againstheheresies,
Why accept the NKJV as the word of God? Anybody

Ploughboy

This is a very good reason to reject the NKJV.A Bible with satans prints on it is not what I want to study from.

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

The truth is what sets the captives free.

God bless.
Bro Miller.

When Sam Gipp was at my church back in Jan. He was talking about some of the words that were changed in the NKJV from the KJV and I wish I could remember them but the NKJV words were more harding to understand than what the KJV had. And they were very simple words to. So why make something that is simple to understand then to make it more confussing.

[ltpage]

The NKJV writers were a little sneakier then the rest of the perversions. One example I remember Dr. Al Lacy(no "e" luke) pointing out is "Mark 1:15" where it says "believe the gospel". The NKJV puts the word "in" in front of "the". This changes the meaning totally. Satan believes in the gospel, or that there is a gospel. Atheist believe there is a gospel. It is something else to believe "The Gospel".
The other thing that is no little thing with me is the spelling of the word "Saviour". 7 letters,God's number of perfection. Not 6. Whose number is that?

One other thing. I was wondering why "againstheresies" is able to use the NKJV in his/her signiture, this being a KJV site?

Hi ltpage,

The NKJV writers were a little sneakier then the rest of the perversions. One example I remember Dr. Al Lacy(no "e" luke) pointing out is "Mark 1:15" where it says "believe the gospel". The NKJV puts the word "in" in front of "the". This changes the meaning totally. Satan believes in the gospel, or that there is a gospel. Atheist believe there is a gospel. It is something else to believe "The Gospel".

"believe in" does not just mean acknowledging the existence of something. For example, see the following verses in the KJV: 2 Kings 17:14, 2 Chron 20:20, Matt 18:6, Mark 9:42, John 3:15-16, John 7:5, John 11:25-26, John 12:36, John 14:1, Acts 10:43, Rom 3:26, Rom 10:14, and 1 Pet 1:21.

As for Mark 1:15 specifically, the Textus Receptus has "pisteuete (believe) en (in) to (the) euaggeliw (gospel)". The KJV translators dropped the "in" here for some reason.

The other thing that is no little thing with me is the spelling of the word "Saviour". 7 letters,God's number of perfection. Not 6. Whose number is that?

It is simply a matter of British vs. American spelling. The same thing happens with "colour"/"color", "neighbour"/"neighbor", etc.

God bless,
Brian

[Steve54]

Wow...I am reeling after reading 12 pages of this debate, so after perusing my Bible (a KJV Thompson...sorry...not the real deal either but as close as I got) I thought I would post this...

John 1.5 And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

As stated before on this forum, I started out my present walk with a NKJV and after being given a KJV, God led me to leave all other translations (many of them have been on my shelf at one time or another) alone. Whether my KJV is "pure" or not is of no consequence...it is what God has led me to. Let me relay a story that I hope will bring a smile to some faces...

I was watching a movie one night some time ago. I enjoy movies...I just can't watch many of them any more. I detest television and have for years and haven't watched it for years. Anyway, I was watching a movie called "Seabiscuit" and in the beginning narration it is implied that the industrial revolution was a huge factor in the end of our concern for creativity in the USA. As anyone can see, that is a valid observation. One of the things that changed was our reliance on the things that brought us to that point, the KJV Bible inclusive. It is also around this time that the "modern" translations came about. As we were dumbing down our population we had to, naturally, dumb down the Bible. I am not an expert by any stretch on revival, but it also seems revival became scarce at this time. Made me think of all of the uneducated masses throughout the world that came to Christ without any problems using the KJV Bible up until our little age of enlightenment. Interestingly enough, today, we have more Bibles, and less revival. We have more Bibles and more dependence upon the spirituality du jour rather than dependence on the one true living God (Gen 1.1). We have more Bibles and more "let's get rid of God" in this country and then whining about "where is God" when someone drives airplanes into our buildings. We have more Bibles and more "let's get rid of CHRISTianity so we can teach our children about islam" in schools. We have more Bibles and more "let's teach our children all about the wonders of homosexuality" in our schools. We are allegedly "smarter", "more advanced", "more intelligent" than we were then, but can't understand the KJV Bible. We can do calculus but can't add 2+2. So, to justify that, we claim "newer" manuscripts, and more advanced scholarship...and it all turns into a finger pointing contest to see who is closer to God than the other person. My dog's better than your dog. I tell ya folks, satan is insidious.

[ltpage]

Originally Posted by BrianT

Hi ltpage,



"believe in" does not just mean acknowledging the existence of something. For example, see the following verses in the KJV: 2 Kings 17:14, 2 Chron 20:20, Matt 18:6, Mark 9:42, John 3:15-16, John 7:5, John 11:25-26, John 12:36, John 14:1, Acts 10:43, Rom 3:26, Rom 10:14, and 1 Pet 1:21.

As for Mark 1:15 specifically, the Textus Receptus has "pisteuete (believe) en (in) to (the) euaggeliw (gospel)". The KJV translators dropped the "in" here for some reason.



It is simply a matter of British vs. American spelling. The same thing happens with "colour"/"color", "neighbour"/"neighbor", etc.

God bless,
Brian

It wasn't until the acceptance of all the modern perversions that we decided to accept this spelling. Most dictionaries prior to 1973 used to distinguish the two. "savior" one who saves. "Saviour" Lord Jesus Christ. It is no simple matter with me.

I think you're mistaken. Webster's 1828 dictionary (which many KJV-only supporters say is "the" dictionary to use) says:

SAVIOR, n. savyur. One that saves or preserves; but properly applied only to Jesus Christ, the Redeemer, who has opened the way to everlasting salvation by his obedience and death, and who is therefore called the Savior, by way of distinction, the Savior of men, the Savior of the world. General Washington may be called the saver, but not the savior of his country.

Webster's dictionary does not have "Saviour", I assume because it is an American dictionary and does not include the British spellings.

So what do you think of what I posted about "believe in"?

A subtle but deadly change –

The bible says in:

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ,
Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

The NKJV (and the rest BTW)changes “faith of” to “faith in”:

Gal. 2:16 - know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ.
Rom. 3:22 - This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,

The NKJV messes with justification for now the verse teaches it is man’s faith that justifies – can’t happen - man’s faith cannot justify – has no power to justify – only God can justify Rom 8:33.

The above alone is enough for me to flush it down to the septic tank thus polluting an otherwise good septic tank. Origen did not believe in faith alone so his works reflect this.

My two cents worth…

God bless

[MC1171611]

1) The Oxford English Dictionary is the defining work for the English Language as spoken in England, the land that gave birth to the King James Bible.

2) Noah Webster compiled his own Bible Version.

3) The Bible defines Itself, and as such, a true Bible Believer should have little need of any dictionary.

Like a true Bible critic, Brian argues against anything that demands perfection in the Word that he has denied. Not only does he run a site that attacks the WORDS OF GOD, he also hangs around here, attempting to spread his own confusion and lack of AUTHORITY. Last I heard, people like that were called Anarchists.

He is contributing absolutely nothing to our discussions; in my opinion, he's a scorner, and should be cast out so the contention he causes will cease. Just my opinion.