used in the NKJV is meant to remind us of the trinity, but is not intended to be an actual representation of any person thereof.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Nov 6, 2013)

Exactly.

If a knot-symbol is illegal, then the actual word "trinity" should be too, since both exist for the precise same reason: to bring to mind the idea of the true Trinity.


----------



## Phil D. (Nov 6, 2013)

It is notable on this subject that the title page of first edition KJVs (1611) have visual representations of the Holy Spirit (a dove) and Christ (a lamb with a crosier).


----------



## JimmyH (Nov 6, 2013)

Humankind has always been attracted to symbols. The first Christians were no exception ;

What is the origin of the Christian fish symbol? | Christian History


----------



## jandrusk (Nov 6, 2013)

I think the argument could be made that crosses are carved images. Why would you need a picture of the cross when you have the word of the cross?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk


----------



## iainduguid (Nov 6, 2013)

Phil D. said:


> It is notable on this subject that the title page of first edition KJVs (1611) have visual representations of the Holy Spirit (a dove) and Christ (a lamb with a crosier).



Many historic, plain churches in Scotland (and some in England) have a dove on the sounding board above the pulpit, which clearly represents the Holy Spirit and must have been the only original decoration. Can anyone explain to me why this symbol was thought to be acceptable by the Puritans and their successors?


----------



## Free Christian (Nov 6, 2013)

Thanks for the replies. For me, I don't accept any visuals. I didn't post this to argue a point, and by the replies no-one has assumed that, but just to try to hear why some do. "I" don't accept them for the following reasons. If I had a cross on my wall for example, when my inlaws visit they might kiss their hand and say something in Italian about Jesus and make the cross sign, bowing their heads as in worship. Even if I did not think it was anything but a cross to them it would be more. Then I would not want to make my brother stumble. Also if I accepted a symbol that could be the thin edge of the wedge to others to accept more than just a symbol. "Hey what's that symbol there for Brett?" "Oh, that's to represent the Holy Trinity of God" "Why do you have it?" What would I answer? To remind me of God? Then I am going against what I have as my identifying belief the WCF, or my own personal convictions as to what the Word of God says. 
To me I would not care, not not caring as "whatever" or rudely, who had any type of symbol whether it was (not implying he did) Calvin, Henry or anyone on earth who may be held in the highest regard by all. It would be on that that I would respectfully disagree with them. They had a Dove! That was wrong. To what is God to be likened, a Dove?
My safeguard is like this. I try my hardest to apply it all the time, but I am a flawed sinner and sometimes forget but then later remind myself to do it.
So it is this. "Is what I am doing or believe, if it is wrong can it cause harm? What if I am right, what if I am wrong?"
If I am right, then I have stopped or tried to help at least, a brother or sister not to use images or symbols and please God.
If I am wrong then all I have done is tell them I believe it is wrong. 
Can I find an excuse for using an image or symbol in the Word where it say I can? No.
Can I find examples of it being wrong? Yes. 
So if I try to tell them its wrong and I am right I have done a good thing, even if they choose to continue.
And if I try to tell them its wrong but Im wrong, I have not done anything wrong by Gods Word.
But anyone would have to admit, well I would hope so anyway, that the choice the publishers made in using a symbol which is also used by occultists, before it was used by the NKJV, as representing Satan 666 is a bit off to say the least. Why didn't they think of a new stand alone one? How hard would that have been to do? So the use of it is not to represent 666, I get that. But the same symbol? Its so widely used by them in the occult, who would want to do that.
Seriously, If you, any of you started up a club for example, would you get T-shirts printed up for all the members using a symbol that others widely used to identify anything demonic? Even if its origins were not but now it was widely used as such?
I wouldn't.
But anyway. I have had my say as per my conscience and done what I believe is right in the sight of God.
Not condemning anyone here or judging, just doing what I believe in.


----------



## Philip (Nov 7, 2013)

Phil D. said:


> It is notable on this subject that the title page of first edition KJVs (1611) have visual representations of the Holy Spirit (a dove) and Christ (a lamb with a crosier).



Both fall under the category of allegorical symbols or similes, not representations as such.


----------



## Phil D. (Nov 7, 2013)

Philip said:


> Both fall under the category of allegorical symbols or similes, not representations as such.



So, would you deem the Trinitarian symbol used by the NKJV to be of the same nature?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 7, 2013)

Neither my Thompson-Chain NKJV nor my Cambridge University Press NKJV have the symbol present.


----------



## Philip (Nov 7, 2013)

Phil D. said:


> So, would you deem the Trinitarian symbol used by the NKJV to be of the same nature?



I would deem it to be one step further removed. It's a visual shorthand for a concept rather than an allegorical figure. Think of it almost like a coat of arms.


----------



## Phil D. (Nov 7, 2013)

Philip said:


> I would deem it to be one step further removed. It's a visual shorthand for a concept rather than an allegorical figure. Think of it almost like a coat of arms.



Interesting take, thanks. 

Historically, I do know that during the time of Westminster Assembly a systematic program was put in place to remove virtually all forms of religious visual representation from British churches - whether literal-imaginary or allegorical - including crosses and Christic lambs. For many Puritans, all of these forms and categories were unwarranted and thus forbidden representations.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 7, 2013)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> ther my Thompson-Chain NKJV nor my Cambridge University Press NKJV have the symbol present.



My Thompson-Chain has it on the title page.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 7, 2013)

My Thompson-Chain is from Kirkbride.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 7, 2013)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> My Thompson-Chain is from Kirkbride



As are all of them.


----------



## JimmyH (Nov 7, 2013)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Neither my Thompson-Chain NKJV nor my Cambridge University Press NKJV have the symbol present.


I've got three NKJV, all from Thomas Nelson publishing. A Thompson Chain, a large print text with references at the end of some verses, but not in the center or the margins, and a pocket companion. None of the three have the aforementioned symbol. 

The large print and the pocket companion both have a Nelson logo on the title page incorporating a cross between the letters T-N. The Thompson does not have the logo within the text block but it is on the box it came with. First time I ever noticed it.

I have a limited edition 1599 Geneva calfskin by Tolle Lege that has a Celtic cross embossed in gold on the beautiful calfskin cover. Kind of off putting but I've learned to ignore it.


----------



## Free Christian (Nov 8, 2013)

Thanks again. But is anyone game to touch on the symbols use by the Occult, their, the occult, like of it for the representation of 666 and its use by those who practice witchcraft? Does it concern anyone that it is the same symbol they use? And knowing its use, why didn't the publishers make or choose a different one with no occult ties? In this thread and a post elsewhere no-one will reply? That baffles me!


----------



## Logan (Nov 8, 2013)

Brett,

The short of it is, cults will hijack symbols all the time. If a cult started using the cross (as I believe some do) does that make it no longer a Christian symbol?


----------



## MW (Nov 8, 2013)

Jeremiah Burroughs: "Our adversaries call images and pictures, books to teach laymen; but the Scripture tells us they teach a lie. And if they be laymen’s books, they are full of errata in every page, yea, there are more errata than true lines."


----------



## Edward (Nov 8, 2013)

Free Christian said:


> Does it concern anyone that it is the same symbol they use?



Homosexuals have co-opted the rainbow. Are you going to chop a chunk out of Genesis 9?


----------



## Free Christian (Nov 8, 2013)

But it is different. If the symbol had first been used by the NKJV publishers before it was used by Pagans and Occultists then them hijacking it would be just that.
If a rainbow was first used by them, again a different thing.
But no, the Rainbow was a sign from God way before it was used by Homosexuals. That reasoning doesn't fit.
That sign was Pagan, the Triquetra, way before it was used by the NKJV! They chose it after the fact. Not before. 
It still does not alter the fact, regardless of ideas or reasons why, that God tells us not to make unto ourselves images.
Its not a coat of arms, its not just a symbol of say a car manufacturer, its expressly used to represent the Godhead. Acts 17 v 29 says it all. 
Hello Logan, I never have seen the cross as others do. There is a post on the forum here where I found one whilst detecting, I took it home and smashed it with a hammer and binned it. Was probably worth some ok money too. Was. To me it was a tool of unspeakable cruelty and death and where our Saviour and Lord died for us. That's it. Nothing more. I sometimes think of the agonising pain it would have inflicted and what Jesus went through, I never forget that. We are told to symbolically take up our cross and follow Him but not to make them.


----------



## Mushroom (Nov 9, 2013)

Smiley face stickers should solve the problem.


----------



## One Little Nail (Nov 9, 2013)

Edward said:


> Free Christian said:
> 
> 
> > Does it concern anyone that it is the same symbol they use?
> ...



Ye but it is inverted, like their lifestyle I guess


----------



## One Little Nail (Nov 9, 2013)

Free Christian said:


> But it is different. If the symbol had first been used by the NKJV publishers before it was used by Pagans and Occultists then them hijacking it would be just that.
> If a rainbow was first used by them, again a different thing.
> But no, the Rainbow was a sign from God way before it was used by Homosexuals. That reasoning doesn't fit.
> That sign was Pagan, the Triquetra, way before it was used by the NKJV! They chose it after the fact. Not before.
> ...



Brett I agree with what your saying, if you want to use a NKJV then you should look to buy one without
the symbol,
if your worked up about this man all you have to do is go to local Presbyterian Church of Australia & believe 
me you'll find the Architecture full of Pagan/Occultic/Masonic Symbolism, even the P.C.Aust Logos have a
pagan design with the new logo even containing a number of Satanic inverted Pentagrams? & the cross inside
of a circle is a sign of saturn (celtic cross anybody?), you talk to the Ministers & their ignorant,theres heretical 
Seventh Day Adventists who know more about this stuff than your average presbyterian minister


----------



## Free Christian (Nov 12, 2013)

Hi Robert. Since I first looked up some symbols in the course of this thread I have been amazed at how many dodge'y ones, of questionable origins, are being used today by all sorts of groups and organisations. What gets me is why so many use them when they could have just as easily made one up that stands alone for what or who they are? Like say you were to start up a star gazers club (a made up example) to look at the stars and moon and so on, why would you choose an inverted pentagram over making up your own with say, a telescope and some stars above it? Their choice in many instances does not make good sense. 
The use of so many pagan and or occult symbols I do not believe is just by coincidence. Too widespread for my liking. And way too much indifference about it.


----------



## JimmyH (Nov 12, 2013)

Free Christian said:


> The use of so many pagan and or occult symbols I do not believe is just by coincidence. Too widespread for my liking. And way too much indifference about it.



I allow those things no power. 

Jeremiah 10:5 

They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not:
they must needs be borne, because they cannot go.
Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil,
neither also is it in them to do good.


----------



## One Little Nail (Nov 13, 2013)

Free Christian said:


> Hi Robert. Since I first looked up some symbols in the course of this thread I have been amazed at how many dodge'y ones, of questionable origins, are being used today by all sorts of groups and organisations. What gets me is why so many use them when they could have just as easily made one up that stands alone for what or who they are? Like say you were to start up a star gazers club (a made up example) to look at the stars and moon and so on, why would you choose an inverted pentagram over making up your own with say, a telescope and some stars above it? Their choice in many instances does not make good sense.
> The use of so many pagan and or occult symbols I do not believe is just by coincidence. Too widespread for my liking. And way too much indifference about it.



Yes I agree,unfortunately The Presbyterian Chuch of Australia several generations back had a real problem
with Liberalism & Masons within its ranks alot were removed when the Uniting Church was formed but some
still remain, with the Satanic/Occult/Pagan symbolism most of this can be traced back to the masons, I've 
had Presbyterian Ministers tell me that there were problems with Masonic Infiltration in The Church.

The problem with the masons is that they are the spawn of the wicked Templars, the Templars were worshipers
of a god, which is no God, called Baphomet the goat headed Idol, satan in other words.
some believe that even the Jesuit Order was a fruit of the Aragon Templars via the spanish Alumbrados (Illuminati) 
the only templars that weren't disbanded by The Man of Sin Roman Papacy at that time & who have been working
for the worldwide unionising of all Masons. 

an example of wicked symbolic pagan/occultic masonic architecture can be found here:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s3YY30UqzLU


----------



## Tirian (Nov 13, 2013)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Neither my Thompson-Chain NKJV nor my Cambridge University Press NKJV have the symbol present.



Likewise - I was beginning to think I hadn't unlocked the code or something...


----------



## Free Christian (Nov 13, 2013)

Tried the link and the link worked but the video showed "an error has occurred" and wouldn't play. I did though scroll slowly through the pictures via the time line and they sure have some questionable symbolism there. One has to ask why there is so much of it around and why its injected so sneakily into society the way it is? The Mason's infiltrating the Church, how weird is that! There is some seriously strange things that go on behind the scenes these days. I don't have all the answers but they do go on.
I agree Jimmy, and give it no power either myself. But its out there and widely used and like I said, sneakily injected into society.
I know that for the most part people don't pay attention to them or care what they mean. The general non God believing public Im talking about here, but the widespread use of them is bizarre!


----------



## earl40 (Nov 13, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> Jeremiah Burroughs: "Our adversaries call images and pictures, books to teach laymen; but the Scripture tells us they teach a lie. And if they be laymen’s books, they are full of errata in every page, yea, there are more errata than true lines."



Are you trying to quote Burroughs for a reason in the English that was common in the past? This is a serious question because it appears you disapprove of any symbols, which represent God in any shape or form. Or am I reading this wrong?


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 13, 2013)

While the question in the OP is an interesting one, I thought it would perhaps be helpful to point out that Nelson, to my knowledge, hasn't used the triquetra symbol in conjunction with the NKJV since some point in the late 1990's or very early 2000's. My first edition MacArthur Study Bible that was printed in 1997 has it but a reference edition I have that was printed in 2002 does not as they had switched to a different logo by then. They are on at least their third logo for the NKJV now, which you can see here.


----------



## MW (Nov 13, 2013)

earl40 said:


> Are you trying to quote Burroughs for a reason in the English that was common in the past? This is a serious question because it appears you disapprove of any symbols, which represent God in any shape or form. Or am I reading this wrong?



The reason I quoted Burroughs was in order to show that any symbol attempting to represent God will by nature be in error, and his way of putting the matter goes straight to the point. Behind my use of the quotation is the conviction that the second commandment forbids the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever. I suppose this would have been the conviction of Burroughs as well.


----------



## earl40 (Nov 13, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> The reason I quoted Burroughs was in order to show that any symbol attempting to represent God will by nature be in error, and his way of putting the matter goes straight to the point. Behind my use of the quotation is the conviction that the second commandment forbids the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever. I suppose this would have been the conviction of Burroughs as well.



Now that is a post I read once and understood exactly what you believed. The reason I asked was two fold. One to make sure I understood Burroughs (a conviction I also hold) and the second to point out the same trouble I had with your quote also can be the same as many who read the AV.


----------



## MW (Nov 13, 2013)

earl40 said:


> can be the same as many who read the AV.



How could it possibly be the same?


----------



## One Little Nail (Nov 14, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > can be the same as many who read the AV.
> ...




Burroughs quote seemed to be pretty straight forward
I agree with it also, then again I'm pretty sure most
people on the Puritan Board forum would agree with it as well


----------



## One Little Nail (Nov 14, 2013)

Free Christian said:


> Tried the link and the link worked but the video showed "an error has occurred" and wouldn't play. I did though scroll slowly through the pictures via the time line and they sure have some questionable symbolism there. One has to ask why there is so much of it around and why its injected so sneakily into society the way it is? The Mason's infiltrating the Church, how weird is that! There is some seriously strange things that go on behind the scenes these days. I don't have all the answers but they do go on.
> I agree Jimmy, and give it no power either myself. But its out there and widely used and like I said, sneakily injected into society.
> I know that for the most part people don't pay attention to them or care what they mean. The general non God believing public Im talking about here, but the widespread use of them is bizarre!



The film is called Riddles in Stone by Adullam Films part of a series on the Secret mysteries of America beginnings.
unfortunately there is alot of it around but as long as we stay seperate from it we will please our God.
the wicked will get whats coming to them in the end. Proverbs 6:12-15 speaks of these people.

someone has noted that Thomas Nelson haven't been using the triquetra symbol for quite some time
which is good to see.


----------



## earl40 (Nov 14, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > can be the same as many who read the AV.
> ...





13 And from thence we fetched a compass, and came to Rhegium: and after one day the south wind blew, and we came the next day to Puteoli:

Do you suppose todays english speaking person who reads this thinks they got a magnetic device to point which way pointed north?


----------



## earl40 (Nov 14, 2013)

One Little Nail said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > earl40 said:
> ...




I think ,maybe wrongly, most here would not agree with it. If not most, many.


----------



## JimmyH (Nov 14, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> * the second commandment forbids the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever*.



I find this a very difficult commandment to obey. Reading the Gospels, the Pharisees bringing the adulteress to our Lord, his kneeling and writing in the sand. Difficult not to visualize that in my mind's eye. 

Regarding symbols, it seems that mankind, some of us, have always been attracted to symbols. I went to my OPC published Trinity Hymnal last night and, for the first time, noticed the artsy symbol on the cover, spine and the title page. It is a pyramid shape, separated, I suppose to represent the Trinity. Odd that I never noticed it before. Reading this thread is what brought it to my attention.

I don't think that there is any kind of conspiracy or evil intent behind the use of these symbols in the hymnal or in the earlier editions of Nelson's NKJV. Just decorative art In my humble opinion, however misguided according to the commandment.


----------



## MW (Nov 14, 2013)

earl40 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > earl40 said:
> ...



You have lost me. Maybe I need to fetch a compass to work out the direction you are taking this. What does this verse have to do with symbolic representations of God and reading the AV? What does reading the AV have to do with symbolic representations of God?


----------



## MW (Nov 14, 2013)

JimmyH said:


> Difficult not to visualize that in my mind's eye.



I think most people would struggle with this. We naturally try to picture what we are thinking about. Culturally we are immersed in visual representations. Educationally there has been a drive towards self-expression and letting the imagination go free. And sadly, there is little Christian teaching on the sinfulness and sanctification of the imagination, so it tends to be neglected. The important thing is to maintain the clear perspective of God's law as to what is good and evil, look unto Jesus with a spiritual delight in Him, and continually offer resistance to the temptation to carnalise our most holy faith.


----------



## earl40 (Nov 14, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > armourbearer said:
> ...



I apologize, in that I have brought up a point from the topic on the AV and how I think it would be a good thing to use a version that is easier to understand. Thus my compass reference in the AV as compared to the Burroughs quote, which both took me A WHILE to comprehend. Once again I am sorry I was so obtuse.


----------



## MW (Nov 14, 2013)

earl40 said:


> I apologize, in that I have brought up a point from the topic on the AV and how I think it would be a good thing to use a version that is easier to understand. Thus my compass reference in the AV as compared to the Burroughs quote, which both took me A WHILE to comprehend. Once again I am sorry I was so obtuse.



So the lesson is, a little patience and hard work is required. According to the Proverbs that is a virtue and its opposite is a vice.


----------



## earl40 (Nov 14, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > I apologize, in that I have brought up a point from the topic on the AV and how I think it would be a good thing to use a version that is easier to understand. Thus my compass reference in the AV as compared to the Burroughs quote, which both took me A WHILE to comprehend. Once again I am sorry I was so obtuse.
> ...



No I think "the lesson" is the NT was written in Koine Greek which The Lord used to spread his Word instead of Classical Greek, much like most of the English speaking world does not use Middle English now. Of course I am here in The States and my experience is no way exhaustive.

PS. I mean not to teach you any "lesson" other than the common layman's experience and I humbly bow to your "point" which is very good. I try to keep up with the vast wisdom you and others on this board, which In my most humble opinion is the best resource we laymen should avail to our benefit.


----------



## One Little Nail (Nov 15, 2013)

earl40 said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> > armourbearer said:
> ...



Hi Earl, ye I was referring to the contents of what Burroughs wrote that most people 
here on the Puritanboard would agree with it as it upholds The Second Commandment 
&/or Regulative Principle which is what this Board espouses.
Im sorry if you had trouble understanding it.


----------



## earl40 (Nov 15, 2013)

One Little Nail said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > One Little Nail said:
> ...



No need to apologize. It took me a while to figure out what Burroughs was saying which took a little effort. I work in the medical field and often have to explain in layman's terms what is happening to a patient. Now this takes work and experience and I do not expect the average lay-person to medicine to understand all the terms we use here at the hospital...though with practice I can explain exactly what is going on using the "vulgar" language they speak. I think "we" (of which I am least) here at The PB need to remember we are not typical of the majority of Christians in this world. Just as much as those Christians who understand accounting, mathematics, or loyal housewife, which professions have a language of their own.


----------



## Free Christian (Nov 20, 2013)

I have never visualised Jesus, or anyone else when I read the Word.
Its like a thin end of a wedge, or the start of a leak. Not everyone who accepts a symbol will go further down the path and then accept an image or statue type representation, but more do than don't. And I believe that we were told not to represent God, or Jesus or the Holy Spirit, for many other reasons, but also so that no-one goes down that path and progresses further. I believe it is the widespread use today of symbols, not only symbols alone but they have greatly contributed, that has lead to so much acceptance of the image of Christ by so many churches in the times we live in. The same churches that years ago would have shunned that said image! You have to ask yourself honestly. "Did God say not to represent Him with anything, is that written in God's Holy Word?" "Do I accept any visual representation of God?" If so and the answers are "yes" then give one good Biblical reason why, that you would boldy stand before God to give as an excuse!


----------

