Independent Baptist Connection
The Three Magic Letters of K-J-V
Thank God for those three magic letters “K J V”. While many churches among Baptist ranks use modern versions of the Bible, some also use the KJV. My own research showed me that until about twenty years ago, independent Baptist churches tended to use the 1611 KJV while rarely using anything else.
The publishers of the NKJV claim that the NKJV makes the KJV even better. Does it? Thomas Nelson publishers has spent millions of dollars trying to convince Christians around the world the NKJV is the bible of the present and the future!
On one hand the NKJV translators say they felt duty-bound to do nothing more than update the seventeenth century language present in the 1611 version while on the other hand, they identify themselves as duty-bound to include variations from the Textus Receptus the 1611 KJV is based on.
The NKJV removes the much maligned "thee, thou and ye". The Preface to the NKJV states, ". . .thee, thou, and ye are replaced by the simple you………. These pronouns are no longer part of our language." But "thee, thou and ye" were "NO LONGER part of the language" during 1611 either. (just read the intro to the 1611 King James, there are no "thee", "thou" and "ye"). In fact, Webster's Third New International Dictionary, says of ye: "used from the earliest of times to the late 13th century. . ."
Though they reject the Westcott and Hort invention of a Greek text, that we discussed earlier, they still fall short of giving the Textus Receptus its full due.
A closer examination of the issues raises disturbing questions and it points out even more disturbing facts. The reason some Baptist reject modern translations of the Bible is that they don’t translate from accurate bible texts to begin with.
The NKJV speaks of, “several revisions over 400 years (speaking of the KJV) and the NKJV claims it is a continuation of the work of the early translators. It supposedly takes efforts, “to preserve all of the information in the text….” We already learned the revisions were corrections of printing errors and changes in spelling more than they were actual revisions in the language itself.
In the Old Testament, variations to the standard Hebrew texts are recorded in the footnotes.
The New Testament presents no problem because, “there is only one basic New Testament used by Protestants, Roman Catholics and Orthodox, by conservatives and liberals.” That’s what the publisher says.
There you have it. Is this true? As an independent Baptist, I am not a Protestant or a Catholic, an orthodox, or a liberal. But I do believe the Bible! No matter what my denomination, though, I must carefully heed the warning of God in the book of Revelation not to add to or take away from God’s Word.
“…the most important differences in English News Testaments of today are due, not to manuscript divergence, but to the way in which translators view the task of translation…”
Is the act of identifying “important textual variations” the same thing as casting doubt on the work of the first translators?
Some of this information does not appear in every printing of the NKJV. That in itself is somewhat disturbing. In some cases, changes appear without any identification or explanation. The reader is left without a clue about whether or not the 1611 KJV says the same thing. Why would they do that if these changes are what they call, “significant textual variations.”?
Many independent Baptist pastors have readily accepted the New King James Version, feeling it is a modern but faithful translation based on the same texts as the KJV. But those who look more closely also find themselves shocked at their discoveries. Some charge this version didn’t really translate from the same Greek text for the New Testament. They also feel the NKJV tends to constantly attack the KJV and distracts from God’s Word by the constant use of footnotes.
Jerry Falwell endorsed the NKJV, saying, “It protects every thought, every idea, every word, just as it was intended to be understood by the original scholars."
Independent Baptist churches today are leaning toward using the NJKV or the New King James Version. Is that good or bad?
Every word of God is important! Do you agree with that? We already discussed the fact that God’s Word, plus or minus anything, is dangerous. That has always been true and this was a motivating factor for the scribes and the early translators that felt they were working with the very words of God.
We already examined several versions of the Bible and found they either left out entire verses or changed words. The versions we examined included the CEV, Good News for Modern Man, the Living Bible, the NAB, NASB, NCV, NWT, RSV and the 1611 KJV.
When we compared verses with the 1611 KJV, we learned that modern versions, for the most part, are not reliable or accurate translations of the Bible.
Then we spent time examining the origin of the 1611 KJV and the reasons the King authorized the translation work.
“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” Matthew 24:35
“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Matthew 5:18
So we see that every word of God is important and every word is needed if we are to have the whole counsel of God! The translators of the 1611 KJV also felt every word was important.
To provide a balanced approach, we’ll check verses in both the Old and New Testaments. Please note that we checked only a few verses out of many more.
Before we do that though, I want to make sure all my readers get their satraps in line. What’s a satrap? We can rely on the clarity of the NKJV to explain it.
That is what the translators of the new work want us to believe. Let’s put them to the test. Are they telling the truth or is there more to it than just changing the pronouns? The first version of the verses that follow is from the New King James Version and the second one is from the 1611 KJV.
Leviticus 19:16
“You shall not go about as a tale bearer among your people; nor shall you take a stand against the life of your neighbor: I am the LORD.”
“Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbor: I am the LORD.”
According to Strong’s this is literally blood, “as that which when shed causes death.”
Deuteronomy 27:26
“Cursed is the one who does not confirm all the words of this law by observing them. And all the people shall say Amen.”
“Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of the law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.”
Is observing the law the same thing as doing the law? And how shall the people respond when they react according to the law? It does make a difference! This is puzzling.
1 Samuel 16:14
“But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and a distressing spirit from the LORD troubled him.”
“But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.”
1 Samuel 25:8
“Ask your young men, and they will tell you, Therefore let my young men find favor in your eyes, for we come on a feast day. Please give whatever comes to your hand to your servants and to your son David.”
“Ask thy young men, and they will shew thee. Wherefore let the young men find favour in thine eyes: for we come in a good day: give, I pray thee, whatsoever cometh to thine hand unto thy servants, and to the son of David.”
While a feast day is always a good day, how do we know this event actually took place on a feast day? Strongs explains “good” as, “good in the widest sense.”
2 Samuel 22:3
“The God of my strength, in whom I will trust; my shield and the horn of my salvation, My stronghold and my refuge; My Savior, you save me from violence.”
“The God of my rock, in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.”
Would you agree that God is more than just a strength? Isn’t he the rock of our salvation as well? It seems the language of a high tower is more understandable in that part of the world than just a stronghold.
1 Chronicles 6:28
“The Sons of Samuel were Joel the firstborn, and Abiyah the second.”
“And the sons of Samuel: the firstborn was Vashni, and Abiah.”
Do you see the difference? It is the name of the firstborn son of Samuel. While to many people this seems unimportant, the claim that every word of God is important seems jeopardized here.
Ezra 8:36
"And they delivered the king's orders to the king's satraps. . ."
"And they delivered the king's commissions unto the king's lieutenants. . ."
See how easy it is to understand the word of God now?
Psalm 4:4
“Be angry and do not sin. Meditate within your heart on your bed, and be still. Selah.”
“Stand in awe, and sin not: commune with your own heart upon your bed and be still. Selah.”
Is standing in awe the same thing as being angry? Is meditating the same thing as communing? The use of anger is a possibility, but a better meaning is the primary one listed in Strong’s which identifies it as: to quiver with any violent emotion. The word commune implies more than meditation.
Psalm 30:4
“Sing praises to the LORD you saints of his, and give thanks at the remembrance of His holy name.”
“Sing unto the LORD, O ye saints of his, and give thanks at the remembrance of his holiness.”
Are we talking here about the remembrance of just a name or are we praising God for his character?
Psalm 33:15
“He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works.”
“He fashioned their hearts alike: he considereth all their works.”
Well, which is it? Does he do this individually or alike? These words don’t mean the same thing.
Psalm 43:1
“Vindicate me, O God, and plead my cause against an ungodly nation: O deliver me from the deceitful and unjust man.”
“Judge me, O God, and plead my cause against an ungodly nation: O deliver me from the deceitful and unjust man.”
Is it judge or vindicate? Are they the same thing? Judge means to literally judge by either the process of vindication or punishment.
Psalm 45:13
“The royal daughter is all glorious within the palace; her clothing is woven with gold.”
“The king’s daughter is all glorious within: her clothing is of wrought gold.”
This seems to raise a question of character. Is the king’s daughter only glorious in the palace or is she glorious within, regardless of her location?
Psalm 109:6
“Set a wicked man over him, And let an accuser stand at his right hand.”
“Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand.”
This is more than just an accuser. God’s Word mentions Satan but he is left out of the NKJV.
Isaiah 11:3
“His delight is in the fear of the LORD, And he shall not judge by the sight of His eyes, Nor decide by the hearing his ears.”
“And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD; and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears.”
This is about as different as night is from day! An entire phrase was left out. Since none of the first part of this verse appears in italics in the KJV, they are part of the original text. The NKJV translators apparently disagree.
Matthew 7:14
“Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.”
“Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”
There is a difference between narrow and strait. The is also true between the words difficult and narrow. Rather than making God’s Word clear, this tends to confuse things. Difficult is not even implied here, according to Strong’s.
John 14:16
“And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever.”
“And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter that he may abide with you forever.”
This is a subtle but spiritually dangerous difference. Christ spoke in this portion of scripture. Is that all Christ was…a helper? God’s Spirit is the Comforter, not just a helper. Considering this is a special office of the Holy Spirit given to the church, can you see how misleading the NKJV is here?
Acts 17:22
“Then Paul stood in the midst of the Aeropagus and said, ‘Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious.’”
“Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars Hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.”
If a person is religious, is he superstitious? That’s what the NKJV wants us to believe.
Romans 1:25
“Who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.”
“Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.”
Is there a difference between exchanged and changed? To exchange is to trade one thing for something else. To change is to keep the same thing but modify or transform it. This seems to be an example of exchanging all of God’s Word for part of it while changing its accuracy into something questionable.
Romans 5:8
“But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”
“But commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”
The last time I checked merely demonstrating something was not the same as proving it. Something is definitely lost here.
1 Corinthians 1:21
“For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.”
“For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.”
This is much more than a different word here and there. It comes down to questions about foolishness. Was the message preached foolishness or was it the process of preaching the gospel foolishness? There’s more to it than that! God chose to save those that believe. How did He do that? The question then changes to, “Did a foolish message save them or was it through what the world still considers the foolishness of preaching that saved them?”
2 Corinthians 2:17
“For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ.”
“For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.”
Is peddling the word of God the same thing as corrupting the word of God? Strong’s says this speaks of something done for sordid personal advantage, not necessarily peddling something.
Philippians 3:8
“Yet, indeed, I also count all things loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ.”
“Yes, doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ.”
A person can say indeed merely as an exclamation but doubtless removes any doubt. Compared to Christ, did Paul consider everything else merely rubbish or was it more like refuse?
1 Thessalonians 5:22
“Abstain from every form of evil.”
“Abstain for all appearance of evil.”
It seems expressing this as forms of evil as opposed to every appearance of evil leaves something out. For instance, a person can do the right thing but in the wrong way. Many would say that is not a form of evil. However, even doing the right thing in the wrong way could have an appearance of evil. Therefore, Paul tells us to go the extra mile by doing the right thing in the right way. This avoids even an appearance of evil.
Titus 3:10
“Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition.”
“A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject.”
Is a heretic the same as a divisive man? While a person may be divisive, is it always because he is a heretic? What if a person who is considered a heretic is really pointing out false doctrine?
1 John 5:13
“These things have I written to you who believe in the name of the Son 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.”
“These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.”
Did John write this so that believers would continue to believe in Christ? Where did the word “continue” come from?
The above verses are nothing more than a small sampling of thousands more. Based on this information now available, something very subtle has happened. This is my own conclusion, of course.
There seems more than enough evidence to suggest that the NKJV leans toward other modern versions. The exposure of God’s truth has exposed the efforts of the modern versions we have already examined as nothing less than attempts to pervert God’s Word in an effort to make it agree with their own theology rather than to align their own thinking with God’s. Thanks to the countless efforts of research done by others who proved their concern for the accuracy and preservation of the Word, the heat of criticism became so hot that modern translators found it impossible to hide the truth about their work.
But they still wanted to make money. Here’s what I think they did about it. They simply came out with another modern translation and cleverly disguised it by attaching the magic letters of “K-J-V”. It worked for countless believers. Scholars concerned about the truth saw through the smokescreen and exposed the NKJV for what it really is.
A disturbing fact about this is that Gideon’s International places these bibles in countless places around the world. Have they also been deceived into believing it is nothing more than a language update?
John’s warning to test the spirits remains intact; it is vital for believers today.
There are examples where language updating shows itself replaced by language changes. Such cases seem far too numerous for mere coincidence. Many of the same corruptions that appear in some modern translations have worked their ways into the NKJV as well. But don’t take my word for it. We have taken the liberty to list just a few of the reported 100,000 changes that clearly exist between the KJV and the NKJV. The reader will note that this reaches far beyond modern words for old ones. More than words were changed; the very thoughts and ideas of some verses were also changed. This was more than a coincidence or an accident! This was work done with specific intent.
We find ourselves once again facing the question the Serpent asked of Eve in the Garden of Eden: “Hath God said?”
The matter is more serious than just the NKJV. Those opposed to the purity of the truth have now disguised it in new forms with new letters of the alphabet. It really doesn’t matter what letters you use because the modern translations come out faster than a speeding bullet. The latest two, from what I have seen, is what is called the Net Bible which can be found on the internet. Another one is the English Standard Version or the ESV. Either of these two translations bear a striking resemblance to the NKJV.
Don’t forget the words Peter wrote in 2 Peter 1:20.
“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”
It seems to me that the latest versions all fall into the same category as the ones we discussed earlier. Somewhere along the line, rather than change their own theology to match what God said, they chose to change what God said to match it with their own theology. Do you remember the dangers associated with that course of action?
The publishers of the NKJV claim that the NKJV makes the KJV even better. Does it? Thomas Nelson publishers has spent millions of dollars trying to convince Christians around the world the NKJV is the bible of the present and the future!
On one hand the NKJV translators say they felt duty-bound to do nothing more than update the seventeenth century language present in the 1611 version while on the other hand, they identify themselves as duty-bound to include variations from the Textus Receptus the 1611 KJV is based on.
The NKJV removes the much maligned "thee, thou and ye". The Preface to the NKJV states, ". . .thee, thou, and ye are replaced by the simple you………. These pronouns are no longer part of our language." But "thee, thou and ye" were "NO LONGER part of the language" during 1611 either. (just read the intro to the 1611 King James, there are no "thee", "thou" and "ye"). In fact, Webster's Third New International Dictionary, says of ye: "used from the earliest of times to the late 13th century. . ."
Though they reject the Westcott and Hort invention of a Greek text, that we discussed earlier, they still fall short of giving the Textus Receptus its full due.
A closer examination of the issues raises disturbing questions and it points out even more disturbing facts. The reason some Baptist reject modern translations of the Bible is that they don’t translate from accurate bible texts to begin with.
The NKJV speaks of, “several revisions over 400 years (speaking of the KJV) and the NKJV claims it is a continuation of the work of the early translators. It supposedly takes efforts, “to preserve all of the information in the text….” We already learned the revisions were corrections of printing errors and changes in spelling more than they were actual revisions in the language itself.
In the Old Testament, variations to the standard Hebrew texts are recorded in the footnotes.
The New Testament presents no problem because, “there is only one basic New Testament used by Protestants, Roman Catholics and Orthodox, by conservatives and liberals.” That’s what the publisher says.
There you have it. Is this true? As an independent Baptist, I am not a Protestant or a Catholic, an orthodox, or a liberal. But I do believe the Bible! No matter what my denomination, though, I must carefully heed the warning of God in the book of Revelation not to add to or take away from God’s Word.
“…the most important differences in English News Testaments of today are due, not to manuscript divergence, but to the way in which translators view the task of translation…”
Is the act of identifying “important textual variations” the same thing as casting doubt on the work of the first translators?
Some of this information does not appear in every printing of the NKJV. That in itself is somewhat disturbing. In some cases, changes appear without any identification or explanation. The reader is left without a clue about whether or not the 1611 KJV says the same thing. Why would they do that if these changes are what they call, “significant textual variations.”?
Many independent Baptist pastors have readily accepted the New King James Version, feeling it is a modern but faithful translation based on the same texts as the KJV. But those who look more closely also find themselves shocked at their discoveries. Some charge this version didn’t really translate from the same Greek text for the New Testament. They also feel the NKJV tends to constantly attack the KJV and distracts from God’s Word by the constant use of footnotes.
Jerry Falwell endorsed the NKJV, saying, “It protects every thought, every idea, every word, just as it was intended to be understood by the original scholars."
Independent Baptist churches today are leaning toward using the NJKV or the New King James Version. Is that good or bad?
Every word of God is important! Do you agree with that? We already discussed the fact that God’s Word, plus or minus anything, is dangerous. That has always been true and this was a motivating factor for the scribes and the early translators that felt they were working with the very words of God.
We already examined several versions of the Bible and found they either left out entire verses or changed words. The versions we examined included the CEV, Good News for Modern Man, the Living Bible, the NAB, NASB, NCV, NWT, RSV and the 1611 KJV.
When we compared verses with the 1611 KJV, we learned that modern versions, for the most part, are not reliable or accurate translations of the Bible.
Then we spent time examining the origin of the 1611 KJV and the reasons the King authorized the translation work.
“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” Matthew 24:35
“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Matthew 5:18
So we see that every word of God is important and every word is needed if we are to have the whole counsel of God! The translators of the 1611 KJV also felt every word was important.
To provide a balanced approach, we’ll check verses in both the Old and New Testaments. Please note that we checked only a few verses out of many more.
Before we do that though, I want to make sure all my readers get their satraps in line. What’s a satrap? We can rely on the clarity of the NKJV to explain it.
That is what the translators of the new work want us to believe. Let’s put them to the test. Are they telling the truth or is there more to it than just changing the pronouns? The first version of the verses that follow is from the New King James Version and the second one is from the 1611 KJV.
Leviticus 19:16
“You shall not go about as a tale bearer among your people; nor shall you take a stand against the life of your neighbor: I am the LORD.”
“Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbor: I am the LORD.”
According to Strong’s this is literally blood, “as that which when shed causes death.”
Deuteronomy 27:26
“Cursed is the one who does not confirm all the words of this law by observing them. And all the people shall say Amen.”
“Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of the law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.”
Is observing the law the same thing as doing the law? And how shall the people respond when they react according to the law? It does make a difference! This is puzzling.
1 Samuel 16:14
“But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and a distressing spirit from the LORD troubled him.”
“But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.”
1 Samuel 25:8
“Ask your young men, and they will tell you, Therefore let my young men find favor in your eyes, for we come on a feast day. Please give whatever comes to your hand to your servants and to your son David.”
“Ask thy young men, and they will shew thee. Wherefore let the young men find favour in thine eyes: for we come in a good day: give, I pray thee, whatsoever cometh to thine hand unto thy servants, and to the son of David.”
While a feast day is always a good day, how do we know this event actually took place on a feast day? Strongs explains “good” as, “good in the widest sense.”
2 Samuel 22:3
“The God of my strength, in whom I will trust; my shield and the horn of my salvation, My stronghold and my refuge; My Savior, you save me from violence.”
“The God of my rock, in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.”
Would you agree that God is more than just a strength? Isn’t he the rock of our salvation as well? It seems the language of a high tower is more understandable in that part of the world than just a stronghold.
1 Chronicles 6:28
“The Sons of Samuel were Joel the firstborn, and Abiyah the second.”
“And the sons of Samuel: the firstborn was Vashni, and Abiah.”
Do you see the difference? It is the name of the firstborn son of Samuel. While to many people this seems unimportant, the claim that every word of God is important seems jeopardized here.
Ezra 8:36
"And they delivered the king's orders to the king's satraps. . ."
"And they delivered the king's commissions unto the king's lieutenants. . ."
See how easy it is to understand the word of God now?
Psalm 4:4
“Be angry and do not sin. Meditate within your heart on your bed, and be still. Selah.”
“Stand in awe, and sin not: commune with your own heart upon your bed and be still. Selah.”
Is standing in awe the same thing as being angry? Is meditating the same thing as communing? The use of anger is a possibility, but a better meaning is the primary one listed in Strong’s which identifies it as: to quiver with any violent emotion. The word commune implies more than meditation.
Psalm 30:4
“Sing praises to the LORD you saints of his, and give thanks at the remembrance of His holy name.”
“Sing unto the LORD, O ye saints of his, and give thanks at the remembrance of his holiness.”
Are we talking here about the remembrance of just a name or are we praising God for his character?
Psalm 33:15
“He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works.”
“He fashioned their hearts alike: he considereth all their works.”
Well, which is it? Does he do this individually or alike? These words don’t mean the same thing.
Psalm 43:1
“Vindicate me, O God, and plead my cause against an ungodly nation: O deliver me from the deceitful and unjust man.”
“Judge me, O God, and plead my cause against an ungodly nation: O deliver me from the deceitful and unjust man.”
Is it judge or vindicate? Are they the same thing? Judge means to literally judge by either the process of vindication or punishment.
Psalm 45:13
“The royal daughter is all glorious within the palace; her clothing is woven with gold.”
“The king’s daughter is all glorious within: her clothing is of wrought gold.”
This seems to raise a question of character. Is the king’s daughter only glorious in the palace or is she glorious within, regardless of her location?
Psalm 109:6
“Set a wicked man over him, And let an accuser stand at his right hand.”
“Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand.”
This is more than just an accuser. God’s Word mentions Satan but he is left out of the NKJV.
Isaiah 11:3
“His delight is in the fear of the LORD, And he shall not judge by the sight of His eyes, Nor decide by the hearing his ears.”
“And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD; and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears.”
This is about as different as night is from day! An entire phrase was left out. Since none of the first part of this verse appears in italics in the KJV, they are part of the original text. The NKJV translators apparently disagree.
Matthew 7:14
“Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.”
“Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”
There is a difference between narrow and strait. The is also true between the words difficult and narrow. Rather than making God’s Word clear, this tends to confuse things. Difficult is not even implied here, according to Strong’s.
John 14:16
“And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever.”
“And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter that he may abide with you forever.”
This is a subtle but spiritually dangerous difference. Christ spoke in this portion of scripture. Is that all Christ was…a helper? God’s Spirit is the Comforter, not just a helper. Considering this is a special office of the Holy Spirit given to the church, can you see how misleading the NKJV is here?
Acts 17:22
“Then Paul stood in the midst of the Aeropagus and said, ‘Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious.’”
“Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars Hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.”
If a person is religious, is he superstitious? That’s what the NKJV wants us to believe.
Romans 1:25
“Who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.”
“Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.”
Is there a difference between exchanged and changed? To exchange is to trade one thing for something else. To change is to keep the same thing but modify or transform it. This seems to be an example of exchanging all of God’s Word for part of it while changing its accuracy into something questionable.
Romans 5:8
“But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”
“But commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”
The last time I checked merely demonstrating something was not the same as proving it. Something is definitely lost here.
1 Corinthians 1:21
“For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.”
“For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.”
This is much more than a different word here and there. It comes down to questions about foolishness. Was the message preached foolishness or was it the process of preaching the gospel foolishness? There’s more to it than that! God chose to save those that believe. How did He do that? The question then changes to, “Did a foolish message save them or was it through what the world still considers the foolishness of preaching that saved them?”
2 Corinthians 2:17
“For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ.”
“For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.”
Is peddling the word of God the same thing as corrupting the word of God? Strong’s says this speaks of something done for sordid personal advantage, not necessarily peddling something.
Philippians 3:8
“Yet, indeed, I also count all things loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ.”
“Yes, doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ.”
A person can say indeed merely as an exclamation but doubtless removes any doubt. Compared to Christ, did Paul consider everything else merely rubbish or was it more like refuse?
1 Thessalonians 5:22
“Abstain from every form of evil.”
“Abstain for all appearance of evil.”
It seems expressing this as forms of evil as opposed to every appearance of evil leaves something out. For instance, a person can do the right thing but in the wrong way. Many would say that is not a form of evil. However, even doing the right thing in the wrong way could have an appearance of evil. Therefore, Paul tells us to go the extra mile by doing the right thing in the right way. This avoids even an appearance of evil.
Titus 3:10
“Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition.”
“A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject.”
Is a heretic the same as a divisive man? While a person may be divisive, is it always because he is a heretic? What if a person who is considered a heretic is really pointing out false doctrine?
1 John 5:13
“These things have I written to you who believe in the name of the Son 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.”
“These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.”
Did John write this so that believers would continue to believe in Christ? Where did the word “continue” come from?
The above verses are nothing more than a small sampling of thousands more. Based on this information now available, something very subtle has happened. This is my own conclusion, of course.
There seems more than enough evidence to suggest that the NKJV leans toward other modern versions. The exposure of God’s truth has exposed the efforts of the modern versions we have already examined as nothing less than attempts to pervert God’s Word in an effort to make it agree with their own theology rather than to align their own thinking with God’s. Thanks to the countless efforts of research done by others who proved their concern for the accuracy and preservation of the Word, the heat of criticism became so hot that modern translators found it impossible to hide the truth about their work.
But they still wanted to make money. Here’s what I think they did about it. They simply came out with another modern translation and cleverly disguised it by attaching the magic letters of “K-J-V”. It worked for countless believers. Scholars concerned about the truth saw through the smokescreen and exposed the NKJV for what it really is.
A disturbing fact about this is that Gideon’s International places these bibles in countless places around the world. Have they also been deceived into believing it is nothing more than a language update?
John’s warning to test the spirits remains intact; it is vital for believers today.
There are examples where language updating shows itself replaced by language changes. Such cases seem far too numerous for mere coincidence. Many of the same corruptions that appear in some modern translations have worked their ways into the NKJV as well. But don’t take my word for it. We have taken the liberty to list just a few of the reported 100,000 changes that clearly exist between the KJV and the NKJV. The reader will note that this reaches far beyond modern words for old ones. More than words were changed; the very thoughts and ideas of some verses were also changed. This was more than a coincidence or an accident! This was work done with specific intent.
We find ourselves once again facing the question the Serpent asked of Eve in the Garden of Eden: “Hath God said?”
The matter is more serious than just the NKJV. Those opposed to the purity of the truth have now disguised it in new forms with new letters of the alphabet. It really doesn’t matter what letters you use because the modern translations come out faster than a speeding bullet. The latest two, from what I have seen, is what is called the Net Bible which can be found on the internet. Another one is the English Standard Version or the ESV. Either of these two translations bear a striking resemblance to the NKJV.
Don’t forget the words Peter wrote in 2 Peter 1:20.
“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”
It seems to me that the latest versions all fall into the same category as the ones we discussed earlier. Somewhere along the line, rather than change their own theology to match what God said, they chose to change what God said to match it with their own theology. Do you remember the dangers associated with that course of action?