• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

If Jesus Preached in Your Church, Which Bible Would He Use?

A man named Erasmus, a brilliant scholar
As a 7th Day Adventist, you should be aware that Erasmus was a brilliant Roman Catholic Scholar since foundational teaching of the SDA Church includes extensive indoctrination on how corrupt the RCC is.

It's also of note that the websites you provide do not include any identification of their connection to the 7th Day Adventist church which claims to be the only true church in existence today. (as does it's spin-off sister organization, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Jehovah's Witnesses) The sites you reference don't even provide the names of the people who wrote the material!
One wonders why they are hiding who they are.
 
Those translations are bogus plain and simple..use them if you like but in doing so you agree with the translator..
 
Yes, my early years of reading the KJV made studying Shakespeare much easier.
But to this day I still have a copy of the New Jerusalem Bible...
It has some awesome notes in it. I'm not exactly sure the sourcing of them but I haven't found anything horrible about them yet.
I use the Orthodox Study Bible which translates the LXX into English for the OT and used the NKJV for the NT.
It also has extensive and good notes.
BUT
Remember that the notes contain the perspective of the editors.
So, if you have a Scofield Bible, the notes will support Dispensationalism.
And if you have an Orthodox Study Bible, they will support Eastern Orthodoxy.
 
The NKJV: A Deadly Translation

By Pastor James L. Melton

We will now give some special attention to one of the deadliest translations on the market--the New King James Version, first published in 1979. It is a deadly version because it's editors have succeeded in deceiving the body of Christ on two main points: (1) That it's a King James Bible (which is a lie), and (2) that it's based on the Textus Receptus (which is only a partial truth). The following information should be helpful when dealing with Christians who have been swindled by the Laodicean lovers of filthy lucre:

1. The text of the NKJV is copyrighted by Thomas Nelson Publishers, while there is no copyright today on the text of the KJV. If your KJV has maps or notes, then it may have a copyright, but the text itself does not.

2. There's nothing "new" about the NKJV logo. It is a "666" symbol of the pagan trinity which was used in the ancient Egyptian mysteries. It was also used by Satanist Aleister Crowley around the turn of this century. The symbol can be seen on the New King James Bible, on certain rock albums (like Led Zeppelin's), or you can see it on the cover of such New Age books as The Aquarian Conspiracy. (See Riplinger's tract on the NKJV.)

3. It is estimated that the NKJV makes over 100,000 translation changes, which comes to over eighty changes per page and about three changes per verse! A great number of these changes bring the NKJV in line with the readings of such Alexandrian perversions as the NIV and the RSV. Where changes are not made in the text, subtle footnotes often give credence to the Westcott and Hort Greek Text.

4. While passing off as being true to the Textus Receptus, the NKJV IGNORES the Receptus over 1,200 times.

5. In the NKJV, there are 22 omissions of "hell", 23 omissions of "blood", 44 omissions of "repent", 50 omissions of "heaven", 51 omissions of "God", and 66 omissions of "Lord". The terms "devils", "damnation", "JEHOVAH", and "new testament" are completely omitted.

6. The NKJV demotes the Lord Jesus Christ. In John 1:3, the KJV says that all things were made "by" Jesus Christ, but in the NKJV, all things were just made "through" Him. The word "Servant" replaces "Son" in Acts 3:13 and 3:26. "Servant" replaces "child" in Acts 4:27 and 4:30. The word "Jesus" is omitted from Mark 2:15, Hebrews 4:8, and Acts 7:45.

7. The NKJV confuses people about salvation. In Hebrews 10:14 it replaces "are sanctified" with "are being sanctified", and it replaces "are saved" with "are being saved" in I Corinthians 1:18 and II Corinthians 2:15. The words "may believe" have been replaced with "may continue to believe" in I John 5:13. The old straight and "narrow" way of Matthew 7:14 has become the "difficult" way in the NKJV.

8. In II Corinthians 10:5 the KJV reads "casting down imaginations", but the NKJV reads "casting down arguments". The word "thought", which occurs later in the verse, matches "imaginations", not "arguments". This change weakens the verse.

9. The KJV tells us to reject a "heretick" after the second admonition in Titus 3:10. The NKJV tells us to reject a "divisive man". How nice! Now the Alexandrians and Ecumenicals have justification for rejecting anyone they wish to label as "divisive men".

10. According to the NKJV, no one would stoop so low as to "corrupt" God's word. No, they just "peddle" it (II Cor. 2:17). The reading matches the Alexandrian versions.

11. Since the NKJV has "changed the truth of God into a lie", it has also changed Romans 1:25 to read "exchanged the truth of God for the lie". This reading matches the readings of the new perversions, so how say ye it's a King James Bible?

12. The NKJV gives us no command to "study" God's word in II Timothy 2:15.

13. The word "science" is replaced with "knowledge" in I Timothy 6:20, although "science" has occurred in every edition of the KJV since 1611! How say ye it's a King James Bible?

14. The Jews "require" a sign, according to I Corinthians 1:22 (and according to Jesus Christ - John 4:48), but the NKJV says they only "request" a sign. They didn't "request" one when signs first appeared in Exodus 4, and there are numerous places throughout the Bible where God gives Israel signs when they haven't requested anything (Exo. 4, Exo. 31:13, Num. 26:10, I Sam. 2:34, Isa. 7:10-14, Luke 2:12, etc). They "require" a sign, because signs are a part of their national heritage.

15. The King James reading in II Corinthians 5:17 says that if any man is in Christ he is a new "creature", which matches the words of Christ in Mark 16:15. The cross reference is destroyed in the NKJV, which uses the word "creation."

16. As a final note, we'd like to point out how the NKJV is very inconsistent in it's attempt to update the language of the KJV. The preface to the NKJV states that previous "revisions" of the KJV have "sought to keep abreast of changes in English speech", and also that they too are taking a "further step toward this objective". However, when taking a closer look at the language of the NKJV, we find that oftentimes they are stepping BACKWARDS! Please note a few examples of how well the NKJV has "kept abreast of the changes in the English language":

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/New King James Bible/nkjv-deadly.htm
 
Those translations are bogus plain and simple..use them if you like but in doing so you agree with the translator..
How would you possible know what is "bogus" and what is not?
Are you expert in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek? No, you are not.
On what do you base your opinion that they are "bogus"? Answer: on what the 7th Day Adventist church teaches you.

Edited for content
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The sda,btw don't believe in hell.they believed that the eg white idea of a return in the 1800s.
 
The sda,btw don't believe in hell.they believed that the eg white idea of a return in the 1800s.
I've had the opportunity to be thoroughly exposed to the teaching of the SDA church by means of extended discussions with a devout member of that organization.

It was ............... enlightening.

iakov the fool
 
I've had the opportunity to be thoroughly exposed to the teaching of the SDA church by means of extended discussions with a devout member of that organization.

It was ............... enlightening.

iakov the fool
Oh they are out there.we have had them on the forum.
 
Christmas, Santa being the worse thing .lol
I don't know any christian who worships Christmas decorations or santa
 
Now speaking of the 1711 KJV that King James actually commissioned and not the most recent one...

I happen to like the introduction or preface to it where the translators said their whole reason for doing this work was for ease of reading.

Now since the last of the three different KJV had taken place over 75 years after the first one and this new generation of translators had practically just finished the third when even more better manuscripts had been discovered they once again took to creating another translation. The RSV...maybe it was the ASV. I'm forgetting now. There were literally dozens of translations coming out at that time as well as versions of those translations...(some with Apocrypha and some without)

Oh the printing press...

My favorite was the wicked Bible which forgot the word "not" in the 8th Commandment. "Thou shalt commit adultery. "
 
Now speaking of the 1711 KJV that King James actually commissioned and not the most recent one...
OOOPS! Typo. That's 1611. And it included the Apocrypha. (Just like the Textus Receptus.)

(QUOTE]I happen to like the introduction or preface to it where the translators said their whole reason for doing this work was for ease of reading. [/QUOTE]
Right. It was the 1611 NIV.

Now since the last of the three different KJV had taken place over 75 years after the first one and this new generation of translators had practically just finished the third when even more better manuscripts had been discovered they once again took to creating another translation. The RSV...maybe it was the ASV. I'm forgetting now. There were literally dozens of translations coming out at that time as well as versions of those translations...(some with Apocrypha and some without)

Oh the printing press...

My favorite was the wicked Bible which forgot the word "not" in the 8th Commandment. "Thou shalt commit adultery. "
:oops :coffee :nonono
 
Now speaking of the 1711 KJV that King James actually commissioned and not the most recent one...

I happen to like the introduction or preface to it where the translators said their whole reason for doing this work was for ease of reading.

Now since the last of the three different KJV had taken place over 75 years after the first one and this new generation of translators had practically just finished the third when even more better manuscripts had been discovered they once again took to creating another translation. The RSV...maybe it was the ASV. I'm forgetting now. There were literally dozens of translations coming out at that time as well as versions of those translations...(some with Apocrypha and some without)

Oh the printing press...

My favorite was the wicked Bible which forgot the word "not" in the 8th Commandment. "Thou shalt commit adultery. "
That version is wjcv or the William Jefferson Clinton Version. 1st edition, it now has a Hillary commentary.Romans one was changed
 
OOOPS! Typo. That's 1611. And it included the Apocrypha. (Just like the Textus Receptus.)

(QUOTE]I happen to like the introduction or preface to it where the translators said their whole reason for doing this work was for ease of reading.
Right. It was the 1611 NIV.


:oops :coffee :nonono[/QUOTE]
Yep, I stand happily corrected.
 
That version says thou mayest lie,but not under oath.
 
I thought that they were having trouble with finishing it too....something about the definition of "is".
Lol.what is is? Lol.you had to mention the omission of not
 
Back
Top