A Poll for AV-Only Advocates

[ChristopherPaul]

If you had to settle for a translation other than the AV, Geneva or the like and could only use NKJV, NASB, ESV, NIV, or NLT, which would you choose and why?

Restated for the more dramatic, TV generation X and Y breed:

If you were exiled for life to the the highest room of the tallest tower with only bread and water and a non-AV English translation of your choosing, which would you choose?


Basically which is the best English translation next to ye olde standards?

 

[larryjf]

I'm not AV-only, but i am AV-preferred. I hope you don't mind that i voted.

 

[Blueridge Believer]

The NKJV has the same NT text as the KJV.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

The NKJV has the same NT text as the KJV.

You mean as its basis, that is, the TR?

 

[ChristopherPaul]

I'm not AV-only, but i am AV-preferred. I hope you don't mind that i voted.

My statistical sample is now corrupt!

Now problem brother, which version did you choose?

 

[N. Eshelman]

The NKJV has the same NT text as the KJV.

The NKJV does use the TR. They 'consult' other manuscripts, but it is based on the TR. Check the introduction. I thought this as well, until I read the Free Reformed position paper on Bible translations. They showed me the errors of my ways.

(I like the ESV and the NKJV by the way).

 

[VictorBravo]

I prefer the ASV over any of the other choices.

KJV is my primary bible for reading, but I use the ASV a lot.

 

[Grymir]

I don't know if I could use any....I had to vote NKJV just because it's the closest. Sigh. I would climb down the tower and go across the street and buy a KJV with my food money. This is a hard choice because I just can't use anything but my trusty KJV. Good Poll!

 

[Galatians220]

I can't vote... I don't think that the NKJV is not so different from any other CT version, really. I'm not a Bible or ancient languages scholar; I'm nobody, really. But I respectfully submit that the KJV is not so much based on the TR as it is on the desire of Thomas Nelson, its publisher, to create a work substantially so different from any other that it qualifies for protection under U. S. copyright laws (which are given full faith and credit by other countries' laws).

I still think that all a person of no academic training can do is compare verses in "God's word" in all available versions and see how they line up with orthodox Christian doctrine. Although I've spent the last ten years doing my own comparisons, here's a sample from another web site. I took out most editorial comments and left just the verse comparisons:

Genesis 2:18: The NKJV, in a nod to women: "And the Lord God said, It is not good that man should be alone; I will make a helper COMPARABLE TO HIM."

Genesis 22:8: One of the greatest verses in the Bible proclaiming that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh: "God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering:" The NKJV adds that little word "for:" "God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering" And destroys the wonderful promise.

Genesis 24:47: The "old" KJV reads: "I put the earring upon her face". But the NKJV has different plans for beautiful Rebekah: "I put the nose ring on her nose." See the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV.

Ezra 8:36: The KJV reads, "And they delivered the king's commissions unto the king's lieutenants. . ." The "much clearer" NKJV reads, "And they delivered the king's orders to the king's satraps. . ." Who in the world thinks "satraps" is "much clearer" than lieutenants? The NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV. They put in the same "much clearer" word.

Psalms 109:6: removes "Satan". (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV).

Matthew 7:14: change "narrow is the way" to "difficult is the way". There's nothing "difficult" about the salvation of Jesus Christ. Jesus says in Matt. 11:30, "For my yoke is EASY, and my burden is light."

Matthew 12:40: change "whale" to "fish" (ditto NIV) The Greek word used in Matthew 12:40 is ketos. The scientific study of whales just happens to be - CETOLOGY - from the Greek ketos for whale and logos for study! The scientific name for whales just happens to be - CETACEANS - from the Greek ketos for whale!

Matthew 18:26 & Matthew 20:20: The NKJV removes "worshipped him" (robbing worship from Jesus) (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

Mark 13:6 & Luke 21:8: removes "Christ" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

John 1:3: change "All things were made BY him;" to "All things were made THROUGH Him" (NIV, NRSV, RSV)

John 4:24: change "God is a spirit" to the impersonal, New Age pantheistic,"God is spirit" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

John 14:2: (NKJV 1979 edition) change "mansions" to "dwelling places" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

John 14:16: change "comforter" to "helper"(refers to Holy Spirit) (NASV)

Acts 4:27, 30: change "holy child" to "holy servant" (refers to Jesus) (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

Acts 12:4: change "Easter" to "Passover" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

Acts 17:22: changes "superstitious" to "religious" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

Acts 24:14: change "heresy" to "sect" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

Romans 1:18: change "hold the truth" to "suppress the truth" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

Romans 1:25: change "changed the truth" to "exchanged the truth" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

Romans 5:8: change "commendeth" to "demonstrates" (NIV, NASV)

Romans 16:18: change "good words and fair speeches" to "smooth words and flattering speech" (NIV, NASV, NRSV)

1 Cor. 1:21: change "foolishness of preaching" to "foolishness of the message preached" (ditto NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV) There's nothing foolish about the gospel of Jesus Christ. Unless you're not saved. 1 Cor. 1:18 says: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish FOOLISHNESS. . ." I wonder where that leaves the translators of the NKJV, NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV?

1 Cor. 1:22: change "require" to "request" (NASV)

1 Cor. 6:9: removes "effeminate" (NIV, NRSV, RSV)

1 Cor. 9:27: change "castaway" to "disqualified" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

2 Cor. 2:10: change "person of Christ" to "presence of Christ" (NASV, NRSV, RSV)

2 Cor. 2:17: With all the "corruptions" in the NKJV, you'd expect 2 Cor. 2:17 to change. IT DOES! They change, "For we not as many which CORRUPT the word of God" to "For we are not, as so many, PEDDLING the word of God" (ditto NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

2 Cor. 5:17: change "new creature" to "new creation" (NIV, NRSV, RSV)

2 Cor. 10:5: change "imaginations" to "arguments". Considering New Age "imaging" and "visualization" is now entering the church, this verse in the "old" KJV just won't do. (NIV, RSV)

2 Cor. 11:6: change "rude in speech" to "untrained in speech" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

Gal. 2:20: omit "nevertheless I live" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

Phil. 2:6: (NKJV 1979e.) change "thought it not robbery to be equal with God" to "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped". (robs Jesus Christ of deity) (NIV, NASV, RSV)

Phil. 3:8: change "dung" to "rubbish" (NIV, NASV, NRSV)

1 Thess. 5:22 change "all appearance of evil" to "every form of evil" (NASV, RSV, NSRV)

1 Timothy 6:5: The NKJV changes "gain is godliness" to "godliness is a MEANS OF gain". There are NO Greek texts with "means of" in them. The NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV have the phrase.

1 Timothy 6:10: The NKJV changes "For the love of money is the root of all evil:" to "For the love of money is a root of all KINDS OF evil". The words "KINDS OF" are found in NO Greek text in the world.

1 Tim. 6:20: change "science" to "knowledge" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

Titus 3:10: change "heretic" to "divisive man" (NIV)

Hebrews 4:8 & Acts 7:45: "Jesus" is changed to "Joshua". (NIV, NASV, RSV)

2 Pet. 2:1: change "damnable heresies" to "destructive heresies" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

1 John 3:16: remove "love of God"; (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

1 John 5:13: The NKJV reads: "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may CONTINUE TO believe in the name of the Son of God." They add "CONTINUE TO" without any Greek text whatsoever.

Rev. 2:13: change "Satan's seat" to "Satan's throne" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

Rev. 6:14: "Heaven" is changed to "sky" in (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)



The NKJV removes the word "Lord" 66 times.

The NKJV removes the word God 51 times.

The NKJV removes the word "heaven" 50 times.

In just the New Testament alone the NKJV removes 2,289 words from the KJV.

The NKJV makes over 100,000 word changes.


Margaret

 

[Grymir]

Oh I know, the thought of using anything other than KJV make me sick, but I wanted to vote on this poll. I couldn't really use anything else and there was no 'I would go without a Bible' option. I would rather put my KJV in a balloon and swallow it and smuggle it into my tower. But, thanks be to God that this is a hypothetical poll, so I would never have to really do it!

 

[ChristopherPaul]

I don't know if I could use any....I had to vote NKJV just because it's the closest. Sigh. I would climb down the tower and go across the street and buy a KJV with my food money. This is a hard choice because I just can't use anything but my trusty KJV. Good Poll!

Not an option. You might as well choose to jump out of the tower/fall on your sword.

Helpful answer nonetheless. So you you like the KJV eh?

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Thank you Margaret for your helpful post.

The NKJV makes over 100,000 word changes.

Does anyone know of a listing of all these word changes?

 

[N. Eshelman]

"Ear ring on her face"

Who puts ear rings on their face?

As Presbyterians we must remember our standard is that the Word of God IS the original Greek and Hebrew. The version that King James authorized (to put out Presbyterianism from England) is not the Bible, but a translation. Therefore, if the NJKV makes 100,000 changes FROM THE KJV- who cares? The KJV is not the standard, the Heb/Grk are the standard!

 

[ADKing]

"Ear ring on her face"

Who puts ear rings on their face?

As Presbyterians we must remember our standard is that the Word of God IS the original Greek and Hebrew. The version that King James authorized (to put out Presbyterianism from England) is not the Bible, but a translation. Therefore, if the NJKV makes 100,000 changes FROM THE KJV- who cares? The KJV is not the standard, the Heb/Grk are the standard!

Yes, brother, it is good to remember. However it is also important to remember that as Presbyerians, our standards also tell us this...

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.

We are to appeal to the providentially preserved Word and not to some constantly changing, hypothetical reconstruction of what the Word may have been in the "originals" that is the basis for many of the critical versions.

 

[N. Eshelman]

"Ear ring on her face"

Who puts ear rings on their face?

As Presbyterians we must remember our standard is that the Word of God IS the original Greek and Hebrew. The version that King James authorized (to put out Presbyterianism from England) is not the Bible, but a translation. Therefore, if the NJKV makes 100,000 changes FROM THE KJV- who cares? The KJV is not the standard, the Heb/Grk are the standard!

Yes, brother, it is good to remember. However it is also important to remember that as Presbyerians, our standards also tell us this...

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.

We are to appeal to the providentially preserved Word and not to some constantly changing, hypothetical reconstruction of what the Word may have been in the "originals" that is the basis for many of the critical versions.

Pastor (Rev.) King:
I agree. The controversy was over the NKJV though. It is my humble estimation that the Trinitarian Bible Society crowd is way too critical of the NKJV and tends to use the AV as the standard for its criticism, and not the TR!

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Where can I buy a TR NT?

 

[N. Eshelman]

This is what we use at Puritan Sem. It is quite nice. OT and NT. It is the Textus Receptus as well as the Bomberg/Ginsburg Hebrew OT. Both of them are the texts underlying the Geneva Bible, KJV, and NJKV.

Of course... it is Trinitarian Bible Society!

 

[ADKing]

"Ear ring on her face"

Who puts ear rings on their face?

As Presbyterians we must remember our standard is that the Word of God IS the original Greek and Hebrew. The version that King James authorized (to put out Presbyterianism from England) is not the Bible, but a translation. Therefore, if the NJKV makes 100,000 changes FROM THE KJV- who cares? The KJV is not the standard, the Heb/Grk are the standard!

Yes, brother, it is good to remember. However it is also important to remember that as Presbyerians, our standards also tell us this...

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.

We are to appeal to the providentially preserved Word and not to some constantly changing, hypothetical reconstruction of what the Word may have been in the "originals" that is the basis for many of the critical versions.

Pastor (Rev.) King:
I agree. The controversy was over the NKJV though. It is my humble estimation that the Trinitarian Bible Society crowd is way too critical of the NKJV and tends to use the AV as the standard for its criticism, and not the TR!

Fair enough.

 

[Pilgrim]

"Ear ring on her face"

Who puts ear rings on their face?

As Presbyterians we must remember our standard is that the Word of God IS the original Greek and Hebrew. The version that King James authorized (to put out Presbyterianism from England) is not the Bible, but a translation. Therefore, if the NJKV makes 100,000 changes FROM THE KJV- who cares? The KJV is not the standard, the Heb/Grk are the standard!

Yes, brother, it is good to remember. However it is also important to remember that as Presbyerians, our standards also tell us this...

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.

We are to appeal to the providentially preserved Word and not to some constantly changing, hypothetical reconstruction of what the Word may have been in the "originals" that is the basis for many of the critical versions.

Pastor (Rev.) King:
I agree. The controversy was over the NKJV though. It is my humble estimation that the Trinitarian Bible Society crowd is way too critical of the NKJV and tends to use the AV as the standard for its criticism, and not the TR!

Nathan,

I agree, although as I'm sure you do I appreciate the TBS. Using the AV as the standard for criticism was what is done in the examples given in post 9 of this thread as well. Where they differ often comes down to translational choices instead of a textual variant. But any variation at all from the KJV is often treated as the work of the "Alexandrian Cult" by the KJVO's.

 

[larryjf]

I'm not AV-only, but i am AV-preferred. I hope you don't mind that i voted.

My statistical sample is now corrupt!

Now problem brother, which version did you choose?

The ESV.

 

[KMK]

If you had to settle for a translation other than the AV, Geneva or the like and could only use NKJV, NASB, ESV, NIV, or NLT, which would you choose and why?

I am cool with whatever the English speaking church decides.

 

[brothermiller]

I am sorry I could not vote because after my research and Edward Hendries free ebook on which bible is the Word of God I see no other.You can do a search Edward Hendrie Anti-Christ conspiracy and his website should pop up.Beware he has been in a war with
Steve Van Nattan of blessed quiteness.Steve Van Nattan has labeled Edward Hendrie as a Jew hater which clearly he is not.I have researched the Bible version issue for several years and what really got my attention is technology has allowed the vidicon camera to expose the text behind modern versions that shows the text`s have been altered several times.Also I have to compare the fruits produced since 1881 which has not impressed me one iota.I have the assurance that God keeps His promises and one is to preserve His Words.

God bless.

 

[Grymir]

I don't know if I could use any....I had to vote NKJV just because it's the closest. Sigh. I would climb down the tower and go across the street and buy a KJV with my food money. This is a hard choice because I just can't use anything but my trusty KJV. Good Poll!

Not an option. You might as well choose to jump out of the tower/fall on your sword.

Helpful answer nonetheless. So you you like the KJV eh?

Oh yeah! It's the closest to the originals in the english language, plus it's about the only one I can understand. Yes, I would rather fall on my sword. Of course, I could use my replacement bible, rip the pages out, fold a paper chain that would let me down the street. Go to the nearest KJV-only fundamentalist baptist church, tell them my story, and out of mercy they would give me a KJV. Then climb my way back up into the tower. Then put my KJV into whatever cover the other bible had, and live my life away being provided for and reading my Word of God.

 

[larryjf]

Edward Hendrie Anti-Christ conspiracy

Seems that Mr. Hendrie is crazier than Gail Riplinger. From the site Home :

Read the proof that the plane attacks broadcast by the major media outlets were in fact computer generated graphics.

Read the evidence that President George W. Bush is a Satanist!

Read the alarming evidence that Israel was behind the 9-11-01 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon!

 

[Grymir]

Edward Hendrie Anti-Christ conspiracy

Seems that Mr. Hendrie is crazier than Gail Riplinger. From the site Home :

Read the proof that the plane attacks broadcast by the major media outlets were in fact computer generated graphics.

Read the evidence that President George W. Bush is a Satanist!

Read the alarming evidence that Israel was behind the 9-11-01 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon!

Aw man, you mean the modern versions aren't the work of Satan and his minions like that website says? I was just gonna read the chapter on "Who are the Illuminati?"

Have we just entered the PB twilight zone? Why do some of the KJV-Only groups have to be so... so.... so.... weird?

 

[brothermiller]

NKJV

Interesting.

NKJV a deadly Translation.

A Deadly Translation - The "New" KJV

 

[larryjf]

Interesting.

NKJV a deadly Translation.

A Deadly Translation - The "New" KJV

Some folks on this board have much more honest criticisms of the NKJV so you might want to read through some of the threads in "translations and manuscripts" if you haven't already done so.

Rev. Winzer (armourbearer) brought a few of these items to my attention when he suggested that i compare the NKJV translation of Gen. 4:7; John 17:12; 1 Cor. 1:18, and Heb. 2:16 with the KJV translation of the same verses.

 

[nicnap]

Where can I buy a TR NT?

The TBS sells them.

 

[greenbaggins]

Moderator's Note

Belief that the KJV is the most faithful translation of the Greek and Hebrew is one thing. Impugning the motives of those who have translated the NKJV or any of the other more modern (faithful) translations is quite another. The former position is well within confessional boundaries. The latter is not. I have read and critiqued Gail Riplinger's ridiculous nonsense. In the first 50 pages I found 15 pages worth of nonsense, and deliberate misquoting and distortion of the evidence. This thread is a poll thread. Do not derail this thread into a modern-translation-bashing session.

 

[jd.morrison]

I use the NIV the most, but I also consult the ESV, NASB, and the Geneva. Could anyone shed some light on the whole AV vs. Others ?

It is rather confusing to me... I don't know where in the sam hill a scriptural argument could be brought forth to defend the AV. I was in a burger king the other day and I got "ambushed" by a good intentioned fellow who spent an hour of my time explaining to me why calvinism is of the devil and that the translators of the NIV is a servant of said devil. Due to the fact that a translator of the NIV during a TV interview lost his voice. He was quite animated and I truly thought near the end that he might be psychotic and kill me...