Proof of What Modern Bible Translators Have Done to Corrupt Newer Bible Translations

[EclipseEventSigns]

Let me show you..

You said this..

@EclipseEventSigns


And that is absolutely not true.
However, there is no point in me taking the time to show you many of Paul's Doctrines, as you feel that the bible is a one message, situation.

So, I'll leave that to you to believe.

Thats fine. I don't think you can prove your viewpoint anyway. You dont seem to be clear for the reason of the existence of God's Word.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

@DavP

Erasmus was familiar with certain of the Alexandrian texts which modern Criticism uses, and Erasmus rejected use of them, deeming them less accurate because of so much disagreement between those texts.

This is just false. He sought out and used whatever was available at the time. Provide legitimate sources for your assertion if you can.
Actually he did not have access to the complete NT text in greek. He was forced to backtranslate a portion of revelation from Latin.

 

[Behold]

What's been changed of the main message that isn't taught by Paul or the other authors elsewhere?

Thanks for the good question @Fred


A.) It depends on the Bible version., and more importantly, it depends on if you believe it matters or not.

If you dont, then i can show you 500 changes, and you'll say......"well, that does not really matter, as its just a bible, you know"'.

Now..Here is how to find out if your favorite version, is cat box worthy., and i'll have to explain why... and im happy to do it, for the READERS...

Now....Look at :....

1 Timothy 3:16.. As this verse is teaching that Jesus is God.

"GOD was manifested in the Flesh""""". So, if your bible says...."HE, was manifested in the Flesh", the your bible is hiding "the deity of Christ".
So, get a real bible.


2.) John 4:24..

"God is A Spirit"...

That means that God is a Specific TYPE of Spirit.

A.) The HOLY Spirit.

So, if your bible says..>"God is spirit", then your book is not making the distinction between God's Holy Spirit as : "Christ is THAT Spirit" and "the Temple of the Holy Spirit".... which is "Christ in you, the Hope of Glory". and "if anyone has not the SPIRIT OF GOD, then that person is non of God's".

See all that?
That really matters,... it has to be written as the TRUTH., and if it says.. "HE< or some similar pronoun">.... like "IT".... Then this book Is teaching that God's Spirit is the same as found in a Cat, Dog, or Satan, and His is the UN-Holy Spirit. "demonic".

So, the "bible" has to say..>"God is A Spirit, to designate God's Spirit as The HOLY Spirit, vs, demonic spirits, and so forth.

This is a fact., and if your bible says..."God is spirit" then your bible is literally teaching that God's Holy Spirit is no different than any other "spirit" and that includes a Demonic Spirit, or the spirit in an unbeliever.

 

[Fred]

1 Timothy 3:16.. As this verse is teaching that Jesus is God.

"GOD was manifested in the Flesh""""". So, if your bible says...."HE, was manifested in the Flesh", the your bible is hiding "the deity of Christ".
So, get a real bible.

Showing me a passage that teaches Jesus is God does not convince me of your position, because the NASB does much better than the KJV in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Thanks for the good question @Fred


A.) It depends on the Bible version., and more importantly, it depends on if you believe it matters or not.

If you dont, then i can show you 500 changes, and you'll say......"well, that does not really matter, as its just a bible, you know"'.

Now..Here is how to find out if your favorite version, is cat box worthy., and i'll have to explain why... and im happy to do it, for the READERS...

Now....Look at :....

1 Timothy 3:16.. As this verse is teaching that Jesus is God.

"GOD was manifested in the Flesh""""". So, if your bible says...."HE, was manifested in the Flesh", the your bible is hiding "the deity of Christ".
So, get a real bible.


2.) John 4:24..

"God is A Spirit"...

That means that God is a Specific TYPE of Spirit.

A.) The HOLY Spirit.

So, if your bible says..>"God is spirit", then your book is not making the distinction between God's Holy Spirit as : "Christ is THAT Spirit" and "the Temple of the Holy Spirit".... which is "Christ in you, the Hope of Glory". and "if anyone has not the SPIRIT OF GOD, then that person is non of God's".

See all that?
That really matters,... it has to be written as the TRUTH., and if it says.. "HE< or some similar pronoun">.... like "IT".... Then this book Is teaching that God's Spirit is the same as found in a Cat, Dog, or Satan, and His is the UN-Holy Spirit. "demonic".

So, the "bible" has to say..>"God is A Spirit, to designate God's Spirit as The HOLY Spirit, vs, demonic spirits, and so forth.

This is a fact., and if your bible says..."God is spirit" then your bible is literally teaching that God's Holy Spirit is no different than any other "spirit" and that includes a Demonic Spirit, or the spirit in an unbeliever.

One would need to deliberately misinterpret those passages to come to the conclusions you suggested. Compare scripture to scripture and you could never reach those conclusions.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

I'm actually surprised no one has really clued in to the false statements made in the OP's first post. These misstatements must be challenged and corrected. Bickering fights about which Bible is the "actual" Word of God has caused far too much division and wasted time.

He included a 2016 documentary which also contains twisted historical facts and misrepresents many things in its LONG almost 3 hours. Instead of focusing on the "corruptions" during the 1800's, let's try and correct the false history presented about Erasmus.

If you had time to watch 3 hours, you should actually spend the 1/2 hour and read this paper as well to get a balanced view:
ERASMUS AND THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS by William W. Combs
https://spiritualarchive.org/books/ErasmusAndTheTextusReceptus.pdf

Firstly... the debate about Bible translations today is NOT... simply about some "King James only" idea. That term is used by those who promote... the newer corrupt Bible versions.

The 1611 KJV Bible was NOT... the very first Bible translation. There were Bible translations prior to 1611, and Greek and Latin texts, and they also used the Majority Greek text, which amounts to 5,000+ Greek manuscripts. Erasmus in the 1500's put together the Textus Receptus from those various Greek and Latin texts, and the Textus Receptus became the basis for New Testament translations,

The OP falsely states that Erasmus used over 5000 Greek manuscripts for his Latin/Greek publication. False! Absolutely and utterly. He used 7.

Seven manuscripts were used by Erasmus in Basel to compile theGreek text which was printed alongside his Latin translation.46
1. Codex 1eap, a minuscule containing the entire NT except for Revelation, dated to about the 12th century.
2. Codex 1r, a minuscule containing the book of Revelation except for thelast 6 verses (Rev 22:16–21), dated to the 12th century.
3. Codex 2e, a minuscule containing the Gospels, dated to the 12th century.
4. Codex 2ap, a minuscule containing Acts and the Epistles, dated to the12th century or later.
5. Codex 4ap, a minuscule containing Acts and the Epistles, dated to the15th century.
6. Codex 7p, a minuscule containing the Pauline Epistles, dated to the11th century.
7. Codex 817, a minuscule containing the Gospels, dated to the 15th century.

What's more,

Erasmus did not compile his own Greek text from the manuscripts at his disposal, few as they were; instead, Codices 2e and 2ap themselves served as the printer’s copy for all the NT except Revelation.They still contain Erasmus’ corrections written between the lines of the text and occasionally in the margins, which came from the other four manuscripts, though he made little use of some of them.50 A comparison between the manuscripts used by the printer and the printed text indicates that the printer did not accept every correction that Erasmus proposed, and that the printer made some revisions not authorized by Erasmus.51

For the Book of Revelation the situation was especially dire.

For the book of Revelation, Erasmus had only one manuscript (1r).Since the text of Revelation was imbedded in a commentary by Andreas of Caesarea and thus difficult for the printer to read, Erasmus had afresh copy made. The copyist himself misread the original at places, and thus a number of errors were introduced into Erasmus’ printed text.52...These and other errors produced by the scribe who made the copy of Revelation for the printer are still to be found in modern editions of the TR (as of 1996).

Because Codex 1r was missing its last page and thus the last six verses of Revelation (22:16–21), Erasmus retranslated these verses from the Latin Vulgate, and he honestly admitted in the Annotationes that he had done so.55 But again, this produced, by my count, twenty errors in his Greek NT which are still in the TR today.56 They have no Greek manuscript support whatsoever.57

In other parts of the NT Erasmus occasionally introduced into the Greek text material taken from the Latin Vulgate where he thought his Greek manuscripts were defective.

Then there is the false statement about the Alexandrian texts.

Erasmus was familiar with certain of the Alexandrian texts which modern Criticism uses, and Erasmus rejected use of them, deeming them less accurate because of so much disagreement between those texts.

"texts" and "rejected use of them". Plural. In fact, he did not consult multiple texts. There are letters of his correspondence to ask for around 600 readings from the single copy Vatican housed Codex Vaticanus. He did not have an Alexandrian text in front of him at any time while doing his work. His main purpose for this was to actually check the latin Vulgate against Greek in order to IMPROVE THE LATIN. He actually did not have much concern for the Greek. It was the Latin that was considered "inspired" by the religious leaders of that time.

It is a common misconception that Erasmus’ main purpose behind the Novum Instrumentum was to produce a Greek NT....The primary purpose of Erasmus was to publish his annotations along with his Latin translation. The Greek text was only there for the purpose of confirming the Latin translation. This is easily demonstrated.41

Erasmus was concerned about the Greek text only to the extent that it proved his Latin translation was not plucked out of thin air. That he was not primarily interested in the Greek text is clear from the fact that he never brought out a separate edition of just the Greek text, in spite of the fact he was encouraged to do so.45

As with most things the agenda is in the details (usually left out).
So enough of this bickering. There is no Greek manuscript free of errors and mistakes. There is no grand conspiracy to remove major theological concepts from the Bible (caveat: from publishers truly guided by a love of the Word of God). And the Textus Receptus (in its many revisions and corrections) is not in any way the actual words of the New Testament authors.


@DavP

 

[DavP]

One would need to deliberately misinterpret those passages to come to the conclusions you suggested. Compare scripture to scripture and you could never reach those conclusions.

Actually what Behold is saying is fact. The devil's servants with modern Textual Criticism are corrupting God's Word on purpose. The reason why the Alexandrian texts were rejected by the Western Churches was because of it having been manipulated by Gnostics that had crept into the Christian school at Alexandria, Egypt.

2nd century Gnosticism has been one of the main problems throughout Christian history. The early Church fathers, especially Irenaeus, warned of their mixing pagan Neoplatonist doctrine with Christian doctrine.

One of the MAIN false doctrines of the Gnostics is the false idea that Jesus of Nazareth only received the Christ Spirit when He was first baptized of John the baptist, and that the so-called Christ Spirit left Him on His cross at His death. That Gnostic concept denies the Deity of Jesus as The Christ, The Only Begotten Son of God, and as Immanuel (God with us).

Modern secret societies like the Rosicrucian Order (AMORC), teach that Gnostic idea using their term "Christ Consciousness". They believe what the Gnostics did, that that anyone can 'achieve' Christ Consciousness and become like The Christ. They believe that we each can become a god. There are other modern initiate fraternities like them today which all teach the same idea, i.e., that Jesus is NOT God, but only a human that attained Christ Consciousness.

That... is why they want to corrupt God's Word with removing the Deity of Jesus of Nazareth as The Christ which essentially means GOD come in the flesh.

And don't you remember, this was what the very temptation by that old serpent deceiving Eve was about, that she would become her own god.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Actually what Behold is saying is fact. The devil's servants with modern Textual Criticism are corrupting God's Word on purpose. The reason why the Alexandrian texts were rejected by the Western Churches was because of it having been manipulated by Gnostics that had crept into the Christian school at Alexandria, Egypt.

Interesting. ZERO Byzantine text form in the 2nd Century. No Byzantine Empire till the 3rd century.......Alexandrian texts before them all.

Your timing is off. If there is any manuscripts that would have been affected by the rise of Gnostics it would have been the Byzantine tradition....

But hey.... Don't let that get in the way of your circular reasoning.

 

[Frank Russell]

Firstly... the debate about Bible translations today is NOT... simply about some "King James only" idea. That term is used by those who promote... the newer corrupt Bible versions.

The 1611 KJV Bible was NOT... the very first Bible translation. There were Bible translations prior to 1611, and Greek and Latin texts, and they also used the Majority Greek text, which amounts to 5,000+ Greek manuscripts. Erasmus in the 1500's put together the Textus Receptus from those various Greek and Latin texts, and the Textus Receptus became the basis for New Testament translations, up until British scholars Wescott and Hort in the 1880's submitted their own revised Greek text from Alexandrian manuscripts which became the basis of the newer modern Textual Criticism school, which is where the modern translations of today are derived. Erasmus was familiar with certain of the Alexandrian texts which modern Criticism uses, and Erasmus rejected use of them, deeming them less accurate because of so much disagreement between those texts.

Desiderius Erasmus Textus Receptus Bibles

The Real Story of Erasmus and the Textus Receptus

www.textusreceptusbibles.com

See the following about how Wescott and Hort substituted their new Greek text of 1881 over the 1500's Textus Receptus.

Another point to note, is that the New King James Version (NKJV) that Thomas Nelson publishers own, because they created it through a revision committee, also uses portions of the so-called 'Criticial text' from Wescott and Hort's new Greek translation from the Alexandrian Greek manuscripts. Thus the NKJV Bible New Testament part is NOT... a pure translation from the Textus Receptus based on the Traditional Greek texts which the 1611 KJV translators used. The Alexandrian texts are foreign to the original 1611 KJV. So in reality with the New King James Version, you are NOT getting a truly authentic KJV Bible.

However, the 1611 KJV had the apocrypha, and the KJVs sold in stores have another date that is in the late 1700s.

Also it seems bonkers to say the KJV is a good translation since it needed to be corrected so much.

1611 KJV =/= KJV available today.

 

[JD731]

Firstly... the debate about Bible translations today is NOT... simply about some "King James only" idea. That term is used by those who promote... the newer corrupt Bible versions.

The 1611 KJV Bible was NOT... the very first Bible translation. There were Bible translations prior to 1611, and Greek and Latin texts, and they also used the Majority Greek text, which amounts to 5,000+ Greek manuscripts. Erasmus in the 1500's put together the Textus Receptus from those various Greek and Latin texts, and the Textus Receptus became the basis for New Testament translations, up until British scholars Wescott and Hort in the 1880's submitted their own revised Greek text from Alexandrian manuscripts which became the basis of the newer modern Textual Criticism school, which is where the modern translations of today are derived. Erasmus was familiar with certain of the Alexandrian texts which modern Criticism uses, and Erasmus rejected use of them, deeming them less accurate because of so much disagreement between those texts.

Desiderius Erasmus Textus Receptus Bibles

The Real Story of Erasmus and the Textus Receptus

www.textusreceptusbibles.com

See the following about how Wescott and Hort substituted their new Greek text of 1881 over the 1500's Textus Receptus.

Another point to note, is that the New King James Version (NKJV) that Thomas Nelson publishers own, because they created it through a revision committee, also uses portions of the so-called 'Criticial text' from Wescott and Hort's new Greek translation from the Alexandrian Greek manuscripts. Thus the NKJV Bible New Testament part is NOT... a pure translation from the Textus Receptus based on the Traditional Greek texts which the 1611 KJV translators used. The Alexandrian texts are foreign to the original 1611 KJV. So in reality with the New King James Version, you are NOT getting a truly authentic KJV Bible.

I personally am convinced that the authority of the Bible for Christians ceased being the authority of God in most Christian denominations and that the acceptance of many different translations and paraphrases and the awful idea of thought for thought translation concept of the NIV and it's becoming the most popular offering for Christians affirms the fact that we are in the time predicted by the KJV as the apostasy of the last days. I do not think there is any turning back and the only antidote for apostasy is judgement.

That is my thoughts on the subject FWIW.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I personally am convinced that the authority of the Bible for Christians ceased being the authority of God in most Christian denominations and that the acceptance of many different translations and paraphrases and the awful idea of thought for thought translation concept of the NIV and it's becoming the most popular offering for Christians affirms the fact that we are in the time predicted by the KJV as the apostasy of the last days. I do not think there is any turning back and the only antidote for apostasy is judgement.

That is my thoughts on the subject FWIW.

That doesn't prove that the KJV is the ultimate authority. In fact, I'm currently reading the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, which according to even secular scholars would have superior authority because they are far closer to the "originals" than any extant MSS, including those used for the KJV. There aren't significant differences in the DSS to what we have now, but there are a few differences that, IMO, are enlightening. I haven't done enough of a comparison to say, but I've read that in many places the DSS conform more to the LXX than the Masoretic texts, which I find interesting. I don't know how they compare to the Textus Receptus, supposedly the basis for the KJV. I believe the NIV relies mostly on the Masoretic texts with latest editions including occasional reference to the DSS and LXX.

 

[e v e]

Firstly... the debate about Bible translations today is NOT... simply about some "King James only" idea. That term is used by those who promote... the newer corrupt Bible versions.

The 1611 KJV Bible was NOT... the very first Bible translation. There were Bible translations prior to 1611, and Greek and Latin texts, and they also used the Majority Greek text, which amounts to 5,000+ Greek manuscripts. Erasmus in the 1500's put together the Textus Receptus from those various Greek and Latin texts, and the Textus Receptus became the basis for New Testament translations, up until British scholars Wescott and Hort in the 1880's submitted their own revised Greek text from Alexandrian manuscripts which became the basis of the newer modern Textual Criticism school, which is where the modern translations of today are derived. Erasmus was familiar with certain of the Alexandrian texts which modern Criticism uses, and Erasmus rejected use of them, deeming them less accurate because of so much disagreement between those texts.

Desiderius Erasmus Textus Receptus Bibles

The Real Story of Erasmus and the Textus Receptus

www.textusreceptusbibles.com

See the following about how Wescott and Hort substituted their new Greek text of 1881 over the 1500's Textus Receptus.

Another point to note, is that the New King James Version (NKJV) that Thomas Nelson publishers own, because they created it through a revision committee, also uses portions of the so-called 'Criticial text' from Wescott and Hort's new Greek translation from the Alexandrian Greek manuscripts. Thus the NKJV Bible New Testament part is NOT... a pure translation from the Textus Receptus based on the Traditional Greek texts which the 1611 KJV translators used. The Alexandrian texts are foreign to the original 1611 KJV. So in reality with the New King James Version, you are NOT getting a truly authentic KJV Bible.

Esau's intentional corruptions
are everywhere...

best to be your own translator...

KJV is sorcery and so are the septuagint Alexandrian sorcery texts.
Nothing new here.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I personally am convinced that the authority of the Bible for Christians ceased being the authority of God in most Christian denominations and that the acceptance of many different translations and paraphrases and the awful idea of thought for thought translation concept of the NIV and it's becoming the most popular offering for Christians affirms the fact that we are in the time predicted by the KJV as the apostasy of the last days. I do not think there is any turning back and the only antidote for apostasy is judgement.

That is my thoughts on the subject FWIW.

Every single generation of mankind has been claiming to see "apostasy" all around them. I've got news for you......

Aposty started a long time ago during the lives of the apostles. If you study Church history and the historical narrative of the NT, you will see the sins of humanity have long impacted this world.

Just how do you explain the large gap of information from the death of the apostles till the late 3rd and 4th century? There is a simple explanation. Humanity rejected the teachings of the apostles. We are the children of those who rejected God. We have to see ourselves for what we are. The British empire created the KJV. The British empire banned the printing of English translations that had come before their publication of choice. There is a reason the KJV remained dominant in English history. Just like the Roman Empires did with the Vulgate, they crushed opposition to the Vulgate.

Did you know that Vulgate Onlyist existed long before KJVOism? It was the Vulgate that began the shift away from the Greek OT. The Vulgate was preferred over the KJV well into the 1800s. KJVOism is just a logical progression from the same sense of "authority" that other men seek over one another.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Esau's intentional corruptions
are everywhere...

best to be your own translator...

KJV is sorcery and so are the septuagint Alexandrian sorcery texts.
Nothing new here.

No reason to blame Esau. I'm surprised how little others know about the history of the texts they use today.

Alexandrian texts are good and bad. You must go word by word and verse by verse. The KJV is both good and bad. There are superior readings in the KJV because of the Greek OT.

 

[e v e]

No reason to blame Esau. I'm surprised how little others know about the history of the texts they use today.

Alexandrian texts are good and bad. You must go word by word and verse by verse. The KJV is both good and bad. There are superior readings in the KJV because of the Greek OT.

God's word is not 'good and bad' ...

True we are to find His words among the wicjed ones in between, placed there by esaus.

Do you know who the esaus are?

 

[praise_yeshua]

God's word is not 'good and bad' ...

Eve.... I... NEVER appeal to a single collection of writings as an "all encompassing" edition of the "Word of God. Never.

As I have said for many years, Bibles contain..... "words of men", inspired words of men" and "Thus saith the Lord". It would do good for most everyone to know the differences.

True we are to find His words among the wicjed ones in between, placed there by esaus.

Do you know who the esaus are?

We are esaus....... You included. That is our heritage. Esau represented the first Adam. Jacob the second Adam.

 

[e v e]

Eve.... I... NEVER appeal to a single collection of writings as an "all encompassing" edition of the "Word of God. Never.

As I have said for many years, Bibles contain..... "words of men", inspired words of men" and "Thus saith the Lord". It would do good for most everyone to know the differences.



We are esaus....... You included. That is our heritage. Esau represented the first Adam. Jacob the second Adam.

adam does indeed represent esau, who imprisons us. Esau is the type of entity that made eden to fall, as represented in hieroglyphs, though many refuse to see that connection... those are texts where they gloat about their crimes against God. So in fact, it was esau who stole the birthright - First - from us!

However our souls are not of esau, only this corrupt body. His souls are jacob ... even though a very stubborn uncaring lot.

your post is very good..thank you...hardly anyone , well, if anyone at all, gets that connection of adam and esau... i clicked the sad emoji because it is a sad situation jacob is in...following adam down esau's path... sigh.

 

[Frank Russell]

The fact that it is called a "King James" version illustrates it's worldly origins.

 

[praise_yeshua]

adam does indeed represent esau, who imprisons us.

Adam was a man of faith. He believed God. He passed what God taught on to his descendents.

1Co 15:45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

Esau is the type of entity that made eden to fall, as represented in hieroglyphs, though many refuse to see that connection... those are texts where they gloat about their crimes against God. So in fact, it was esau who stole the birthright - First - from us!

Interesting how you witness the fact that Adam was not born complete. Notice your appeal to a "birthright". Adam sought to save Eve. You see an Evil man. I see a man filled with love for Eve. Interesting how you use the "eve" moniker here.

What value do you find in Eve? She was worth something to Adam. It appears she was to you as well.

However our souls are not of esau, only this corrupt body. His souls are jacob ... even though a very stubborn uncaring lot.

I've stayed out of some of your "mysticism" over the years but I'm somewhat sympathetic external evidence in Creation. I do believe you are reading too much into what you've discovered.

your post is very good..thank you...hardly anyone , well, if anyone at all, gets that connection of adam and esau... i clicked the sad emoji because it is a sad situation jacob is in...following adam down esau's path... sigh.

I believe you must recognize just how little Adam actually knew. Not he wasn't extraordinarily gifted. He was.

Have you ever realized how that when we "name something"..... we tend to believe we own things ourselves? Instead.... of recognizing them as a gift from the Creator?

We are all like Adam was from the beginning. Incomplete. Weak. Prone to attribute our own efforts with "power" when they are nothing more than gifts from the One with real power.

 

[synergy]

Firstly... the debate about Bible translations today is NOT... simply about some "King James only" idea. That term is used by those who promote... the newer corrupt Bible versions.

The 1611 KJV Bible was NOT... the very first Bible translation. There were Bible translations prior to 1611, and Greek and Latin texts, and they also used the Majority Greek text, which amounts to 5,000+ Greek manuscripts. Erasmus in the 1500's put together the Textus Receptus from those various Greek and Latin texts, and the Textus Receptus became the basis for New Testament translations, up until British scholars Wescott and Hort in the 1880's submitted their own revised Greek text from Alexandrian manuscripts which became the basis of the newer modern Textual Criticism school, which is where the modern translations of today are derived. Erasmus was familiar with certain of the Alexandrian texts which modern Criticism uses, and Erasmus rejected use of them, deeming them less accurate because of so much disagreement between those texts.

Desiderius Erasmus Textus Receptus Bibles

The Real Story of Erasmus and the Textus Receptus

www.textusreceptusbibles.com

See the following about how Wescott and Hort substituted their new Greek text of 1881 over the 1500's Textus Receptus.

Another point to note, is that the New King James Version (NKJV) that Thomas Nelson publishers own, because they created it through a revision committee, also uses portions of the so-called 'Criticial text' from Wescott and Hort's new Greek translation from the Alexandrian Greek manuscripts. Thus the NKJV Bible New Testament part is NOT... a pure translation from the Textus Receptus based on the Traditional Greek texts which the 1611 KJV translators used. The Alexandrian texts are foreign to the original 1611 KJV. So in reality with the New King James Version, you are NOT getting a truly authentic KJV Bible.

It's funny that I keep away from the Alexandrian NT text but I prioritize the Alexandrian (LXX) OT text. It seems that everything Alexandrian is either extremely bad or extremely good. There is no in-between with Alexandria, Egypt. Another Alexandrian example is Origen who was kicked out of the Church for his heresies but the Alexandrian region is where one of the greatest Saints of all times came from, St Athanasius the Great who singlehandedly (with God's Grace of course) saved the Church from Arianism.

Anyways, I personally read only the English Bibles that are translated from the Majority (Byzantine) Text or Textus Receptus Text, usually the KJV. I am no KJV-only proponent by any stretch of the imagination. God has promised to preserve the word and He has done so in marvelous fashion in the Byzantine Text.