The King James Bible issue explained (for people who don’t know)


King James BibleIn light of Phil Stringer’s speech to the King James organizations last year (which I finally just listened to!) I thought I’d explain the whole King James issue.

One person who reads my blog wrote on their own blog, “I don’t mind the King James issue, but I hate the people who defend it.” And to a certain extent, I can’t blame them for thinking this way. Presumably that means me as well, but hey… a lot of us do deserve the comments. I’ll explain.

For starters, no one person speaks for the King James only movement. There’s a lot of people who speak for the issue. And there’s several that most of us frankly wish, would shut up.

I don’t own any writings, ebooks or audio recordings by Gail Riplinger. She’s written some things that I’ve seen quoted that I agree with… and she’s written many things that I do not agree with.

She’s said many mean-spirited things… and honestly, some wild-eyed things that make us KJV defenders all look like idiots. I own – and use – a Strong’s concordance. From what I’ve seen quoted in it, the “Toxic” book sounds like, well, lunacy. She’s done a poor job of research, and makes the same mistake a lot of evangelical Christians do as well.

Briefly, if I get a book published by Tyndale, I’d probably be bouncing like an idiot. “I got published! Yes!!!” I’d send my manuscript off, check my proofs carefully, and very possibly, if the editor was feeling generous, I might even get to okay the book cover.

It does not mean I’m having any secret meetings with any of the other Tyndale publishers. Let’s just hypothesize that James White also landed a publishing deal with Tyndale. It doesn’t mean we’re getting together and having coffee. It also doesn’t mean he and I are plotting to edit (HORRORS!) or destroy the King James Bible.

Gail Riplinger does make those kinds of leaps of logic. But so do a lot of evangelical Christians I’ve seen books by. Many of the people who investigate the Illuminati, new world order, etc make those very same leaps of logic. I guess it’s okay for Texe Marrs to do it, but not a King James only person?

Let me briefly distance myself from another King James defender I wish would shut up. Or at least tone it down. Peter Ruckman. The man’s a cult leader. He makes some very strange statements, is very bigoted, and no doubt would dismiss me as a “jackass” and a “kike”. Yes, he does talk like that. My seminary president visited his church once, and testified that yes, Ruckman says the “N” word from the pulpit. Racism really is not helping the cause of the King James Bible any.

Those kind of people really do the King James world a disservice. NO, I don’t stand on street corners with a megaphone shouting, “You’re going to hell! You’re going to Hell!” Peter S. Ruckman’s church does that, from what Marc Monte says.

Okay, there you go. I know I’m rough. I know I speak very strongly. But then again, I’ve read the Bible a lot, and Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Joel, and many others did so as well. I get so absolutely fed up with people – heretics, really – question the bible, deny the Bible, make up their own doctrine, and steer my Christian brethren on a sleepwalking road back to Rome. So, I tend to speak very harshly about such people.

So, let me explain the King James issue. I know you’re not James White. I know you’re not Ron Rhodes. I know you’re not John Ankerberg. These people all speak against the King James issue, and in reality,most of the people who speak against the King James Issue have never studied it.

When you see us slam the opponents of the King James issue, pause and consider this – we’re defending our beliefs. And many of the people that oppose us often have agendas. And many of them hold to secret heresies they won’t admit to. That’s very often the people we’re mentally imagining when we write these articles.

The first thing you should be aware of is… who is on these Bible translating committees? Check these people out. Read about the names of these people. Oh, wow… hey, James White is on the translating committee of some modern translations – that means financially he’s got a stake in attacking the ing James Only movement!

What about Virginia Mollenkot? What are her beliefs about Bible inerrancy, God, the inspiration and preservation of Scripture?

What about Cardinal Carlo Martini? The Jesuit? What agenda does he have?

What about some of these other names? Kurt Aland. Matthew Black, Bruce Metzger, Allen Wikgren? what do these people believe? What are their statements of faith? Should these people be deciding how to translate the Greek texts into English? Some words such as Uranos can mean heaven or sky. Do you want someone who does not believe in heaven translating your Bible?

Let me ask a question – and again, I understand that many of you have simply never been educated in the Bible issue.

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 1 Timothy 4:1 (KJV)

Okay, we all understand, agree, and are aware the Bible says that in the last times heretics will arise.

1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. 2 Peter 2:1-3 (KJV)

Even the most trusting evangelical Christian begins to suspect this may not be a person in the congregation, but also pastors as well.

If Satan was going to weaken Christians and lead them astray, where’s the best places to get his tools? His wolves? In the pulpits.

And translating your Bibles

Are you aware that Kurt Aland, of the Nestle’-Aland Greek Texts, is a heretic? He does not even accept that the 66 books we have in our Bible belong there. And he’s open to other books being put in, and probably even some of ours being taken out. There’s quotes from Aland about that very subject. Read them.

And keep in mind, he’s the man responsible for the Greek texts used by the Bible societies.

Scared yet? You should be.

Because the truth is that all the modern texts come from codex sinaiticus – a Greek text that a known manuscript forger confessed to forging over 100 years ago… – and from a copy of Codex Vaticanus. Not the original, but a copy. Vaticanus is exhibited at the Vatican library, but if it looks like you’re reading it or translating it, it’s yanked away and placed back in the back rooms.

Neither of these books are complete. Sinaiticus has several apocryphal texts and pseudopigraphal texts in it. Does that mean we should be accepting these books as canon?

Sinaiticus is written in the wrong Greek, Attic Greek, not in Koine greek – this places it either in the wrong era (100 BC) or… as a clumsy forgery. And remember, Constantinus Simonides (a known Bible and manuscript forger) had already admitted to forging it early in his career. Even he admitted it was a clumsy forgery!

Here’s the issue. Vaticanus does not have some books. Sinaiticus does not have some books. They disagree with each other in tens of thousands of places.
If I were to translate the New Testament from these texts, I’d have years of heartache about it, trying to decide which of the texts are correct. Do I choose the verse that is missing half the words, or do I choose the one that has left out some words? One verse is missing in one text the name of God, the other is missing the name of Christ. Almost every reference to fasting is removed from one of the manuscripts.

And both of them disagree GREATLY with over 5200 other Greek Texts, that all the Christian churches had been using since the times of the Apostles.

Now, those 5200 agree. There’s some minor copying errors between them, and a few misspelled words – but aside from that, they all agree. You can go from one to the other of those 5,200 manuscripts and find that they all pretty much say exactly the same thing word for word.

So, which would you choose? The copy of Vaticanus and the possibly forged, incomplete Greek text that disagrees with Vaticanus in 10,000 places? Or the 5,200 other manuscripts?

You and I would find this one a no-brainer. Go with 2 flawed manuscripts, or go with the 5,200 ones that agree? I think we’d all turn to the really big pile. The work would actually go faster. You don’t have to decide which version to go with! You just simply read them, and when you come to a repeated word or a space that looks like a word was misspelled or left out, you consult another. You could do it with three or four manuscripts.

Or, you could use one of the manuscripts that’s already been compiled by men who’ve done just that! The compilation often bears the same name as the same family of texts, the Textus-Receptus.

But what do Nestle and Aland choose? Or Wescott and Hort? What did they ALL choose for the modern translations? Why, the forged manuscript and the copy provided by the Vatican.

Huh. The… very choice you’d expect men who deny the deity of Jesus Christ, the inspiration, preservation and canon of the Bible to make.

It’s the only conclusion I can come to. The protests of James White and John Ankerberg cannot sweep away that fact. They’re choosing texts that are flawed, incomplete, and possibly forged.

By an amazing coincidence, these Greek texts neglect almost every reference to fasting. They omit many references to the Blood of Jesus Christ. There’s a few Charismatics who follow this blog. They’d be shocked to find that out!

And many of the verses deliberately change many of the verses that affirm the deity of Christ. Would you trust the manuscripts that affirm many times that Jesus Christ is God, that ye must be born again, that Christ rose from the dead? Or do you want the ones that omit these references?

this is the King james only issue. This is the issue at hand. And Christians who love the Bible, once they become aware of it and begin looking up the translations of various verses, all become convinced of the issue. And they get fighting mad!

I’m furious we have allowed men like Bruce Metzger who denies openly the deity of Jesus Christ and calls Genesis “a fable” to translate our Bibles. We allow Unitarians to suggest wordings they can live with. After all , the thought of Hell makes Unitarians uncomfortable! If they deny the existence of Hell, and give it names like “tartarus” “gehenna” and “hades”, they can sleep a little easier at night.

Because they deny that Jesus Christ is God. And if you believe that, you are not saved. And if you’re not saved, where will you go when you die?

If you’d like, I can list verse after verse after verse that will scare you and will make you put away your other Bibles. And even get you to the point that you will start calling the Modern Bible Versions… well, you’ll start adding the prefix “per” to “version.”

I’m betting that if you can stay a follower of my often-too blunt blog for more than a week, you must be a committed Christian with a love for Christ and His Bible. And if that’s the case, you need to look into this issue. Because a lot is at stake.

Advertisements

The Bible Version Issue


When you join a good Fundamentalist church, the first thing you’ll find out is that most have a peculiar fixation upon the King James Bible. This needs to be investigated, because even though what they’re saying sounds odd, conspiratorial and extreme – it’s also true.

If we use the historical viewpoint, the true churches have been using the Greek Textus Receptus family of manuscripts since they were written. The so-called “oldest and best” manuscripts actually were never used until 1881.

There is a considerable amount of work written by James White and Doug Kutilek against the KIng James and in support of the modern versions – but they omit facts, grossly exaggerate, offer untrue facts as evidence, and raise straw man arguments that they expend considerable energy into knocking down.

As you grow in experience in your church, you’ll hear many sermons on this issue, I’m sure. A good way to find out the truth of King James Bible only-ists is to use the Scripture Compare feature in Logos, if you have it. You’ll see how modern versions omit crucial words, and change the meanings.

My old pastor used to say to me, “There may be many differences in the Bible versions, but no essential doctrine is changed.” He was wrong, because he never examined this issue. He did, for the last several years of his ministry, use only the King James to avoid offending me (that’s the kind of pastor he was).

The point is, the modern versions do indeed change essential doctrines. When you compare the NASB to the KJV, ask yourself, “What is the NASB saying? What does this verse REALLY mean, as the modern versions say them?”

The first time you do this, you will abruptly close your modern translation, and never open it again.

“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:” (Philippians 2:6, KJV)

“who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,” (Philippians 2:6, NASB95)

“This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” (1 John 5:6–8, KJV)

“This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. (Missing: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one) For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement (Missing: in one).” (1 John 5:6–8, NASB95)

King James – Preserved Word?


I was prowling back on the 22nd, looking to see if there’s any other free Bible software worth looking at, and getting disappointed. I stopped at Costas Sturgios’ website for Theword Bible software, to see if it’s gotten any better. I know some people talk about how they love it – I despise it. When I first started this blog on my old laptop, I was alternating between E-Sword and theword, and kind of leaning toward Theword, but every time I tried to minimize the program, I’d close it, because Costas set the windows up slightly off from where the industry standard are, and the buttons slightly smaller.
It was irritating, but better than the incredible delays from E-Sword. Then someone bought me Bible Explorer, and I stopped using both, and got rid of Theword.
Anyways, while poking around his web site, I did see that there was a new free book offered on the main website, with a title along the lines of “Pure TRanslation?”
Okay, I know where you’re getting at with that. I read the blurb, and knew where the book was going. Apparently the author claims to have been King James Only for “many years”, and “researched the Bible Version issue”, and “discovered the truth behind the false claims”, and a disparaging comment about not being “deceived by cults” any longer.
There’s King James Only, and then there’s KING JAMES ONLY. I don’t know which of them you refer to. Were you part of the Ruckman cult, the Riplinger cult, or were you convinced of the truth of the Textus Receptus and Hebrew Masoretic text?
If you’re part of the first and/or second, then I can’t address that. Yeah, you were in a cult. Seriously. And what you were researching mostly was backlash against that cult.
Here’s the facts, that I’ve never seen disputed. People bring up Ruckman (who has passed away) – but to quote David Cloud, “I believe Peter Ruckman has done more damage to the King James Bible issue than good.” He’s destroyed any credibility we could have had. And Sam Gipp is fond of saying, “Ruckmanite is what they call you when they’re losing the argument.”
Gail Riplinger’s bizarre teachings on the King James are some of the shoddy scholarship you see out of some Christians – you know, the “He was published by Zondervan, and you know who else is published by Zondervan, so there’s a connection, and they’re undoubtedly doing goat slayings together at midnight!”
She is utterly opposed to anyone writing any book, dictionary, encyclopedia, concordance or lexicon on the King James Bible – unless its her. If she does it, it’s okay. Her “research” on the Strong’s Concordance was embarrassing. Again, it’s a black eye for King James believers.

Let me answer someone I respect right now, because he’s got a personality quirk that’s just as bad. D. A. Waite is a stalwart defender of the King James Bible. But if you don’t agree with him, you run the serious risk of having pamphlets printed about you where he lambasts you publicly, frying you mercilessly and almost slanderously. Witness the recent revelations that there were some financial irregularities in the Dean Burgon society, and several long term members resigned over it. Waite promptly attacked them publicly. If you did some things wrong financially through ignorance, then you need to appoint a treasurer and solve the issue in good confidence. If you had a moral failing, then repent of it, hand the money to someone else and get on with the work! But don’t publicly attack those who resigned from the DBS over it! (I have never been a member, but I suppose I should join someday).

Okay, we’ve addressed the cultic claims. Now let’s address the research.
The scholarship has been done many times already. Elzevir, Erasmus, Stephanus… they went through and looked at the Bible manuscripts in Greek, and determined the proper readings out of the manuscripts used.
There’s your research.
When the VAST MAJORITY of the manuscripts belong to the Antioch family of manuscripts, and less than fifty belong to Alexandrian, it’s obvious that those 47 manuscripts are flawed, erroneous, or deliberately corrupted – not the vast majority. I did a series earlier this year on textual criticism, and some of you doubtless were shocked at the deliberate agendas behind the spurious and arbitrary hypotheses behind the textual criticism. I stated the origins, I stated the rules, and I examined those rules in light of accepted Biblical interpretation and logic, and those rules were found to violate accepted Hermeneutics.
By the way, if you’re looking for information for a dissertation or thesis on the Bible Version issue, I’ve got enough on this web site to pretty much write one.
Hmmm….
Anyway, The modern translations are based upon Wescott Hort, and that’s most definitely a red flag. They decided that out of the two manuscripts of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, Vaticanus was the most accurate.
Why?
A feeling. Yup, that’s what they said! A Feeling! Wow… amazing scholarship there! Was this the “scholarship” that the author of that book uncovered that convinced him?
Or was it the Textual criticism rule of “The most clear reading must give way to the most obscure”, which is the direct opposite of the Hermeneutic principle of “We accept the clear readings when they are majority, and interpret the obscure in light of the clear”?
Yessir, I’m convinced too! A “Feeling”! Wow! How come I never saw scholarship like this from Stephanus?
Ready for a truth? And I DARE, double dog dare any textual critic to deny this – but if the Textus Receptus source documents were even one tenth as corrupt and as heavily edited as Vaticanus, they’d be screaming that fact loudly. With many passages edited as many as six times by six different scribes, Vaticanus is as reliable as a witness who keeps changing their story. We acccept manuscripts that are a “true copy”. Heavily edited manuscripts are rejected, which is why Stephanus and the Elzevir brothers never bothered with Vaticanus.
Here’s an assertion, that accords with the Bible, which is inspired and inerrant… If the Alexandrian family of 47 manuscripts were indeed the ones preferred by God, they would have remained in constant use by the churches. The Christians copied their Bibles from other manuscripts – that’s why the Antioch family has so many thousands. I had one well meaning atheist or textual critic, I don’t know which, try to come on here and say authoritatively, “We don’t have 5,400 manuscripts… we have only a few hundred.” That’s incorrect. You have to compile the list of lectionaries, uncials, miniscules, papyri and codexes. If he was talking about just codexes, yes, he was right. If on the other hand he was talking about complete manuscripts in the various forms, then he’s completely wrong.
Since the Alexandrian family has ony 47 copies or so, then the Alexandrian manuscripts WERE NOT THE ONES PRESERVED BY GOD. Indeed, since they deliberately change words and remove entire verses that support the cardinal doctrines of Christianity (deity of Christ, vicarious atonement, the Trinity), the evidence supports the facts that these are heretical manuscripts, written by heretics such as Ebionites, the Arians, and the Gnostics.
So… why are the “scholars” pushing for manuscripts that deny the deity of Christ? That deny the Trinity? Was THIS the research that convinced that author???
Here’s the bottom line. Like me, he’s probably got some software with many, many cool translations. And the pressure to conform, to stop swimming upstream all the time is enormous. He caved. That’s it. He caved in to the pressure, to the temptation.
my seminary strongly advocates makiing sure before you accept the call to the ministry to make SURE your doctrinal stances. Know that you know that you know.
And now it’s out there that he caved. And if he ever repents, and REALLY examines the issues instead of trying to justify his compromising…
He’s going to lose all credibility forever.

Apostasy in the Christian Church


Apostasy in the Christian Church

Well thought out article. I skimmed it because I’m ridiculously busy this week.

i’ll try to comment on this next week if I can find time.

Not in the Original Manuscripts


Reading “Kept Pure in all ages” by Jeffrey Khoo was interesting.

I’ve got to say, there’s huge amounts of lying on the Bible issue, and it’s not on the King James side.

Khoo did the research on the issue, and in far more detail than I’ve done, including consulting copies of the ancient manuscripts.

We here that there are 5280 manuscripts. The anti-King James groups say there isn’t that many. Well… you’re lying or misled. There’s 5280 Greek Manuscripts. Scrolls, lectionaries, uncials, miniscules.

The anti-king james groups claim that the modern versions are the best renderings of the Old Testament… but a Rabbi was interviewed on the subject, and he said that the King James version was the most faithful rendering of the Hebrew. Funny, that issue is never brought up by James White or Doug Kutilek or Bruce Metzger.

We are told the last verses of Mark are not in the majority of manuscripts. Actually, it is. It’s just not in Vaticanus or Sinaiticus.

The anti-King James crowd tells us that Erasmus claimed he would put 1 John 5:7 in the manuscripts if it could be found in just one Greek manuscript – and that finally one was found or created. Khoo looked for that quote, and can find it only in the claims of the anti-King James groups. In other words, they’re lying.

Another reason they’re lying is because – 1 Jhn 5:7 can be found in 8 Greek manuscripts, and in many of the Latin. So… if Erasmus was looking for it, he wouldn’t have had to look long to find it.

The Pericope (the woman taken in adultery, John 7:52-8:11) can be found in almost every one of the Codexes, Miniscules, scrolls, papyri and lectionaries… and is missing in TWO of the Majescules. Guess which ones? Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

The Anti-King James crowd tells us that the Wescott-Hort Greek text was not used for the NIV – and yet, the Nestle-Aland was. The N/A (good name for it) is actually a revision of the Wescott-Hort, differing in only a few words. As is the UBS synthetic Greek text.

This brings up a good question… why are we using synthetic texts lately to mis-translate the Bible??? Why do we not simply use the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that Christians have used for thousands of years? Literally, there has been one Greek text that we have used since 38 AD, when Matthew wrote the first Gospel. The discovery of “so many” new Greek texts (just under 50) should not put aside the majority of texts that the churches have been using (5280). The facts are, those texts were put aside and not studied for a reason. Dean John Burgon claimed that they were written by the followers of the heretic Marcion. Certainly Eusebius and Origen had their hands in it – and these men did not literally believe in the inspiration or inerrancy of Scripture.

The case is made that these men deliberately chose words they did not want in the Bible, because it did not match their beliefs.

I think Khoo is correct in that. I couldn’t find anything about it I had problems with.

Here’s the facts… and they should get the anti-King James crowd of Kutilek, White, and the rest all riled up (because its true and they can’t refute it)

  • Sinaiticus is either a forgery dating from early in the 19th century by Constantinus Simonides, or it’s a unused butchered manuscript written by a Arianist heretic – your choice
  • Vaticanus is completely unreliable, and the 42 hours of study under difficult conditions that Tischendorf did on the original was completely insufficient. That kind of study required six months, not six days.
  • Both manuscripts disagree with each other in more places than they agree
  • Both manuscripts show large amounts of editing and redacting, some by as many as ten men. If Sinaiticus was a forgery, then Simonides either was trying to correct mistkaes, changing his mind, or else the monks at the monastary he left it at were trying to fix it, and gave up, deciding to burn it instead.
  • If ANY manuscript of the TR showed as much editing and redacting as does Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, then the Textual Critic crowd would be dancing and singing in the streets! Realizing this, they are silent on the vast inaccuracies, tamperings, redactings, crossed out words and lines, pumiced sections, etc.
  • There is absolutely zero proof for Textual criticism. It is based wholly upon theory, conjecture, and “I just think so”. If anyone in the King James Only crowd were to offer theories as facts with the same proof or methodology, James White would be ripping us apart in his radio show.
  • What Textual Criticism and the King James issue is boils down to is – the King James crowd believes that the Bible is inerrant, and the Textual criticism crowd does not. And it may well boil down to a litmus text of, “saved (King James Only) vs. Not Saved (textual Criticism crowd)”. How can I say that? Simple. If you do not believe the Bible is without error, I kind of worry about your eternal salvation more than a little bit. If you do not believe that the Bible is the word of God, I worry about your salvation more than a little bit. If you think men are smarter than God, I worry about you a LOT.

Khoo brings up the question of, “Who was smarter? The monks who wanted to burn Sinaiticus, or Count Tischendorf, who frantically rescued it three days before his grant money ran out in his search for a theoretical original Bible manuscript?”

Khoo insinuates that the monks were smarter. I agree.

Weakening The Christian Mind


The Bible says…

1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. Romans 2:1 (KJV)

Here’s where it gets weakened.

Romans 2:1(RSV)

1Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.

Romans 2:1(NASB)

1Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.

Romans 2:1(NKJV)

1Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.

Romans 2:1(TLB)

1“Well,” you may be saying, “what terrible people you have been talking about!” But wait a minute! You are just as bad. When you say they are wicked and should be punished, you are talking about yourselves, for you do these very same things.

Romans 2:1(TMSG)

1Those people are on a dark spiral downward. But if you think that leaves you on the high ground where you can point your finger at others, think again. Every time you criticize someone, you condemn yourself. It takes one to know one. Judgmental criticism of others is a well-known way of escaping detection in your own crimes and misdemeanors.

See how at first the separation is in “wherein thou judgest another thou condemnest thyself” to finally, absolving you of the guilt? “THerefore thou art inexcusable” becomes “therefore you have no excuse” (reducing it) to “What terrible people have you been talknig about (in other words, I’m not without excuse, I’m no longer making excuses, to terrible people…)

to “those people are on a dark downward spiral.”

A Christian without a Bible is weaponless,and ineffectual.

Get back to the King James Bible.

The NKJV Part 1


Philippians 2:5-11(NKJV)

5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Philippians 2:5-11(KJV)

5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:  6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

This is interesting to me. The New King James literally denies the death, burial and ressurection of Jesus Christ.

Look at verse 8.

From what training I have in lifesaving (I went through the Red Cross Emergency CPR-AED-First Aid training over two days, which requires refresher courses it seems every other month or so!), I can tell you that anyone’s respiration or heartbeat brought at the point of death, means they are still alive.

No kidding. If you’re doing CPR and STOP when someone is at the point of death, depending on the state you’re in and the circumstances you could be held liable for abandoning CPR while still alive.

Arrythmic heart beat and greatly reduced respiration is still alive. Apparently, the New King James holds to the “Swoon” theory, which was disproved by incredulous doctors over a century and a half ago.

The NKJV says Christ was obedient to the point of death. That’s alarming, as it’s either saying he did not die, or that Christ ceased to be obedient at that point.

The NKJV really frightens me. So many people read it, without stopping to analyze what it is saying.

The BIBLE says Jesus Christ died on the cross. The Bible says Jesus Christ is always obedient to the Father, whom He is equal to.

The NKJV is saying either that Christ did not die… or that He ceased to be obedient when he was almost dead.

The translators and everyone who worked on that translation will have to answer to God for it.

I would not want to be them.