Waymarks 51
Report of Open Air Preaching
August 28th DUNSTABLE.
August 29th
September 5th
The first interruption came after five minutes. A “tough guy” came and stood immediately in front of me. I continued to preach to his navel. (I was on my scooter). After a few moments he lunged forward and put his hand on my shoulder. “God bless you” he said, and then he walked away. I then noted he was carrying a baby in one hand – and a cigarette in the other. “and you too” I called after him.
My Calvinist friend came by. He told me that those who endure to the end will be saved. What a poor, wretched religion he holds to. My salvation doesn’t depend on my perseverance. It was settled eternally at the cross and secured for me the instant I trusted Him. My friend is unable to cope with discussion so he immediately walked away from me when I challenged him.
A young man who distributes leaflets for an international cult greeted me and said he would be back once he had “signed on”. He did come back but did not show himself until I had finished preaching. He seemed impressed by my preaching and told me I was a great encouragement to him. I decided I would explain to him why his cult is so wrong. He listened entirely without interrupting me. It may be this young man is still seeking the truth, though he is caught up in a cult.
September 19th
Ocober 10th LUTON T.C. John, ear-studded, accepted a Way of Salvation after a few minutes talk. Emmanuel stood waiting to talk to me. Emmanuel has spoken to me several times now. He left
(We note M Penfold of Penfold Books does believe the Lord saw corruption. See By the Way... below.)
October 17th
After she departed E wanted to explain to me that the terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all titles of Jesus. Pray for this poor man’s conversion. I do not believe it possible for a believer to hold such erroneous views.
November 13th DUSTABLE.
What deep sense of hostility towards God, or weight of guilt could cause them to do this, I wondered. They reminded me of the man who visited his GP. He was told he had an extremely serious disease, and immediately, he clapped his hands to his ears and raced from the surgery, declaring that he didn’t want to hear that kind of thing. Had he stayed a moment longer he would have learned there was now a cure for his complaint.
So it is with the sinner who will not hear the Good News.
AV Verses Vindicated
Genesis 36: 24
And these are the children of Zibeon; both Ajah, and Anah: this was that Anah that found the mules (yem) in the wilderness, as he fed the asses of Zibeon his father.
The RV and most modern versions has “....this is Anah who found the
There are no Hebrew manuscripts carrying a variant reading. The word is yem and means mule.
However, Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica has a footnote showing that the Versio Syriaca Hexaplaris has a variant reading, changing the word (in Syriac) to mean springs. Jerome’s Vulgate (Latin) has the same change. It is suggested that the author of the Syriac version altered yemim (mules)to mayim (springs) and Jerome later took this up.
Clarke tells us that Bochart believed the Emim are meant.
yem occurs here only in the O.T. and is not the common word for mules but this is no excuse for altering the word of God.
Isaac Leeser in his The Twenty four books of the Holy Scriptures, carefully translated ACCORDING TO THE MASSORETIC TEXT after the best Jewish Authorities; Bloch Publishing co. 1907, reads “....this was that Anah that found the mules...”
Anah discovered (found) how to cross horses with asses and he produced the first mules. After this mules are referred to in the O.T. as pered ....and they brought ....horses and mules (1 Kings
Isaiah 3: 3, 4
He is despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not....yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted...
According to the Revised English Bible this reads, “He was despised, shunned by all, pain-racked and afflicted by disease...while we thought of him as smitten by God, struck down by disease and misery.”
This is one of the most highly blasphemous perversions of Scripture I have come across. The REB is teaching that Christ was riddled with disease and men though he deserved it. But they came to realise he was struck down with disease for their sakes. One must have a diseased mind to put this construction on this passage.
When we learn that the REB was planned by representatives of Baptist Union,
The use of the word grief in Jer. 6: 7, and Jer. 10: 19 demonstrate the reasonableness of the AV translation in Isaiah 3:3,4. All the words are in plain non-archaic English, easy to be understood.
Jeremiah 31: 22
How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the Lord hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.
Modern Versions deny the teaching of the Virgin Birth.
Compass (saw-bab’) commonly means to surround, as the men of
A woman in pregnancy compasses the child. The changes in modern versions listed below (which is far from being an exhaustive list) show a conscious wilful attack on the virgin birth of Christ, because no man is involved in this creatorial act. It is a new creation on the Lord’s part.
“.... A transformed woman will embrace the transforming God.” The Message (MSG)
“....A woman will protect a man” God’s Word. Is this a new thing?? It is certainly not God’s word.
“....A woman turned into a man” REB
“....A woman with the strengths of a man.” Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
The NIV has “A woman will surround a man” and then uses a footnote to deny the Virgin Birth teaching in the verse; “or, will go about seeking, or, will protect”
William MacDonald in his Believer’s Bible Commentary, which is based on the NKJV denies there is any reference here to the virgin birth. He claims “The woman here is
Those who read the prophecy of Jeremiah may note that about 40 times the nation is urged to return. RETURN, RETURN, RETURN. But this is to be a NEW creation so how can they return to a relationship that never before existed? Had Israel NEVER enjoyed a close relationship with God?
If God can reverse the backslidings of a nation through a creatorial act why has He not already done so? What love is this?
He goes on to quote Kelly (but does not identify which Kelly. J N D Kelly, William Kelly?) “a devout scholar of undoubted orthodoxy, explains why a popular interpretation is not valid...compassing a man has no reference whatever to the birth of a child.” Q E D??
So what about “In Jer.31: 22, ’A woman shall compass a man’ is a prophecy of the birth of the Messiah from a virgin”—
The man here is gheh-ber’meaning a warrior or valiant man. The word is not used in relation to deity. But when we come to Isaiah 9: 6 which is an unequivocal reference to the virgin birth of Christ, we find another word used from the same root as gheber-ber’. It is unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given.... The mighty( ghib-bore’) God.
Now we shall add our QED.
Remember dear fellow believer, almost all commentaries are written by rationalists. J N Darby also denies the virgin birth in this verse.
1 Peter 2: 2
As new born babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby.
“Like new born babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation.” (NIV)
The ASV is worse than the NIV. It reads, “As newborn babes, long for the spiritual milk which is without guile, that ye may grow thereby unto salvation.”
J N Darby also carries this blunder, “...that ye may grow up to salvation”.
The Contemporary English Version (CEV) emphasises this error with, “....pure spiritual milk that will help you grow and be saved. The CEV with the other modern versions has Peter writing to unsaved believers, who can eventually
get saved as long as they keep on drinking their milk. They don’t mean Bible study either, because the words of the word are omitted from them all.
This is a salvation by works alteration; an early addition to the text. All who are genuinely saved will recognize this to be a false reading. The majority of cursive manuscripts omit “unto salvation”.
By the Way....
We read in The Growth of the Brethren Movement,
An indeterminate number [of “Brethren assemblies”], perhaps between fifty and 100, have linked up with the FIEC or one of the charismatic groups such as Icthus or New Frontiers International; others may follow......I shall be surprised if more than a few of those who continue to follow the old paths will serve any useful purpose in the future, other than providing a spiritual home for elderly or conservatively-minded believers who love the Lord and his [sic] word, but find it impossible to embrace change. —The Growth of the Brethren Movement; Neil T R Dickson and Tim Grass; Wipf and Stock; 2006; p.129.
Those Bible believers who know anything about the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches (FIEC), Icthus, and NFI will know that the assemblies referred to in the paragraph above have moved deeper into apostasy. Those assemblies heeding Jer.
The leader of NFI is Terry Virgo, described as a Reformed Charismatic and regarded by many NFI members as an Apostle. Enough said!
We heard of a serious case of assembly bullying recently. A travelling evangelist was engaged for a series of gospel meetings. The meetings were well attended but apparently nobody got saved. The evangelist announced this was because there was sin in the camp. (He wouldn’t admit that his preaching was without power, would he?). The elders decided they would have to carry out an investigation to find the guilty person. They did not know of any sin but they called uninvited at the home of a single sister, reducing her to tears with their unfounded accusations.
But what kind of god would bar people from responding to the gospel on the ground that another person in the audience wasn’t living right? It is clear that this evangelist and his employers have no true concept of the gospel or the nature of God.□
The following is found on Michael Penfold’s website, webtruth.org.
The Bible clearly and repeatedly refers to the physical body of Christ. It was a normal body of flesh and blood, in every respect the same as every other human body, apart from sin. Based on 1 Pet 1:18-19 some erroneously teach that Christ’s blood was not human but was physically eternal, never being subject to corruption. They claim that Jesus actually took all of His blood back to heaven with Him! These verses do not actually say that the blood of Christ was incorruptible. True, it is precious and eternally efficacious for sin, having supreme infinite value spiritually – but is never said to be physically incorruptible. Acts
M Penfold is proprietor of Penfold Book and Bible House, Bicester. Though much of what he has written on his website is true and therefore acceptable, many strange things appear.
To suggest that 1 Peter
Silver is corruptible. Gold is corruptible. They may be the least corruptible of all material things but they do corrupt. If we are to be redeemed it will have to be with that which is utterly beyond the possibility of corruption. The blood of Christ alone is the only commodity meeting this requirement. It is precious beyond anything this world can produce.
Acts 20: 28 does NOT say the blood is ‘God’s’. No reliable Greek manuscript says this either. The deity of Christ is established in this verse. It is the
Blood cells are not born. They cannot die. They are never alive. Efforts to imply the corruptibility of the blood of Christ by this argument are fictive.
Hebrews ch. 9 describes how the high priest entered into the Holiest of all, once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the errors of the people....which was a figure for the time then present....but Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
An essential part of the figure was the carrying of the blood into the Holiest. This, we are specifically told, is a figure, a type of Christ entering into heaven itself. If He could not carry in His own blood because it had corrupted then the type is defective and so is our redemption. Did Christ enter in empty handed? Perish the thought.
What Christ did was foreshadowed in Leviticus 17: 11,
For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
Furthermore, the type or shadow, albeit visible, tangible, has given place to the reality; But ye are come unto
If the blood of sprinkling is here figurative and not actually present in heaven then we must have also a figurative heaven, a figurative God, etc.
If there is not a continuing actual efficacy in the blood then there is no present cleansing. the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth(present and continuous) us from all sin. 1 John1: 7. The blood surely must exist in order to cleanse, and where else can it be but in heaven?
One other point before we leave this subject, in the same article Penfold asserts that Christ “possessed the right of redeeming that fallen nature of which He took part [sin apart],” a quote that he attributes to Adam Clarke.
Penfold agrees with Clarke in this, that CHRIST HAD A FALLEN HUMAN NATURE (though apparently He chose not to sin.)
The human nature is irredeemable and persists even after conversion.
M R Dehaan wrote:
The blood was to be sprinkled, remember, on the mercy seat right after the death of the substitutionary animal of sacrifice, Now Christ is, of course, our substitute. He was slain for us upon the Cross, and entered into death for us, and when He arose, He immediately went to heaven, entered into the holy of holies in heaven, sprinkled His precious blood upon the mercy seat before the throne of God, and forever settled the sin questions, and delivered us from the curse of the law. This is clearly taught in the New Testament. Hebrews
Ten Reasons
David Cloud in his book Faith vs, The Modern versions, gives ten reasons for holding to the AV Bible
(1) Because of the doctrine of divine preservation
(2) Because the theories supporting the modern Greek text are heretical
(3) Because the modern texts and versions are a product of end-time apostasy
(4) Because of the King James Bible's superior doctrine
(5) Because of the King James Bible's unmatched heritage
(6) Because the modern versions are based upon a foundation of deception
(7) Because evangelical scholarship today is unreliable
(8) Because we reject dynamic equivalency
(9) Because we reject the "Majority Text" position
(10) Because of the evil fruit of the modern texts and versions.
Cloud’s book is well worth reading, and is available from wayoflife.org
Warnings to Bible Correctors
Deuteronomy 4: 2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
Proverbs 30: 6
Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Revelation 22: 19
And if any man take away 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
These three statements are found near the beginning, at the centre, and at the end of the Bible. Despite the seriousness of these warnings the Bible correctors press on with their foolishness. By this the lateness of the hour is emphasised. We are deep into the great apostasy.
Tyndale’s Bible and Romish Lies
Tyndale’s New Testament was first printed in
Subsequently some reprints were produced by Christopher Endhoven, in 1526, 1530, and 1534. There were so many errors that in 1534 George Joye edited another reprint. Regrettably he wilfully altered the text in a number of places.
This information is found in the Cambridge History of the Bible; Vol.3; p.142.
However, we read,
“In some editions of Tyndale’s New Testament” writes the protestant historian Blunt, “there is what must be regarded as a wiful omission of the gravest possible character, for it appears in several editions, and has no shadow of justification in the Greek or Latin of the passage (1 Peter ii, 13,14). Such an error was quite enough to justify the suppression of Tyndale’s translation.” — The Pre-reformation English Bible by F A Gasquet,D.D., O.S.B,, p.130; John C. Nimmo; 1897
I look into my facsimile N.T. by William Tyndale, 1526, and there I read the words which apparently do not exist; Submit yourselves...whether it be unto the king, as unto the chief head...
I check my 1537 facsimile of Tyndale’s N.T. which John Rogers published after Tyndale had been murdered. There we read the same words, ....whether it be to the king as unto the chief head.
Thus the lies and malice of
Gasquet tells us the evidence of this alteration to the 1526 edition is found in the Bodlian Library; Douce B., 226,227.
Incidentally, the frontispiece to the 1537 edition carries these words;
set forthe with the kinges most gracious lycence.1537 A.D.
Tunstall, Bishop of London at that time, is alleged to have told his archdeacons, regarding Tyndale’s N.T.
Some sons of iniquity and ministers of the Lutheran faction have craftily translated the Holy Gospels of God into our vulgar English, and intermingled with their translation articles gravely heretical and opinions that are erroneous, pernicious, pestilent, scandalous, and tending to seduce persons of simple and unwary dispositions
—ibid.
The hatred of the mother of harlots to the Scriptures remains the same today. Finding it impossible to destroy the Authorized Bible, they have introduced their counterfeit bible. It exists in all modern versions. Those who tell us there is no significant doctrinal difference between the AV Bible and modern versions are either grossly ignorant or are out to deceive.
Is the Fight for the KJV Necessary?
By Gary Freeman (from AV1611.com. website)
A writer who was despairing over the debate concerning Bible versions recently wrote, `Precious energies and talents must be wasted on petty quarrels between soldiers who ought to be giving their best efforts to fight the real enemies of biblical Christianity.' Is this correct thinking? We believe fellow soldiers ought to debate an issue when it involves the integrity and reliability of the most important piece of weaponry with which we intend to fight the enemy. How can we say nothing to our fellow soldiers when someone has tampered with our artillery. How do we intend to win the battle when we go into the fight with our main weapon taken away and replaced with a faulty, unreliable substitute?
The fight for the KJV is necessary. We who are holding the line for the KJV only are being called the culprits. One pastor said, `Certainly the KJV controversy rages on by those who would make it a test of fellowship.' Another writes, `One of the heartbreaks faced by any fellowship comes when some movement comes along and polarizes and then splits the group. It may be over Bible versions, personal squabbles or wrongs suffered. The issue is not doctrinal since there is always essential agreement among fundamental brethren in that regard.'
We are amazed how the group who brought in the new modern versions into our churches and fellowships now want to blame us who desire to stay with the KJV as being the dividers, polarizers, splitters and controversial ones. If these `fellow soldiers' want to bring in `Bibles' that leave out [or question] Mk. 16:9-20; Jn.
The offenders, dividers, squabblers and polarizers are those who want to bring new modern versions into fundamentalism. We believe, contrary to the previous quote, that this is a doctrinal issue. We believe that God has preserved the word He inspired. We believe it to be found in the Greek Textus Receptus and in English in our KJV. We will continue the fight for the KJV, not to be divisive but so that we as fellow soldiers can go into battle against our enemies saying, `Thus saith the Lord,' rather than, `Yea, hath God said?'
The New King James Bible Examined
By M. H. Reynolds, Editor, Foundation Magazine (from AV1611.com. website)
WHAT ABOUT THE NEW KING JAMES BIBLE? In this article, we want to share with God's people some of the important facts which led us to reject the NKJV and warn others about it. We do not believe that the "NKJV makes the KJV even better" as its publishers cl aim. To the contrary, our study leads us to conclude that the NKJV vitiates the original, reliable, accurate KJV in a most deceptive manner. While claiming to have "preserved the authority and accuracy" of the original KJV, the actual result is a hybrid t ext which incorporates many changes identical with or similar to the corruptions found in other modern Bible versions.
Why the New King James Bible? Its publisher, Thomas Nelson Company, says its purpose is "To Preserve the Integrity of the Original in the Language of Today"-"To preserve the authority and accuracy . . . of the original King James while making it understan dable to 20th Century readers"-"To update with regard to punctuation and grammar; archaic verbs and pronouns"; and "Up-to-date accuracy with regard to words whose English meaning has changed over a period of 3 1/2 centuries." The completed NKJV text is said to be "Beautifully Clear" and "Highly Readable." Thomas Nelson Publishers has spent millions to convince Chr istians that the NKJV is "the" Bible of the present and the future.
Why do we recommend rejection of the NKJV? Space limitations preclude a full discussion of every reason, but we do urge a careful consideration of the following facts. It is essential to know that many of the word changes between the original KJV and the NKJV are not changes which result from removing archaisms, etc. Instead, many are changes which clearly reveal that, contrary to their agreed basis, the NKJV translators departed from the original KJV and its underlying Greek text, the Textus Receptus, in favor of the very same wording found in versions translated from corrupted Greek texts.
The instances in which the NKJV breaks with the original KJV by substituting wording identical to that of corrupted modern Bible versions are too numerous to be considered coincidence. And, since Nelson tells us that the NKJV scholars spent "months of pra yer, research, and discussion over the handling of a single word," we must conclude that these changes were neither coincidental nor accidental.
The following references are listed as examples of the way the translators inserted erroneous words and meanings from corrupted modern Bible versions into the NKJV text:
Titus 3:10-KJV reads, "A man that is an heretick...reject." NKJV and NIV change "heretick" to "divisive man"; RSV and NASV to "factious" man. (The one who holds to heresy is to be rejected, not the one who exposes false doctrine. The new versions confuse who is in mind here).
Acts 4:27-KJV reads, "Thy holy child, Jesus." NKJV, NASV and RSV change "holy child" to "holy servant."
Acts 8:9-KJV reads, "bewitched the people." NKJV and NASV change "bewitched" to "astonished." NIV and RSV change "bewitched" to "amazed."
Romans 1:25-KJV reads, "changed the truth of God into a lie." NKJV, NASV and NIV read "exchanged the truth of God for the lie" or "a lie."
Romans 4:25-KJV reads, "Who was delivered for our offenses and was raised again for our justification." NKJV and NASV change "for" to "because of." (Even the NIV and RSV use the correct word, "for").
2 Corinthians 10:5-KJV reads, "Casting down imaginations." NKJV, NIV and RSV change "imaginations" to "arguments."
Colossians 3:2-KJV reads, "Set your affection on things above." NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV change "affection" to "mind."
1 Thessalonians 5:22-KJV reads, "Abstain from all appearance of evil." NKJV, NASV and RSV change "appearance" to "form."
2 Timothy 2:15-KJV reads, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God." NKJV and NASV change "study" to "be diligent." NIV and RSV change "study" to "do your best."
Old Testament examples include:
Psalm 79:1-the word "heathen" in the KJV is changed to "nations" in the NKJV, NASV and NIV.
Isaiah 11:3-the entire phrase, "And shall make Him of quick understanding" in the KJV is eliminated in the NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV.
Isaiah 66:5-the wonderful phrase, "But He shall appear to your joy" in the KJV disappears without explanation from NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV.
Daniel 3:25-the fourth person who was in the fiery furnace with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, was identified as "the Son of God." The same identification is given in the text of the NKJV but a footnote reads "or, a son of the gods," and both NIV and NA SV actually have the latter reading in their texts.
In other Old Testament portions, the word "evil" in the KJV is replaced by several different words-doom, disaster, calamity, catastrophe, trouble, adversity, terrible, harm, wild. In four different places in 1 and 2 Kings, "sodomites" is changed to "perve rted persons."
The NKJV does not deserve its respected name. It is a perverted version.
Additional examples of significant changes would include the following: Matthew 4:24; 6:13; 7:14; 20:20; Mark 4:19; John 14:2; Acts 17:29; Romans 1:18; Philippians 2:6; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; 1 Timothy 6:5, 10, 20; Hebrews 2:16; 10:14; James 1:15; 1 Peter 1:7.
A striking word change involves changing "corrupt" to "peddling" in 2 Corinthians 2:17. The KJV correctly says, "For we are not as many, which corrupt the Word of God...." But the NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV, change "corrupt" to "peddling." Is there any great difference between peddling (selling, or making a gain of) the Word of God and corrupting (adulterating) it? Of course there is, and one does not have to be a Greek scholar to decide which word is correct. When this warning was given in the 1st Century, was there any way for people to peddle (make a gain of) God's Word? Of course not-they were suffering for it. The warning clearly refers to corrupting God's Word, something that was common then as it is now. Only in our day has it ever been possible to pe ddle (make a gain of) the Bible. With its huge profits from the sale of many different Bible versions, the Thomas Nelson Publishers is both corrupting and peddling God's Word.
Dr. Jerry Falwell, a member of the NKJV overview committee, gives this new Bible his unqualified endorsement, stating that "It protects every thought, every idea, every word, just as it was intended to be understood by the original scholars." This simply is not true! As already pointed out, words have been changed and with those changed words have come changed thoughts and ideas.
Some will argue that the changes noted do not affect any fundamental Bible doctrine. We strongly disagree. Is not the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures a fundamental doctrine? Is not every word of the Bible important? Jesus Christ said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matt.4:4). He also said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matt. 24:35). Since Christ is concerned about every word, we should also be con cerned about every word and raise a voice of protest whenever scholarly sleight of hand is discovered in any modern version, including the NKJV.
In raising strenuous objections to the changed words of the NKJV text, we are not referring to those changes which update old English verb forms without changing the meaning, i.e., removing "est" or "eth" from verb endings. Neither do we refer to updating the old English pronouns "thee," "thou" and "thine" where they refer to individuals. We do consider it a tragic mistake to eliminate the use of "Thee," "Thou" and "Thine" where these refer to Deity. There is a disturbing trend toward stripping God of His Majesty both in word and deed. The substitution of the common pronouns 'You" and "Yours" for "Thee," "Thou" and "Thine" which have historically been used to refer to Deity both in the Scriptures and the Hymns of the Church, only helps pave the way for further attempts of sinful men to bring God down to their level rather than exalting Him in every way possible.
The NKJV translators claimed it was one of their purposes to update words where the meaning of a particular word had changed over the last 375 years. In 2 Thessalonians 2:7, they updated "letteth" to "restraineth"; in Psalm 4:2, "leasing" is updated to "lying"; In 1 Thessalonians 4:15, "prevent" is updated to "precede"; in Matthew 19:14, "suffer" is updated to "let" (meaning allow or pennit).
In other instances it is difficult to understand how the NKJV scholars thought they were updating and clarifying the KJV as, for example, when they substituted "minas" for "pounds" in Luke 19:13; or, "satraps" for "princes" in Daniel 3:3; or, "black cummin" for "fitches" in Isaiah 28:27.
Many Christians today are purchasing NKJV Bibles for three reasons: (1) Many pastors and Christian leaders are highly recommending it. (2) They have been assured by translators and publishers that the NKJV is based upon the same Hebrew and Greek texts used by the KJV translators. However, as already mentioned, such a claim is simply not true and can be easily documented by comparing the wording of the NKJV with the NIV, NASV, RSV and other versions whose translators admittedly used other Hebrew and Greek texts. (3) The NKJV is supposedly easier to read and understand but its impurities actually make it doubly deceptive and dangerous.
The duplicity of the NKJV publishers, translators and endorsers greatly increases the possibility of believers being deceived. The word duplicity is used advisedly. Webster's Dictionary defines duplicity as, "Deception by pretending to feel and act one way while acting another." The following duplicity can be fully documented:
The duplicity of the Thomas Nelson Publishers is clearly evidenced by their supposed concern and stated desire to "preserve the authority and accuracy...of the original King James" Bible. Yet, Nelson is the largest publisher of Bibles in the world and publishes eight of the nine modern versions including the iniquitous Revised Standard Version, copyrighted by the apostate National Council of Churches. If the Thomas Nelson Publishers were genuinely concerned about the purity of the Scriptures, would they continue printing the RSV and other corrupted modern Bible versions?
The duplicity of the NKJV scholars is also a matter for concern. Although each scholar was asked to subscribe to a statement confirming his belief in the plenary, divine, verbal inspiration of the original autographs (none of which exist today), the question of whether or not they also believed in the divine preservation of the divinely inspired originals was not an issue as it should have been. Dr. Arthur Farstad, chairman of the NKJV Executive Review Committee which had the responsibility of final text approval, stated that this committee was about equally divided as to which was the better Greek New Testament text-the Textus Receptus or the Westcott-Hort. Apparently none of them believed that either text was the Divinely preserved Word of God. Yet, all of them participated in a project to "protect and preserve the purity and accuracy" of the original KJV based on the TR. Is not this duplicity of the worst kind, coming from supposedly evangelical scholars?
Further duplicity is revealed in the preface of the NKJV and in a 16-page history of the KJV printed at the end. On page VI of the preface, NKJV readers are given the following erroneous information: "There is only one basic New Testament used by Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox, by conservatives and liberals." This is simply not true! There are two basic New Testament texts-the Divinely preserved Textus Receptus from which the original KJV was translated and the satanically corrupted Westcott-Hort Text (and its revisions) which form the basis of all other modern Bible versions.
NKJV readers are further misinformed as to why there are so many differences between the original KJV and all the modern versions. On page VI of the preface, NKJV readers are assured, "...That the most important differences in the English New Testament of today are due, not to manuscript divergence, but to the way in which translators view the task of translation." This simply is not true. Many important differences in the English New Testament of today are indeed due to manuscript divergence (over 5700 differences exist between the TR and WH Greek texts) in addition to the divergent views of the scholars who produced the various translations.
On page VII of the preface is another very significant statement concerning the NKJV footnotes: "Significant explanatory notes, alternate translations, and cross references, as well as New Testament citations of Old Testament passages, are supplied in footnotes. Important textual variants in the Old Testament are footnoted in a standard form. The textual information in the New Testament footnotes is a unique provision in the history of the English Bible. Terms in the footnotes such as 'better manuscripts' are avoided. The footnotes in the present edition make no evaluation of the readings, but do clearly indicate the manuscript sources of readings which diverge from the traditional text. Thus, a clearly defined presentation of the variants is provided for the benefit of interested readers representing all textual persuasions."
As a crowning climax of duplicity and inconsistency, the editors of the NKJV make the following incongruous statements on pages 1,234 and 1,235 of the King lames history printed at the conclusion of the NKJV text:
"The tendency of recent revisers has been to remove words and phrases from the text of Scripture, based on the most recently discovered extant manuscripts. In using the Greek text underlying the King James Bible, these words and phrases were retained. And, in those few places where the majority of the manuscripts did not support a word or phrase, that fact could best be indicated in a footnote. (The New Testament of the New King James Version shows in its footnotes those places where the major textual traditions differ from the language of the King James Bible.)
"It was the editors' conviction that the use of footnotes would encourage further inquiry by readers. They also recognized that it was easier for the average reader to delete something he or she felt was not properly a part of the text, than to insert a word or phrase which had been left out by the revisers."
Will the next modem Bible be the "Do It Yourself" version? This would be a distinct possibility if the advice of the NKJV editors in the two preceding paragraphs were to be followed. In effect, they are saying, let each reader decide for himself what portions, verses, phrases and words should be included in God's Holy Word." NKJV footnotes, far from being helpful, are an invitation to disobey the plain command of God not to add to or take from His Word. Deuteronomy 4:2; Revelation 22:18,19.
The preservation of God's divinely inspired Word is clearly set forth in Psalm 12:6,7, "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 forever. " God has fulfilled His promise through the Textus Receptus and the King James Version. Those who replace the KJV with the NKJV will have been duped into accepting a Bible which still bears a respected name but one which has placed "readability" above purity.
The translators of the original King James Bible had a distinct advantage. They were able to use their vast knowledge of ancient languages and translation abilities prior to the time when the deadly virus of so-called "Higher Criticism" infected the whole field of scholarship. False teachers boldly dissected God's Word with the "tools of scholarship" in order to reconstruct it according to their own speculations and presumptions. The result is a pseudo-intellectual aura in which no one can be sure of anything. It's time to get back to the pure Word of God where faith prevails and doubt is vanquished!
Believers who will take the time to compare the KJV with the NKJV and then with other modern versions will see for themselves why the NKJV should be exposed and repudiated as a polluted version. And, those who will take time to carefully look at the NKJV footnotes will be doubly concerned and will join in warning others about it.
Our plea to God's people is to reject the NKJV Bible and continue preaching, teaching, memorizing and meditating upon the pure, unadulterated, Divinely preserved milk and meat of God's Holy Word-The King James Authorized Version of 1611 upon which God has placed His stamp of approval over a span of nearly four centuries. Nothing is more important than the purity of God's Holy Word.
-M. H. REYNOLDS, EDITOR, FOUNDATION MAGAZINE
Fundamental Evangelistic Association
Encyclopædia Britannica v. The Holy Bible
The following paragraph is from the article on Creation in the EB 2008 DVD-ROM.
The myth of creation is the symbolic narrative of the beginning of the world as understood by a particular community. The later doctrines of creation are interpretations of this myth in light of the subsequent history and needs of the community. Thus, for example, all theology and speculation concerning creation in the Christian community are based on the myth of creation in the biblical book of Genesis and of the new creation in Jesus Christ. Doctrines of creation are based on the myth of creation, which expresses and embodies all of the fertile possibilities for thinking about this subject within a particular religious community.
Scholars think that Christians modified their views of creation through the passage of time. Genesis will have to be a much altered and adjusted book over the course of history according to the scholars.
Christ taught that Genesis was written by Moses. Luke 24: 44, John 5: 46. The believer knows that the Scriptures are given by God and His word is eternally settled. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11: 3. Such faith is well placed for the believer. He knows His Creator God.
We constantly demonstrate that there are no grounds for the multitude of additions and subtractions that heady men seek to make concerning the Scriptures. They gain ground in these days because of the general ignorance of Scripture manifested among us.
What they are saying:
Elder A: Brother X is thinking of leaving the assembly.
Elder B: He’ll never be happy anywhere.
Elder A: Not like us, eh? We would be happy anywhere.
Within this sacred Volume lies
The mystery of mysteries;
Happiest they of human race
to whom our God hath given grace
To read, to mark, to think, to pray,
To know the right, to learn the way;
But better they had ne’er been born
Who read to doubt, or read to scorn.
—The Editor; Waymarks; Vol.VII; 1935
