this is a post I submitted in 2006 on another blog. (blogstream.com)

New King James Bible or New Age King James Bible?

I have written many times about the perversions of scripture in the modern bibles and have given many examples from most of the popular new perversions in print, including the one I think is the most deceptive of them all, the New King James Bible. However, I still have people ask me, but what about the New King James. Isn’t it a King James Bible from the same Majority text manuscripts that the original King James is taken from?

For those that are trying to use the same majority text manuscript argument, to justify the New King James Bible, you must realize that is not the issue. Nor is the same majority text manuscript a legitimate reason to embrace this scripture altered perversion of the ‘Holy Bible’. We need only to point out how the original King James scriptures have been altered and changed.

If we fall into the enemy’s trap of debating over what word in the English should have been used for the Greek in the majority text manuscripts, the enemy can keep this debate going forever. It is common knowledge that no two scholars can even agree on what word in the English should or should not have been used. The many varied readings in modern bible versions attest to this fact. Therefore, which scholars rendering are you going to go with.

The modern versions have no foundation to stand on as they all disagree in scripture rendering, so who is the final authority to say which bible is right, if we reject the KJB 1611-1769 as the true Holy Bible? Well according to one well-known worldwide ministry ‘The Kenneth Copeland’s’, “we are”. That is right; they claim we have to find the one we like, get hold of a Greek lexicon and look up words for our self. I can only imagine that they view the choice of a Bible as if you were at a smorgasbord, it is all good just pick what you like and eat it. Don’t you know the sly old Devil is just partying over this revelation from the Copeland’s.

Before the modern bible versions gained a foothold in the Churches, the average Christian could spend their studying and reading the Holy Bible and allow the Holy Spirit to Give the proper understanding. However, now Christians are regularly being told in many ways that the 400 year old AV KJB 1611-1769 is just to hard read and understand, the language is to out dated for the modern mind to understand, the are grave errors in it , it is not an accurate translation, and it needs to be updated.

This leaves the new and old Christian, whom have bought into this KJB doubt, with the dilemma of first trying to fetter out which Bible should I study, whom do I listen for insight into which Bible. Once the arduous task of selecting a Bible Version to read is done, the Christian is then further prompted to go another step. He or She is advised, more often than not, to get hold of a Greek and Hebrew Lexicon and look up the words in that bible to see what they literally mean and if they can agree with it; just one more log of doubt thrown into the fire of Bible propriety.

A doubt producing procedure at best, even for the personal modern bible version the person has selected. The modern Christian is taken from doubting the time tested 400-year-old English King James edition of the Holy Bible into even doubting the supposed more accurate and easier to read modern version perverted Bible. Who wins in this game of ‘bible version bible version who has the real one, will the real bible please stand up’.

There are two winners in this insidious game; the first is the Devil, Satan himself. Satan has said once again as he did in the garden of Eden, “Hath God said”, that is not really what God meant to say in the King James Bible, for he surely knows most Christians will not be wise to his devices.…

The second winner is the writers and publishers, whom are making millions of dollars, promoting and selling their exclusive copyrighted perverted bibles to unsuspecting Christians under the guise of readability and accuracy.

Here is the actual quote from an e-mail I received from the Copeland’s in request of what they considered was the right Bible. I e-mailed them after hearing Gloria Copeland make this statement on TBN during one of her sermons. “This is what the Amplified Bible says, I then go to KJB and there it is, they all say about the same thing (hath God said). Gloria Copeland must hold to the doctrine that just about, is good enough, when it comes to what God has said in his word.

“They all say about the same thing” (hath God said); who do you think would embrace that statement, a Holy God or the Deceiver Satan himself? I believe a six year old could answer that one right.

This is an excerpt from the Copeland team reply to my request on which Bible did they think was right, the full reply is posted on my other blog along with my reply back to them, it is quite and eye opener. I will post if anyone would like to read it

`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````
Dear Clyde,

Greetings in the wonderful Name of Jesus.

You asked for insight into what Brother Copeland thinks about different translations and the "King James Version" of the Bible. Clyde, the truth is that no one translation is perfect. There will always be shortcomings since man is involved in the translations and revisions from original manuscripts. Therefore, no matter which translation you use, you must personally be satisfied with it. …….
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````
As you can see, they hold to the Doctrine that you are the final authority as to what is Gods’ word. Sadly, the best that the Copeland’s had to offer is that we can never be sure if we have what God said, printed in English, if you think it is right it is, if you think it is wrong it is wrong. How is that not making us the arbitrator of what is or is not God’s word?

The 1611-1769 AV KJB should not be accredited to the King James translators alone. They merely carried on what the six editions of the Holy Bible had already started, and produced a more pure edition, not a revision or a “Quote” version of the Holy Bible, it is the Holy Bible . I have refrained from referring to the KJB 1611-1769 as version that is an insult to a Holy God who promised to preserve his word for all generations. The same Holy Bible that William Tyndale and the others had their lives taken for having the boldness to go against overwhelming opposition of the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church burned William Tyndale at the stake for the heinous crime of writing the New Testament in the English language from the original Greek text. The KJB 1611-1769 is merely an edition of the six editions that came before, starting with William Tyndale and ending in the KJB 1769 edition we have in print today.

If you doubt that, the New King James is a new age Bible, look at the Triquetra Symbol on the front of the hard cover New King James Bible. With a little research, you will find that this symbol is heavily tied to the New Age Movement, Paganism, and Satanism. It adorns many of the New Age books, Satanic alter covers, pagan jewelry, Satan rock group logos and more

the New King James text itself often uses the term ‘new age’ or ‘age’ in scripture where the AV 1611 KJB uses the word ‘world’, The following is an example:

Hebrews 9:26 (New King James Version) 26. He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
Hebrews 9:26 (KJB)
For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Notice now they set the tone in terminology to accommodate the new age advocates. The New Agers are looking for a new age to come. True KJB Bible believers are looking for a new world to come, as the old world will be renewed in the end, this constitutes a big difference in beliefs, the first being Pagan New Agers, the second being Jesus Christ believing Christians.

If you still doubt that the New King James is a Paganistic New Age Bible, just watch who does and does not object to it. You can rest assured the Roman Catholic Church will never object to this Perverted New Age Bible. The New King James Bible is perverted; however, the writers have tried to hide this fact by changing this scripture:
2 Corinthians 2:17 (New King James Version:
17 For we are not, as so many,[a] peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ.
This is what the Holy Bible KJB has to say:
2 Corinthians 2:17 (King James Bible)
17For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
The New King James writers have cleverly covered the fact that they have corrupted the word, by removing the evidence.

One point most have missed concerning this word change in the New King James, as I also did, until it was pointed out to me, is this. The New King James in changing corrupt to peddling has given the meaning that some people during that time were selling the word of God. Which is a falsehood; there were no Bible publishers during that time.

The Bible in the form we have today did not exist. The New Testament existed only in circulated letters to the Churches and was being lived at the time; the Old Testament was in the control of the Jewish Rabbis. To produce a copy of the Old Testament was a laborious task, which had to be done by hand, painstakingly by the Jewish scribes.

In order to make sure the copy they were making was error free, they not only read the copy, but also every mark on the copy was counted against the original they were copying. If the count was off by just one number, the copy was discarded, destroyed and they started over again. Yet modern Christians are willing to accept any thing a publisher calls a Bible, no mater how many alterations from the original it contains.

New Age Bible? The New King James Bible fits the mold.
In the service of Jesus Christ, Clyde

[bibleprotector]

You have pointed out that Copeland does not think that the King James Bible is perfect, but what about all the other leaders of congregations and so on, who reject the King James Bible outright (and what about all those Baptist anti-KJB authors!)

Also, I think that almost no King James Bible person is using the "1769 Edition" today.
- two editions were printed by Oxford that year, both slightly differing.
- in 1806 the Eyre and Strahan reported that 116 errata had existed in the "1769 Edition".
- in 1817 D'Oyly and Mant edited the "1769 Edition" at Oxford, making further slight changes, such as changing Joshua 19:2 which had "Beer-sheba, Sheba" to "Beer-sheba, and Sheba".
- in 1833 or so, Cambridge began to print the "1769 Edition" as adopted from Oxford, with spelling changes like "axe" for "ax".
- the Oxford Editions now differ to those of Queen Victoria's time in a few places, such as "soap" for "sope".
- the Pure Cambridge Edition made almost fifty small purification changes around the year 1900, which is the final edition of the KJB now.
- in recent years, other Cambridge editions have appeared with slight differences and changes.
- other companies publish King James Bibles, and in recent years, some have Americanised the spelling, etc.

Therefore, while most King James Bibles today are based upon the 1769 Edition, they are not actually using the "1769 Edition". I can show you that the line of KJB editions does not end with the 1769 Edition, but with the Pure Cambridge Edition, which is the final presentation form of the King James Bible, and fully and exactly correct.

The New King James Version pretends to be the next great edition of the King James Bible, but that is a lie, because they are saying that there are always going to be more editions, and they have changed away from the very foundations, and have not kept to the tradition or proper lineage at all.

I agree and am well aware there are many more that hold that view of the KJB. I am not quite sure what you mean though by the comment, “what about the others”. I have posted this particular case as it is one that I experienced in a reply and I was amazed at the response that came back to me. My purpose was to show those who are not aware of how faulty the thinking of this ministry is and how the KJB is often used first but then superseded by a modern version, this ministry is favored by many people I know. I am a former Baptist, however, only in my teen years. I am not in that circle to know where most of them stand, and I am not really concerned where they stand. I am just trying to do my part to wake up those that do not know how the modern versions are perverted.

I suppose there will always be printing errors in editions; however, I would think that you and I would agree that historical accounts and bible doctrine have remained unchanged in the KJB whether it is a 1769 or 1900 edition. The changes you have documented are not doctrinal or historical changes in nature. I would never debate whether the 1769 or 1900 is the perfection of the KJB 1611. I do hold that the entire lineage is unchanged in the two areas, as we know God has promised to preserve his word and I believe he has kept that promise as I am sure you do too.

In the service of Jesus Christ, Clyde

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

You have pointed out that Copeland does not think that the King James Bible is perfect, but what about all the other leaders of congregations and so on, who reject the King James Bible outright (and what about all those Baptist anti-KJB authors!)

Also, I think that almost no King James Bible person is using the "1769 Edition" today.
- two editions were printed by Oxford that year, both slightly differing.
- in 1806 the Eyre and Strahan reported that 116 errata had existed in the "1769 Edition".
- in 1817 D'Oyly and Mant edited the "1769 Edition" at Oxford, making further slight changes, such as changing Joshua 19:2 which had "Beer-sheba, Sheba" to "Beer-sheba, and Sheba".
- in 1833 or so, Cambridge began to print the "1769 Edition" as adopted from Oxford, with spelling changes like "axe" for "ax".
- the Oxford Editions now differ to those of Queen Victoria's time in a few places, such as "soap" for "sope".
- the Pure Cambridge Edition made almost fifty small purification changes around the year 1900, which is the final edition of the KJB now.
- in recent years, other Cambridge editions have appeared with slight differences and changes.
- other companies publish King James Bibles, and in recent years, some have Americanised the spelling, etc.

Therefore, while most King James Bibles today are based upon the 1769 Edition, they are not actually using the "1769 Edition". I can show you that the line of KJB editions does not end with the 1769 Edition, but with the Pure Cambridge Edition, which is the final presentation form of the King James Bible, and fully and exactly correct.

The New King James Version pretends to be the next great edition of the King James Bible, but that is a lie, because they are saying that there are always going to be more editions, and they have changed away from the very foundations, and have not kept to the tradition or proper lineage at all.

I agree and are well aware there are many more that hold that view of the KJB. I am not sure what you mean though by what about the others. I have posted this particular case as it is one that I experienced in a reply and I was amazed at the response that came back to me. My purpose was to show those who are not aware of how faulty the thinking of this ministry is and how the KJB is often used first but then supersede by a modern version, this ministry is favored by many people I know. I am an former baptist however only in my teen years, and I am not in that circle to know where most of them stand, and I am not really concerned where they stand. I am just trying to do my part to wake up those that do not know how the modern version are perverted.
I suppose there will always be printing errors in editions, however, I would think that you and I could agree that the historical accounts and Bible doctrine has remained unchanged in the KJB whether it is a 1769 or 1900 edition. The changes you have documented ae not doctrinal or historical changes in nature. I would never debate whether the 1769 or 1900 is the perfection of the KJB.

[bibleprotector]

Well, bless you Clyde for being a zealous young man. I was mentioning the Copeland thing because most Baptists do not like Copeland, and it seemed like you were mentioning him specifically without mentioning all the other people who hold the same or worse view of the Bible than that which Copeland does. At least Copeland has for many years used the KJB, unlike others.

The 1769 Edition issue is not just printing errors, of which most printings may suffer from. While the text and translation have not changed since 1611, or 1769, the issue is to do with where meanings of words can be potentially altered by perpetuated errors or spelling differences. Take for example, "clifts" or "cliffs" at Job 30:6, "fleeth" or "flieth" at Nahum 3:16, and "spirit" or "Spirit" at Matthew 4:1. They all affect meaning, and the last one I mention here DOES affect doctrine (probably everyone would accept that it is supposed to be "Spirit"). But the real problem comes in where there are changes now, for example, in "spirit" being turned to "Spirit" at Acts 11:28 and such. This is a wrong change that has occurred after 1769 (and against the Pure Cambridge Edition from circa 1900).

Bibleprotector, thanks for interest in my post, and validating the problems with the NKJB, as I said that is one of my main purposes for this post. I have no interest in combating a fellow 1611-1769 KJB defender on the issues you have outlined , lord knows we need unity on our side and should be focusing our guns on and debating the other side on this issue, they are the adversaries in this battle, not you and I..

Thanks for the young man comment, although it came across a bit condescending to me, you have subtly elevated yourself to a older more astute soldier in this battle, and you may well be but you do not know that for sure and it appeared a little self serving, (just an observation ). I left the young man status years ago. I may be wrong but it seems you have assumed that I am a young Baptist believer. Your “most Baptist” comment hinted that you think that I am indeed a Baptist. I am not sure what in my post gave that impression, but I sure would be interested to find out so I do not make that mistake again. Not that I think that it is somehow a bad thing to belong to Baptist Church. But I have read many post reply where people assume something with no evidence to support it.

You appear to agree that the text has not changed from 1611 to 1769 as I do accept for spellings taken on a greater uniformity, instead of each scholar spelling a word their own way as in sonne in Matthew of the 1661 to son in the 1769, no confusing as to the meaning of that word. Have you assumed that I am not aware that some publishers have indeed altered some words and still claim is in keeping with the 1611 text? I as you know that is a problem. Your examples of changes are a might weak in affecting doctrine, accept for the spirit or Spirit, the later being a reference to the Holy Spirit and not mans spirit. The ‘clifts or ‘cliffs’ example has no doctrine changing affect, as neither does the ‘fleeth’ to ‘flieth’. The Spirit example you cite is well taken , however as you said it occurred after the 1769 edition, you said it against the 1990 edition from Cambridge, however, it is also against the 1611and the 1769 KJB, which is in line with my position. Which takes me back to what I said that the 1611-1769 KJB has not changed any doctrine or historical accounts? If you have evidence to the contrary I sure would be grateful to see it so that I can be correct in my defense of the KJB .

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Well, bless you Clyde for being a zealous young man. I was mentioning the Copeland thing because most Baptists do not like Copeland, and it seemed like you were mentioning him specifically without mentioning all the other people who hold the same or worse view of the Bible than that which Copeland does. At least Copeland has for many years used the KJB, unlike others.

The 1769 Edition issue is not just printing errors, of which most printings may suffer from. While the text and translation have not changed since 1611, or 1769, the issue is to do with where meanings of words can be potentially altered by perpetuated errors or spelling differences. Take for example, "clifts" or "cliffs" at Job 30:6, "fleeth" or "flieth" at Nahum 3:16, and "spirit" or "Spirit" at Matthew 4:1. They all affect meaning, and the last one I mention here DOES affect doctrine (probably everyone would accept that it is supposed to be "Spirit"). But the real problem comes in where there are changes now, for example, in "spirit" being turned to "Spirit" at Acts 11:28 and such. This is a wrong change that has occurred after 1769 (and against the Pure Cambridge Edition from circa 1900).

[bibleprotector]

There are differences between "spirit" and "Spirit" in various places throughout the King James Bible throughout its history from 1611 to 1769. However, it is obvious that the changes which have occurred more recently are of the wrong nature. By this I mean the changes of "spirit" to "Spirit" in Acts 11:12, 11:28 and 1 John 5:8. These changes have been made against the 1769 tradition, and for the wrong reasons.

This specific issue concerning the three verses I mention does not have anything to do with the 1611 Edition, because we know that the consistent distinction between "Spirit" and "spirit" was not presented throughout the 1611 Edition. The issue has to do with that the 1769 Edition was correct, and that any small problems then have certainly now been resolved. However, it seems like more and more variations are appearing, including erroneous new "King James" versions, etc.

While people might say that doctrine is not affected by any of the differences in the King James Bible from 1611-1769, there is still the problem of potential misreading and miscommunication if a typographical error is allowed to stand. For example, Joshua 19:2 is supposed to read "Beer-sheba, or Sheba", which is both 1611 and Pure Cambridge Edition. But in 1629 to 1769 it was "Beer-sheba, and Sheba", and in 1769 to 1817, "Beer-sheba, Sheba". When you look at verse 6, it says there are thirteen cities, but if it is Beersheba AND Sheba it would have to be fourteen. It that was true, the Word of God would be "errant". But it is a typographical error that came about early on, and that is why there has been a purification of the presentation of the King James Bible, so every word is actually being known and given correctly at every place. That is also why it is inaccurate to say that the textual history of the KJB is limited to 1769, or that people are using the 1769 Edition today.

Not only did the NKJV not take this into account properly, but they repeated for many years the error of "whom he" at Jeremiah 34:16. That is besides all their massive other changes away from the King James Bible while pretending that they are just updating the language. (I say pretending, though they plainly state that they have used a different Greek text to translate from, but that was not emphasised when many people switched over to it back in the 1980s.)

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

- the Pure Cambridge Edition made almost fifty small purification changes around the year 1900, which is the final edition of the KJB now.

So, your pure Cambridge Edition was made in 1900? So why was it OK to change sope to soap in 1900 but is wrong now to change vail to veil or divers to divers in 2008? Sounds like a bunch of silly foolish senile old men's fables and wives fables too. If some men (only God knows who) had the right to change sope to soap in 1900, then I beleive I have the right to change divers to diverse. Of course, unlike them, I wouldn't pawn off my edited up text as being the KJV 1611!!! I would give it a new name and perhaps some notes on what was changed. I bought an Americanized KJV once, and I was very dissapointed. They changed Elias to Elijah, and Sodoma to Sodom but didn't change musick to music or ancle to ankle or milch camel to milk camel. What kind of ridiculous selective update is that? Nobody ought to have a problem figuring out that Elias is Elijah and that Sodoma (which occurs only in one place) is Sodom. But milch camel might very well trip someone up! Plus they didn't provide an exhaustive list of what they changed. None of these editors ever do. And that is annoying. Even your vaunted pure Cambridge editors probably didn't. But how would I know, since the pure Cambridge doesn't really exist.

[bibleprotector]

What a lot of misinformation.

The "sope"/"soap" thing is a spelling difference in Oxford editions, not anything to do with the Cambridge circa 1900.

Check the Pure Cambridge Edition and other editions for yourself to see this.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

What a lot of misinformation.

The "sope"/"soap" thing is a spelling difference in Oxford editions, not anything to do with the Cambridge circa 1900.

Check the Pure Cambridge Edition and other editions for yourself to see this.

It doesn't matter what spellings the pure Cambridge updated from the previous Cambridge in 1900. The point is that they received no special dispensation orally from God to do it, nor was there a proclamation from heaven "thou canst now change sope to soap. Yea verily, thou canst. Howbeit, after thou changest this, no more changes mayest be made, nay, not so much as since for sith!" That's the point, Biblecorrector.

[bibleprotector]

No answer required.