Slaughtering a Sacred Cow: the KJVonly Argument From Psalm 12

Greg Holt BIBLICAL ANSWERS, FALSE DOCTRINE, FEATURED ARTICLES 9 Comments

Logos Apologia

By Cris Putnam

KJV-sacred-cow-300x284

A “sacred cow” is an idiom taken from Hindu bovine worship, a practice that Christians consider idolatry. We also call something a sacred cow if its devotees consider it immune from question or criticism. For many fundamentalist Christians the King James Translation has become a sacred cow. Unfortunately, a great many people have been indoctrinated from childhood with scare tactics and fallacious arguments and never meaningfully question what has come to be known as “King James Onlyism” or KJVonlyism.

For an example of the fear based argumentation I am referring to, examine the webpage at Chick Productions here.  I am not intending to simply make fun of these people and I have a lot in common with them. I went to a KJV only Christian school for one year of high school so I really do care about the people. That eleventh grade year at Friendship Christian School led me to believe that most Christians were mind controlled and incapable of critical thinking. I’ve grown to see I was wrong about a great deal but, sadly, some of my adolescent analysis was accurate.

Fear based false beliefs are called “strong holds” in the Bible and part of my call to ministry is the destruction of strongholds (2 Cor. 10:4). This is not an attack on the Bible or even the King James Version. Rather, it is an attack on a false idea about the Bible—a stronghold—I am slaughtering a sacred cow. Here is the primary argument you will see repeatedly used by the KJVonlyist:

Psalm 12:6-7 says, “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” Then we read in Psalm 100:5 that “. . . . his truth endureth to all generations,” and Jesus said in John 17:17 that God’s WORD is truth.’

These words state very clearly that God’s preserved word MUST be available to us today, because God PROMISED to preserve it for us. There MUST be an infallible Book somewhere.[1]

Similarly, in a discussion on Facebook a fellow asked me, “If God can’t keep His word pure (as he promised in Psalm 12), how can I trust Him to keep ME?” You can see the dangerous nature of such indoctrination in that his faith is hinged precariously on something as fragile as the absolute perfection of a seventeenth century translation. The same fellow later commented, “No. I’m thinking if I can’t trust any of the versions to be accurate, PERFECTLY, then why bother. Either God is able or He isn’t.”  (Use of all caps reflects that I copied this directly from a real conversation).

How do you respond to this without destroying someone’s faith? Well first of all it is unfortunate that his faith is in the wrong thing. I believe this is idolatry or perhaps bibliolatry. These folks have made an idol out of the King James Bible. Next, notice the selfish demands placed on God. “If God will not meet my requirements, then why bother?” That is quite a presumption. It reminds me of the atheists who say, “If God wants me to believe in Him, then he should appear to me.”

Is it wise to make demands of God …or else?

You might get an answer like, “Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?” (Job 38:2)

I realize many of you might be thinking, “Hold on a minute! God promised he would do this in Psalm 12, so this is not an unreasonable expectation.” Indeed, that is the crux of the KJVonlyist argument.However, it is riddled with errors and assumptions.

First, even if the Lord promised to preserve his words, (I do believe he has preserved them) the words the Psalmist was referring to were Hebrew words not 17th century English words. It also begs the question of where God’s preserved words were before 1611? What about non-English speaking countries? But the argument’s worst flaw is actually more egregious than that erroneous assumption. It’s truly self-refuting.

Unfortunately, in this case the King James translation leads one to misunderstand the Psalm in a fundamental way. This is why serious Bible students put in the effort to gain at least some minimal competence in Hebrew and Greek exegesis. I am far from an expert but I have completed one year of biblical Hebrew at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary as well as working through Dr. Michael Heiser’s training videos for Logos Bible software on my own (available here).

Using Logos’ interlinear Hebrew Bible, it took me less than five minutes to see that they misinterpret Psalm 12. To understand why a brief explanation of basic grammar is helpful. In Hebrew, all nouns have what is called grammatical gender. Many languages like French and Spanish do as well. It serves as a grammatical function more than a commentary on sexual gender. Part of that function is to clarify what or who a pronoun is signifying. Accordingly, a pronoun should match its antecedent in gender and number.

For example,  if I say in English “My wife went to the store.” I would choose a feminine pronoun to continue, “She bought milk.” The antecedent “wife” is female, so “she” is correct and “he” is not.  Number is similar; in this case, both are singular. However, if I wrote “The women went to the store.”  The pronoun would be “They bought milk.” Now let’s analyze the passage in light of Hebrew grammar.

The words of the LORD are pure words (noun, common, feminine, plural):

as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Thou shalt keep them (pronoun, 3rd person, masculine, plural),

O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.

(Ps 12:6–7, KJV)

The genders are parsed from the Hebrew text. Here is the passage from the Hebrew Bible:

            אִֽמֲר֣וֹת יְהוָה֮ אֲמָר֪וֹת טְהֹ֫ר֥וֹת כֶּ֣סֶף צָ֭רוּף בַּעֲלִ֣יל לָאָ֑רֶץ מְ֝זֻקָּ֗ק שִׁבְעָתָֽיִם׃

אַתָּֽה־יְהוָ֥ה תִּשְׁמְרֵ֑ם תִּצְּרֶ֓נּוּ׀ מִן־הַדּ֖וֹר ז֣וּ לְעוֹלָֽם׃

[2]

Here are the parsings:

Noun, Common, Feminine, Plural  “words”   —-   אֲמָר֪וֹת

Pronoun, Suffixed, 3rd person, Masculine, Plural —-   הֵם   is suffixed on תִּשְׁמְרֵ֑ם

For their argument to work, “them” must match “words.” However, in verse 6 “words” is grammatically feminine and the pronoun “them” in verse 7 is grammatically masculine. So the pronoun “them” is not referring to “words” but rather the poor and needy (masculine, plural) that are mentioned above in verse 5 (Ps 12:5). In fact, this is one passage where the NIV (cue foreboding music) has a vastly superior rendering to the KJV.

Psalm 12:6–7 (NIV):

And the words of the Lord are flawless,

like silver purified in a crucible,

like gold refined seven times.

You, Lord, will keep the needy safe

and will protect us forever from the wicked,

 

Don’t place your faith in sacred cows.

 


[1] “How I Know That The King James Bible Is The Word Of God,”  http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/knowkjv.html accessed 8/17/2013.

[2] Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: With Werkgroep Informatica, Vrije Universiteit Morphology; Bible. O.T. Hebrew. Werkgroep Informatica, Vrije Universiteit. (Logos Bible Software, 2006), Ps 12:7–8.

If you like The Olive, then consider helping us to continue the fight against liberalism, political correctness, and the removal of God in this country. Our costs are considerable, and NO one is paid on this site. Please donate today - any amount helps.

Don't forget to follow The Olive Branch Report on Facebook and Twitter. Now available on your Amazon Kindle Device. Please help spread the word about us, share our articles on your favorite social networks.

Viewpoints expressed herein are of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted or linked therein, and do not necessarily represent those of The Olive Branch Report

Since 2014, Christian news magazine The Olive Branch Report has featured the insightful writing and reporting of Greg Holt. His writing has been featured on American Prophet, American Clarion, Eagle Rising, Capitol Hill Outsider, Sons of Liberty Media, Rev. Austin Miles, and others. Greg is also the Publisher and Editor of Inspirational Christian Blogs.

Comments 9

  1. Pingback: Slaughtering a Sacred Cow: the KJVonly Argument From Psalm 12 | Inspirational Christian Blogs

  2. IbeliveWordofGodistruth!

    I also can not see the KJV only, and Psalm 12:6 is exactly why! As it states “as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.” You can not purify silver seven times. Once silver is pure, it is pure. So The Word of GOD is talking of seven different pieces of silver. All words of God persevered perfectly are mentioned in Revelation Chapters 2 & 3. Just as you said, starting with Hebrew (1st Love).

    These are also confirmed in Revelation 5:6 “And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.” The seven Spirits of God which are the seven horns and eyes of the Lamb of God (Which is also called the WORD OF GOD, Rev 19:13); “into all the earth”; Psalm 12:6 “tried in a furnace of earth”; “preserve them from this generation forever”.

    I John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

    And we know this by FAITH.

    1. Post
      Author
      πίστις

      I don’t know about Rev. containing all the preserved words of God. All of God’s word is preserved I think. Otherwise we would have to come to the conclusion that parts of the Bible are incorrect…and I do not believe that. Of course one has to be careful about versions..some of the newer ones are not so good. Parts of the Message are simply not good at all.

      Thanks for the comment
      Greg

  3. Jim McKinley

    I also have occasionally noticed verses in the KJV where it was difficult to discern to what a particular pronoun was referring.

    I feel that this article is a bit unfair to the KJV though. It is possible that the “them” in verse 7 that the Lord is preserving refers the “words” in verse 6, but the phrase “generation” should give the reader the necessary context to realize that the poor and needy people of verse 5 are in fact being referenced.

    The article should have quoted the entire selection being analyzed:

    “For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.

    The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

    Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”

    The author should find something else to have a cow about.

    1. Post
      Author
      πίστις

      I see your point Jim but bear in mind the only thrust of the article was that the KJV is NOT the only accurate translation. I agree with this, I don’t know about you but I have run into folks online that all but come unglued if you quote from anything other than the KJV. The author of this article does not have anything against the KJV I don’t think. I do not either…I will say it is one of the more accurate translations out there. I like NKJV as the words are very similar but a little easier to understand for those who are not Bible scholars like me! 🙂

      Thanks for the comment
      God bless
      Greg

  4. G Childs

    One major difference with the KJV and every other new age translation is that the KJV is the only translation that does not use the westcott and hort translations. the KJV leans on a monumental mountain of agreeable evidence in multiple parchments in the Textus Receptus. The rest of the new age translations rely solely on two individual’s (Westcott and Hort) interpretation of the scriptures based on the sinaticus and the vaticanus. “Hort clearly had a bias against the Textus Receptus, calling it “villainous” and “vile”. Hort aggressively taught that the School at Antioch (associated with Lucian) had loosely translated the true text of Scripture in the second century A. D. This supposedly created an unreliable text of Scripture which became the Textus Receptus. This was called the Lucian Recension Theory. Hort did not have a single historical reference to support the idea that such a recension took place. He simply theorized that it must have taken place. In spite of the fact that there is not a single historical reference to the Lucian Recension, many Bible colleges teach it as a historical fact.”

    file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/A/Desktop/Where%20did%20the%20King%20James%20Bible%20come%20from%20.htm

    The fact is that these two manuscripts that Westcott and Hort used do not agree. the “Vaticanus and the Sinaticus disagree with each other over 3000 times in the gospels alone.

    Facts About the Vaticanus

    It was written on fine vellum (tanned animal skins) and remains in excellent condition. It was found in the Vatican Library in 1481 AD. In spite of being in excellent condition, it omits:

    Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 46:28
    Psalms 106-138
    Matthew 16:2-3
    The Pauline Pastoral Epistles
    Hebrews 9:14-13:25
    Revelation

    These parts were probably left out on purpose.

    Besides all that, in the gospels alone it leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses and 748 whole sentences, which hundreds of later copies agree together as having the same words in the same places, the same clauses in the same places and the same sentences in the same places.

    The Vaticanus was available to the translators of the King James Bible, but they didn’t use it because they knew it is unreliable. The Vaticanus also contains the Apocrypha.

    Facts About the Sinaiticus

    The Sinaiticus is a manuscript that was found in 1844 in a trash pile in St. Catherine’s Monastery near Mt. Sinai, by a man named Mr. Tischendorf. It contains nearly all of the New Testament plus it adds the “Shepherd of Hermes” and the “Epistle of Barnabas” to the New Testament.

    The Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable, proven by examining the manuscript itself. John Burgeon spent years examining every available manuscript of the New Testament. He writes about the Sinaiticus:

    “On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness.

    Letters, words or even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less that 115 times in the New Testament.”

    That’s not all!

    On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people. Some of these corrections were made about the same time that it was copied, but most of them were made in the 6th or 7th century.

    Phillip Mauro was a brilliant lawyer who was admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court in April 1892. He wrote a book called “Which Version” in the early 1900’s. He writes concerning the Sinaiticus:

    “From these facts, therefore, we deduce: first that the impurity of the Codex Sinaiticus, in every part of it, was fully recognized by those who were best acquainted with it, and that from the very beginning until the time when it was finally cast aside as worthless for any practical purpose.”

    The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are the oldest, but they are not the best manuscripts!!!

    That’s where the modern translators went wrong! They foolishly accepted the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus simply because they were old.

    They did not attempt to find out why they were so vastly different from the Greek text that real Christians have known to be the infallible Word of God.

    When the modern versions say in the footnotes, “Some of the oldest mss. do not contain vv. 9-20,” or “This verse not found in the most ancient authorities,” they are taking their information from the corrupt and unreliable Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts!

    Don’t fall for the “oldest are the best” line! The oldest are not the best! For example, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus both leave out the last 12 verses of Mark, concerning the resurrection of Christ.

    But, there is not one other manuscript, either uncial or cursive, that leave out this passage. There are 18 other uncial (capital letter) manuscripts that have the passage in and at least 600 cursives (small letter) manuscripts that all contain these verses.

    The evidence is at least 618 to 2 against the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Yet, look in your modern version.

    The New American Standard Bible puts all these verses (Mark 16:9-20) in brackets, saying that these verses probably were not in the original writings. The other versions use brackets or footnotes.

    That’s ridiculous!!! In a court of law, if you had 618 witnesses that saw something happen, and you had two witnesses that said they did not see it happen, would you accept the testimony of the 618 or the testimony of the 2?

    You see, it is foolish for any translator to accept a manuscript simply because of age, without checking to find out where it came from and if it was reliable or not.

    Why do the modern versions question the virgin birth of Christ, attack the doctrine of the deity of Christ, the infallibility of the Bible, the doctrine of salvation by faith and the Trinity? ”

    file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/A/Desktop/Where%20did%20the%20King%20James%20Bible%20come%20from%20.htm

    There are many many failures in the new age versions. I will address one more.

    “Luke 4:4
    (KJV) And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

    (1611 KJV) And Iesus answered him, saying, It is written, that man shall not liue by bread alone, but by euery word of God.

    (1587 Geneva Bible) But Iesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not liue by bread only, but by euery word of God.

    (1382 Wycliffe) And Jhesus answeride to hym, It is writun, That a man lyueth not in breed aloone, but in euery word of God.

    Counterfeit Versions
    (NIV) Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone.
    (NASB) And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘ MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE.’”
    (ESV) And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’”
    (HCSB) But Jesus answered him, “It is written: Man must not live on bread alone.
    (ASV-1901) And Jesus answered unto him, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone.
    (CEV) Jesus answered, “The Scriptures say, `No one can live only on food.’ ”
    (RSV) And Jesus answered him, “It is written, `Man shall not live by bread alone.’”
    (TNIV) Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘People do not live on bread alone’
    (NAB-Roman Catholic) Jesus answered him, “Scripture has it, “Not on bread alone shall man live.’”
    (NWT-Jehovah’s Witnesses) But Jesus replied to him: “It is written, ‘Man must not live by bread alone.’’

    Textus Receptus – Traditional Text
    kai apekriqh ihsouV proV auton legwn gegraptai oti ouk ep artw monw zhsetai o anqrwpoV all epi panti rhmati qeou

    Hort-Westcott – Critical Text
    kai apekriqh proV auton o ihsouV gegraptai oti ouk ep artw monw zhsetai o anqrwpoV

    Corrupted Manuscripts
    This verse is corrupted in the following manuscripts:
    Aleph 01 – Sinaiticus – Fourth century
    B 03 – Vaticanus – Fourth century
    L 019 – Seventh century
    W 032 – Fourth/fifth century

    Manuscripts which agree with the Textus Receptus for this verse
    Byzantine Text (450-1450 A.D.)
    A 02 – Alexandrinus – Fifth century
    D 05 – Bezae Cantabrigiensis – Fifth century
    K 017 – Ninth century
    Gamma 036 – Ninth or Tenth century
    Theta 038 – Ninth century
    28 (Minuscule) – Eleventh century
    33 (Minuscule) – Ninth Century
    565 – (Minuscule) – Ninth century
    700 – (Minuscule) Eleventh century

    Published Critical Greek Texts with Corruptions
    Omit “but by every word of God:”
    Tischendorf, Constantine – 1869
    Tregelles, Samuel – 1857 (in brackets or margin)
    Alford, Henry – 1849 revised in 1871
    Westcott and Hort – 1881
    Weiss, Bernhard – 1894
    Nestle – 1927 as revised in seventeenth edition in 1941
    Nestle-Aland – 1979 – Twenty Sixth Edition
    Nestle-Aland – 1993 – Twenty Seventh Edition
    United Bible Societies – 1983 – Fourth Edition
    Von Soden, Freiherr – 1902

    Affected Teaching
    The affected part of this verse is not found in either (B) Vaticanus or (a) (Aleph) Sinaiticus. These are just deleted without reason. The removal of this part of Scripture gives the impression that every word of God is not important. The Christian is to live by the word of God in contrast to the world that lives only by its five senses. The editors of the modern versions make it clear that their concern is not that Christians read the Bible in its entirety, without any deletions or omissions, but they truncate the word of God according to the Westcott-Hort belief system. If these editors of the modern versions were serious about giving the Christians a complete Bible, they would not allow tampered versions to be placed into the hands of Christians. Their unconcern is obvious when they impeach the verity of the Scriptures by even removing the reminder to Christians that we are to live by every word of God and where is the word of God found? In the Holy Bible!

    There is a total of 140,521 in the Greek Text of the New Testament. The Hort-Westcott text differs from the Textus Receptus in 5,604 places for a total of 9,970 words. That is 7% of the entire New Testament in Greek. That would be approximately 15.4 words per page in the New Testament Greek. That is a copious amount of corruption, yet Christians claim that their modern version is more accurate than the King James! Dr. Jack Moorman has researched and found that 2,886 words have been eliminated from the Greek Textus Receptus. This is the equivalent of removing First and Second Peter from the New Testament.

    By removing the requirement for Christians to live by the word of God, it opens the doors for false churches and cults to fill in that gap with their own teachings and rituals. If we do not live by the word of God, then what do we live by? Is it the teachings of apostate Protestantism? Is it the superstition of the Roman Catholic Institution? Is it the phony love gospel as found in many cults? When the command of Scripture to live by Scripture is removed, it opens the door for Satan’s people to fill in that gap.

    That part of the verse is very important because God had promised to preserve His words and not the concepts or teachings. (Psa 12:6-7 KJV) 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. Not only has God promised to preserve His words but this passage is a quotation from the Old Testament. (Deu 8:3 KJV) And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live. In Deuteronomy, God had told the Israelites that man does not live by only bread but by the Word of God. The Israelites were in the wilderness for forty years and throughout their sojourn, was it only the physical food that kept them going? It was God’s guidance and His guidance came through the written and spoken word. So when these modern Gnostics remove any part of Scripture, they are denying true guidance for the Christian from the words of God Himself. Do the modern intellects actually believe they have more knowledge and wisdom than God, so that they can sit in judgment of His holy Word?

    The modern versions disregard the very words of God in the Bible and take the liberty of removing what they do not want. The second century Gnostics attacked the Scriptures and the intellects of today claim superior knowledge to what they had back then and yet have chosen to agree with the Gnostics by perpetuating the evil attacks on the Scriptures. So how then do today’s version pundits hold superior knowledge when they are doing the same things the unbelieving Gnostics did and accepting all their corruptions? That would be like a medical doctor who holds a degree from Johns Hopkins University or Harvard University that still uses second century medical techniques. Could the seminaries be putting out religious Gnostics rather than true Bible believing Christians? Guess what? What ever school uses the Hort-Westcott text, that school is a descendant of the school of Alexandria AKA Gnosticism. Then we wonder why our churches are overrun with false gospels. False versions cannot expose or expunge false gospels, not when they themselves are a false gospel.”

    http://www.scionofzion.com/luke_4_4.htm

    I would like to write more. But I realize this is probably not the forum. I have contemplated writing a book on this subject that has been surrounded by so much confusion. The truth is the Word of God is extremely important. We all need to place the importance of God’s Word on the plane where God places it.

    Revelation 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.

    Please excuse my lack of internet savvy in placing quotes from works sited. I look forward to your response.

    Greg C

    1. Post
      Author
      πίστις

      This most definitely NOT all true!

      The NIV for instance was based primarily on this text: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Masoretic Hebrew Text. As well as several other sources.

      You mention Textus Receptus and make it soind like it is the only reliable source…not true. You fail to mention that Textus Receptus was based on one of the texts you say is bad, “Vaticanus was first used as a source document by Erasmus in his work on the “Textus Receptus.” Because he viewed the text of Vaticanus to be erratic, he seldom followed it when it differed from other Greek texts.”

      Notice Erasmus used it as a source text, but also used other sources as well.

      I like the NKJV these days as I think it is one of the most accurate versions. There are some problems with the NIV, but to say that it is a bad translation is going a little far.

      Bad translations would be more like The Message, and the NLT. Just my opinion.

      God did preserve His Word I think, no one can tell me that only one version is right and all others are bad or wrong. Besides, if we wanted a most accurate Bible, then we would have to learn Hebrew and Greek and read those versions as they are without a doubt the most accurate!

      God bless
      Greg

      1. G Childs

        While the translators of the NKJV did use the Textus Receptus for some of the translation, they used the Westcott and Hort versions many many time when it

        suited them. “In many places where it differs from the KJV, it agrees with the Alexandrian family of texts and those modern versions following that textual

        family. Yet they marketed and promoted the NKJV as just another revision in the line of editions of the KJV. Regarding the editions of the Authorized Version

        of 1611, the revision committee of the American Bible Society said in 1852, “The English Bible as left by the translators has come down to us unaltered in

        respect to its text.” The NKJV altered the text of the KJV whenever it felt like it, which it had to do in order to get a copyright for a new Bible, but

        which they did not admit openly to the public!”1

        http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/scripture/new-king-james-version.php

        “It is estimated that the NKJV makes over 100,000 translation changes, which comes to over eighty changes per page and about three changes per verse! A great

        number of these changes bring the NKJV in line with the readings of such Alexandrian versions as the NIV and the RSV. Where changes are not made in the text,

        subtle footnotes often give credence to the Westcott and Hort Greek Text.

        4. While passing off as being true to the Textus Receptus, the NKJV IGNORES the Receptus over 1,200 times.

        5. In the NKJV, there are 22 omissions of “hell”, 23 omissions of “blood”, 44 omissions of “repent”, 50 omissions of “heaven”, 51 omissions of “God”, and 66

        omissions of “Lord”. The terms “devils”, “damnation”, “JEHOVAH”, and “new testament” are completely omitted.

        6. The NKJV demotes the Lord Jesus Christ. In John 1:3, the KJV says that all things were made “by” Jesus Christ, but in the NKJV, all things were just made

        “through” Him. The word “Servant” replaces “Son” in Acts 3:13 and 3:26. “Servant” replaces “child” in Acts 4:27 and 4:30. The word “Jesus” is omitted from

        Mark 2:15, Hebrews 4:8, and Acts 7:45.

        2 http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/New%20King%20James%20Bible/nkjv-deadly.htm

        “The New Age Movement and the occult are longing for one called the Maitreya. The Bible calls him the Anti-Christ. New Ager’s refer to him as the “the Coming

        One” – AND SO DOES THE NKJV! In Luke 7:19, 20 (see also Matt 11:3) John told his disciples to ask Jesus: “Are You THE COMING ONE. . .” In the “The Great

        Invocation”, a “prayer” highly reverenced among New Agers and chanted to “invoke” the Maitreya, says, “Let Light and Love and Power and Death, Fulfil the

        purpose of the Coming One.”

        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! Where’d

        they get their little “for”? From the NASV!

        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.” THE EXACT OPPOSITE! Boy, you talk about a contradiction!

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

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

        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)

        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! Where did they get them? Straight from the NIV, NASV, NRSV!”3 …. Westcott and Hort.

        3 http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html

        It is confusing for new Christians to be told to “turn to their Bibles and read” … just to find there is a discrepancy in the meaning of the text. Jesus

        is not the author of confusion.

        Jesus and Paul both argued important doctrine from single words, verb voices and tenses, and even a single letter (Matt 22:31-33; 22:41-46; John 8:58;

        10:33-36; Galatians 3:16; 4:9; Heb 8:13; 12:26-27). If translators or publishers lightly or wickedly change words, then such authority is lost from a Bible.4

        4 http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/scripture/new-king-james-version.php

        Is it possible that one of these small changes has significant impact?

        Now We know that Satan is: SUBTLE
        “Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of

        every tree of the garden?” Genisis 3:1

        “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 2

        Corinthians 11:3

        Is it possible that satan has subtly changed words in translations of the Word of God to prepare the way for the “new messiah?”

        There are many more arguments against the idea of peddling God’s word. 1. The fact that each

        translation has to be different from the last in order to be able to obtain a copyright. 2. The truth that the love of money is the root of all

        evil. 3. The history of our adversary attempting to question God’s Word. Genesis 3:1 I have no idea how deep the subtilty of Satan goes. But, I

        have an idea that it goes deep enough to pervert the Word to the point that Mormon’s, Jehovah’s Witness’s, Jews, and Muslims can find their maitreya,

        messiah and the mahdi in the translation they choose to buy. Today we have the following modern english versions:

        American Standard Version
        American King James Version
        Amplified Bible
        An American Translation
        ArtScroll Tanakh
        An American Translation
        Berkeley Version
        Bible in English
        The Bible in Living English
        Catholic Public Domain Version
        Children’s King James Version
        Christian Community Bible,
        Clear Word Bible
        Complete Jewish Bible
        Contemporary English Version
        Concordant Literal Version
        Dabhar Translation
        Darby Bible
        Douay–Rheims Bible
        Douay-Rheims Bible (Challoner)
        EasyEnglish Bible
        Easy-to-Read Version
        Emphasized Bible
        English Jubilee 2000 Bible
        English Standard Version
        Ferrar Fenton Bible
        God’s Word
        Good News Bible
        Holman Christian Standard Bible
        The Inclusive Bible
        International Standard Version
        Jerusalem Bible
        Jewish Publication Society of America Version Tanakh
        Judaica Press Tanakh
        Julia E. Smith Parker Translation
        King James Version
        Knox’s Translation of the Vulgate
        Lamsa Bible
        A Literal Translation of the Bible
        Leeser Bible, Tanakh
        The Living Bible
        The Living Torah and The Living Nach. Tanakh
        The Message
        Modern Language Bible
        Moffatt, New Translation
        Murdock Translation of the Western Peshitto
        New American Bible
        New American Standard Bible
        New Century Version
        New English Bible
        New English Translation
        New International Reader’s Version
        New International Version Inclusive Language Edition
        New International Version
        New Jerusalem Bible
        New Jewish Publication Society of America Version. Tanakh
        New King James Version
        New Life Version
        New Living Translation
        New Revised Standard Version
        New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
        Westcott and Hort’s Greek New Testament
        The Orthodox Study Bible
        Quaker Bible
        Recovery Version of the Bible
        Revised Version Modern English
        Revised Standard Version
        Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
        Revised English Bible
        The Scriptures Modern English & Hebrew
        Simplified English Bible
        The Story Bible Modern English
        Taverner’s Bible
        Thomson’s Translation
        Today’s New International Version
        Third Millennium Bible
        A Voice In The Wilderness Holy Scriptures
        Common English Bible
        Webster’s Revision
        Westminster Bible
        The Work of God’s Children Illustrated Bible
        Young’s Literal Translation

        Which one of these translations are we going to be able to recommend to the lost in order to be 100% sure that the translation has not been subtly changed.

        There is much much more that can be addressed regarding the validity of the NIV. I imagine there aren’t enough hours in the day to do the research on all the modern translations……I often wonder if it is just another attempt of the Devil to waste the precious hours we have looking into new translations. Looking to see if they are better. Looking to see if they are changed. Looking, Looking, Looking. Much more precious would have my time been spent praying and reading diligently his Word. God Bless you as well, Greg.

        1. Post
          Author
          πίστις

          I hear what you are saying about changes, some which are not good. Such as changing the singular to plural which of course alters the meaning.
          Still I think you hit the nail on the head with your last statement: Much more precious would have my time been spent praying and reading diligently his Word.

          I think most translations get the central message across…that being that we all sin, we all need a Savior, and that Savior can only be Jesus. If we read the Bible and come away with the understanding that we need Jesus to forgive us, that He is the Way, and the ONLY way, that is what is most important.

          Many do not understand the differences, but as long as they see that Christ loves them and is willing to forgive them, that salvation is only found in Him and that our lives need to reflect His values, then i think that Bible has done it’s job. I realize that is a little simplistic, but still.

          Many blessings to you
          Greg

Share your Thoughts