Rockson
Well-known member
So I'm curious. What do you think of the New King James version?
What is KJO ?
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
Rockerduck
Active member
I used the King James bible for a long time. I still do and its most the most accurate bible, if you understand the translator's goal. I had to change to the New King James after leading bible studies for years. Then a couple of years ago, the Lord told me to use the NLT. The King James was common language in the 1600's, but the Lord wants me to use common language now. I am well aware of the use of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus influence, however, the Lord still wants His gospel simple for common people to understand. as well as in other languages.
I cut my teeth on the KJV. I don't find the KJV to be troublesome to read, I would go to a concordance to find the original word in Greek or Hebrew when I had a question or was seeking to understand the meaning of a verse which is why I read the Bible in the first place. I compare the KJV to about 10 translations, including the NKJV.
In my experience, God's Truth remains the same from the beginning to the end as He doesn't change. For instance, Jesus said;
Matt. 5: 31 (KJV) It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, "saving for the cause" of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
When I go to the Law and Prophets, here is what was commanded.
Deut. 24:1 (KJV) When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, "because" he hath found some uncleanness in her: (fornication) then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
So in the KJV, Jesus and Moses are on the exact same page concerning "divorce, or "putting away one's wife". Even to the point of it being the "Christ, the Word of God" who created this "saying" in the first place. (But I say)
Here are other translations.
NKJV. 31 "Furthermore it has been said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.
32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.
NIV. 31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce. 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
NRS. 31 "It was also said, "Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce. 32 But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
CLV. 31 "Now it was declared, Whoever should be dismissing his wife, let him be giving her a divorce. 32 Yet I am saying to you that everyone dismissing his wife (outside of a case of prostitution) is making her commit adultery, and whosoever should be marrying her who has been dismissed is committing adultery.
And here are the same translations regarding Deut 24.
NKJV. 1 "When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house,
NIV. 1 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house,
NRS. 1 Suppose a man enters into marriage with a woman, but she does not please him because he finds something objectionable about her, and so he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house; she then leaves his house
CLV. 1 When a man takes a wife and possesses her, and it comes to be that she should not find favor in his eyes, because he has found in her the nakedness of anything, then he would write for her a scroll of divorce, give it into her hand and send her away from his house.
This lets me know, in some assurance, that Jesus and Moses were on the same page where "Divorce" in concerned, but was exposing a religious doctrine concerning divorce, that was not being taught by the mainstream religions of that time. I come to this conclusion by comparing several translations, including the NKJV.
I have no problem with it, I just like the KJV better by reason of use I guess.
civic
Well-known member
So you don’t approve of the NASB ?
Rockerduck
Active member
NLT - “You have heard the law that says, ‘A man can divorce his wife by merely giving her a written notice of divorce.’ 32 But I say that a man who divorces his wife, unless she has been unfaithful, causes her to commit adultery. And anyone who marries a divorced woman also commits adultery.
I am not a big fan of New Age, progressive Bible translations. In large part, because of the Jesus "of the Bible's" warnings about deceivers, "who come in His Name" becoming more and more prevalent as time goes on. But like the NIV, although I believe God is able to reveal His Truth in all translations, it seems prudent to "Take Heed" and be careful when reading these New Age translations. If it was the only translation available to a man, I am sure God could reveal His truth to those who were seeking Him, even in these New Age translations.
I think it can therefore be known, by comparing different translations, that Jesus and Moses taught the same thing when it comes to divorce.
Rockerduck
Active member
Modern translations are not New Age translations. New Age is Eastern religions, like Yoga.
civic
Well-known member
the NASB is not " new age " its based upon the earliest manuscript evidence and is the best word for word translation from Greek to English.
civic
Well-known member
Exactly
Yes, most translations are promoted as "Based on" original texts. Greek Septuagint, The Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland's, Byzantine manuscripts, etc.
The NASB is a New Age, progressive translation in my view, because of their continued revisions and the implication that these translations reveal Truths of God not revealed to man through Scriptures between like 1611, and 1971, which was revised in 1995, and again in 2020.
"WIKI"
"The translation work was done by a group sponsored (Paid) by the Lockman Foundation.[16] According to the Lockman Foundation, the committee consisted of people from Christian educational institutions of higher learning and from Evangelical Protestant, predominantly conservative, denominations (Presbyterian, Methodist, Southern Baptist, Church of Christ, Nazarene, American Baptist, Fundamentalist, Conservative Baptist, Free Methodist, Congregational, Disciples of Christ, Evangelical Free, Independent Baptist, Independent Mennonite, Assembly of God, North American Baptist, and "other religious groups").[17][18]
The Lockman Foundation's website indicates that among the translators and consultants who contributed are Biblical scholars with doctorates in Biblical languages, Christian theology, "or other advanced degrees", and come from a variety of denominational backgrounds. More than 20 individuals worked on modernizing the NASB in accord with the most recent research.[18]"
Jesus warns that as time goes on, Matt. 24:11 (NASB) "Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many. 12 "Because lawlessness is increased, most people's love will grow cold".
So it only makes sense to understand that this world's religions will not promote "more truth", but less truth as time goes on, at least if one believes in the Jesus "of the bible". So I am careful of all translations to consider "Every Word" inspired by God translated by them. More so for the New Age bibles, that the ancient ones.
Rockerduck
Active member
Please Google New Age religion. It has nothing to do with Christianity at all. New Age is part witchcraft, astrology, ouija boards, UFO's, etc., it's background is demonic.
All modern bibles base their translation from Westcott and Hort's Greek translation and these guys were against the KJB. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus codex's are their primary base for Greek. These two codex's were different from each other but were "meshed" together to make one translation, the ASV. All modern Bibles use this ASV. I don't trust many scholars because common sense doesn't come from schoolbooks. That does not mean many translations are wrong, but some are. All of them went gender neutral too. If you have a strong foundation of learning with the KJB then you can use any translation you are comfortable with.
Rockerduck
Active member
By the way Nestle-Aland's, Greek is based on Wescott and Hort's Greek translation.
I agree, God is perfectly capable of preserving His Truth regardless of the translation. And the KJV is a good foundation for learning about God. I think if you read my post, you will find I'm speaking to "New Age Translations", not new age religions. If you Google "New Age Translations" you will find the NASB and the NIV are considered "New Age Translations". Most religions of this world, who call Jesus Lord, Lord, have adopted the doctrines, traditions and philosophies of ancient theologians like Wesley, Calvin, Huss, Miller, Augustine, Council of Nicaea, Smith, etc., all "learned" by the philosophers of this world, not the Prophets or Disciples God sent through the Christ, the Holy One of Israel.
I am not calling these religions "New age" at all.
And I think you are wise not to trust many "Scholars" who are learned by the religious institutions of this world, because Jesus Himself said to "Take Heed" of men "who come in His Name" and this world's religious institutions are created for this very purpose, to produce men, "who come in Christ's Name".
It's better, in my view, to build a personal relationship with God than to walk the Path of the masses, who do their works in the Synagogues and in the streets to be seen of men.
civic
Well-known member
Then the kjv is the dark age translation like the rest of the religions of its day
David Koberstein
Active member
The Bible assumes that it is the man who initiates the marriage. ("A man takes a wife..." [Deut 24:1].
In consequence, if there is to be a divorce, it must also be initiated by the man. Unlike societies that
permitted a man to divorce a woman by oral declaration alone (in Muslim societies into this century,
a man could do so by declaring to his wife three times, "I divorce thee"), the Bible required him to
"write her a bill of divorcement" (later known as a get) The insistence on a legal document was probably
intended to make divorce more difficult to obtain, and also gave the ex-wife proof of her unmarried status
if she wished to remarry.
The Bible is unclear, as to what constitutes appropriate grounds for divorce. The text, as written in the modern
Jewish Publication Society translation of the Torah---in conformity with the Talmud's majority view---suggests
that a man can divorce a woman for any reason whatsoever: "A man takes a wife and possesses her. She fails
to please him because he finds something obnoxious about her, and he writes her a bill of divorcement, and
sends her away from his home" (Deut 24:1)
Ervah, the word translated as "obnoxious" derives from the same root as arayot, suggesting the alternative
translation "sexually improper." Indeed, this understanding of the verse underlay Rabbi Shammai's ruling that
adultery was the sole grounds for divorce (Mishnah Gittin 9:10), the majority view, which translates ervah as
"obnoxious," is that a man can divorce his wife for any reason).
The Bible's favoring of the husband in the laws of divorce troubled sensitive rabbinic scholars throughout
the ages. Jewish law eventually ruled that although only a man could initiate a divorce (fair or unfair), the
Rabbis did not feel they could overturn a biblical law), a woman could not be forced to accept a get against
her will. Thus, today Jewish law permits divorce , for any reason whatsoever, as long as it is by mutual consent.
Postbiblical Jewish law also ruled that if a man mistreated his wife, and a rabbinic court ordered him to grant
her a divorce, he was required to do so. If he refused, the court was empowered to whip him until he either
died (in which case, the woman was freed to remarry by virtue of becoming a widow) or authorized the issuance
of a get. In contemporary Israel, the one society where matters of marriage and divorce are exclusively determined
ny Jewish law, whipping is forbidden, but recalcitrant husbands are sometimes imprisoned until they grant a divorce.
Shalom
Rockerduck
Active member
I did look up "New Age" versions. Most sites were selling books though. It's easy-to-get into conspiracy theories about the King James bible. The background I posted is factual. Westcott and Hort were not Christians and had a hatred for the KJB. Kinda makes you wonder whether satanic forces were at work to stop the KJB. However, the KJB was last updated in 1769 and that's the AKJB we all use, and it hasn't needed an update. I keep a pocket KJB with me and use the NLT in most studies.
Thanks for the lesson in Jewish history. There is no doubt, as you point out, that Jewish scholars from various religious sects, like the Pharisees, corrupted God's Word which culminated in the creation of the Talmud. The Christ exposed, as Paul called it, "The Jews Religion" by pointing out through the Scriptures, where the doctrines, traditions and judgments they promoted "were not wrought in God". That they taught "some" of God's Word but omitted the most important parts. Matt. 23 and Matt. 5 was one place of several where HE did this, in my view.
The point of my post regarding Matt. 5, was to show that most all of the Translations available to us, show that the Christ and Moses were of the same mind and Spirit where the practice of "divorce", holding grudges against a brother, adultery, etc., was concerned.
God placed me in a world, not unlike Paul's time, where religious scholars from various religious sects and businesses who, like the Pharisees, "Profess to know God", but in "works" they deny Him living in disobedience to Him, promote their own particular religious sect. These religions, like the religious sect of the Pharisees, promote doctrines and traditions and judgments of men, and not God. And those who have adopted these differing philosophies, are as zealous for them in many cases as Saul was, before his heavenly vision.
These religions call themselves "Christians". It seems though, as Paul taught, that if a "Jew", AKA, a "Child of Abraham" is one of the heart, not the Flesh (DNA). And the Christ "of the Bible" confirmed this in John 8 when HE said to the Jews, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham." Then according to Scriptures, it is the same way for a "Christian". A "Christian" is one from the heart, not because he goes to some manmade shrine of worship or has a WWJD bumper sticker on their car. But because, as it is written; 1 Jn. 2: (NASB) 6 the one who "says" he abides in Him ought himself "to walk" in the same manner as He walked.
The reason why I posted Matt. 5 verse, is because "MANY", who call Jesus Lord, Lord in the world God placed me in, promote the philosophy that He was correcting the Word of God, or teaching differently than the Law and Prophets where these different topics were concerned, including divorce. They imply that the "Them of old time" in this case, was God and Moses. They use this chapter to promote their religions which have rejected God's Judgments and created their own. Rejected the "Feasts of the Lord" and have created their own high days in worship of an image of God they created in the likeness of men. They have rejected God's definition of Love, Holy, Clean, and Righteousness, and have gone about establishing their own definitions of Love, Holy, Clean, and Righteousness, in the same way the Jews did. But the Christ wasn't exposing God and Moses, HE was exposing the prophets of old time who, as Jeremiah teaches "they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the LORD."
The Jeshua of the Bible didn't walk like this, and those examples of men that were "in Him", didn't "walk" like this either.
It seems prudent to point out that the Christ "of the Bible" didn't warn about Jews, Atheists, Islam, Buddhists or the Law and Prophets etc., when asked about the future by His Disciples, He warned them about "Christians".
Matt. 24: 4 And Jesus answered and said to them, "See to it that no one misleads you. 5 "For "many" will come "in My name", saying, 'I (Jesus) am the Christ,' and will mislead many.
You can see this in the debates concerning "Calvinism". Those who promote this specific religious philosophy "come in Christ's Name", they all preach that Jesus is truly the Christ, the Prophesied Messiah, and they have converted "many" to their "tulip" philosophy which I believe the Scriptures as a whole show is not wrought in God.
This can be shown, in my view, from most any translation available to us today, even the New Age Translations. It seems prudent to point these things out.
Sorry so long, and thanks for your informative and thoughtful reply.
There are "many" who come in Christ's Name, who call Him, Lord, Lord, that promote the religious philosophy you are promoting. That the "Way of the Lord" that Jesus walked in, was a horrible life, dark and impossible to "walk in". That His Father placed a Yoke of Bondage, Beggarly Elements and Rudiments of this World on the Necks of any man who would Love Him, Trust Him and "Yield themselves" servants to obey Him.
While popular, and a great marketing strategy for this world's religious businesses, the Scriptures do not support this philosophy. Not the KJV and not the NASB. We are warned about these worldly religions throughout the entire Bible.
Jer. 23:16 (NASB) Thus says the LORD of hosts, "Do not listen to the words of the prophets who are prophesying to you. They are leading you into futility; They speak a vision of their own imagination, Not from the mouth of the LORD . 17 "They keep saying to those who despise Me, 'The LORD has said, "You will have peace "'; And as for everyone who walks in the stubbornness of his own heart, They say, 'Calamity will not come upon you.'
Jer. 23: 16 (KJV) Thus saith the LORD of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the LORD.
17 They say still unto them that despise me, The LORD hath said, Ye shall have peace; and they say unto every one that walketh after the imagination of his own heart, No evil shall come upon you.
You preach the KJV is the dark translation, and yet the NASB warns of the same things. Perhaps the issue isn't with the translations at all, but with one's respect and honor for the God who Inspired them.
David Koberstein
Active member
Yirmeyahu 23:16 CJB
Adonai - Tzva'ot says:
Don't listen to the words of the prophets who are prophesying to you.
They are making you act foolishly, telling you visions from their own minds and not from
the mouth of Adonai
Shalom
Last edited:
Similar threads
