jeffersonbibles02I received the following comments:

You made mention of the fact that you preferred the New King James version over the KJV. I would like to take the time to point out a few things the sister Replinger has shown me:

The NKJV Omits Key Christian Words     
               Times Omitted

               “Lord” 66 times
               “God” 51 times
               “heaven” 50 times
               “repent” 44 times
               “blood” 23 times
               “hell” 22 times
               “JEHOVAN” entirely
               “new testament” entirely
               “damnation” entirely
               “devils” entirely

Also, the NKJV ingnored the KJV Greek Textus Receptus over 1,200 times.

The NKJV replaced the trustworthy KJV Hebrew Old Testament (ben Chayyim Masoretic Text) with corrup Biblia Hebraica frp, Stittgart (ben Asher).

I would also point out how the NKJV demotes Jesus Christ:

               NKJV                               KJV
               ——–                         ——-
         Luke 13:8          Sir                Lord

        Matt. 18:26   
         before him,         
   and worshipped him,
           
   saying, Master                             saying, Lord

       Matt. 20:20   
    kneeling down                            worshipping him

       Matt. 26:64   
    right hand of       
       the power                           right hand of power

       Gen. 22:8   
       God will provide
       himself a lamb                      God will provide
                                                                for himself the  
                                                                              lamb

        John 8:35   
          a son                                  the Son

I could go on and on, however I think you should take the time to read Gail Replinger’s New Age Bible Versions, Which Bible Is God’s Word, and The Language of the King James Bible. available through A.V. Publications Corp.Tel./Fax: (540) 251-1734, or visit http://www.avpublications.com

I’m sure you took notice the NKJV’s logo is the ancient symbol for the pagan trinity, not the Christian Trinity.  Use of number symbols (like this 666) can be traced back to Pythagoras (582 BC.), initiate into the Egyptian mysteries.  The symbol was popularized again by satanist Aleister Crowley (circa 1900) for the Royal Arch (Lucifer) of the 3rd Degree of the York Order of Masonry.

I hope I’ve giving you enough to prick that sharp mind of yours to investigate into Sister Replinger’s work. You will find it very rewarding, I’m sure.

With you in Christ Jesus

Lord may be “omitted” 66 times, but this is rather misleading. The word “Lord” occurs many times in the Scriptures, over 7,900. That would mean that this difference is less than 1%. I think we would need to study a little bit closer than simply “times omitted” in order to see if this is really a mark against the New King James Version.

Again, the word “God” occurs over 4,400 times. This difference does not seem all that significant to me, though this time it is slightly over 1%.

Heaven does occur less in the New King James.

Another important word, the word “redemption,” however, is omitted 3 times from the King James Version, when the New King James has it.

The word “repent” does not occur all that many times in the King James Version, so this is quite a claim! Let us follow this out and see how accurate a claim it is. First, let’s look at all the references.

First verse, Genesis 6:6, New King James has “was sorry.” So that’s one for Riplinger’s claim that 44 references are “omitted.”

Genesis 6:7. Translated “am sorry” in the New King James. That’s a second one for Sister Riplinger’s claim.

Exodus 13:17, New King James has “change their minds” rather than “repent.” So that’s a third one for Riplinger.

Exodus 32:12. New King James has “relent.” So number four for Riplinger.

Exodus 32:14. New King James has “relent.” So score five for Sister Riplinger.

Numbers 23:19. Translated “repent” in both. That’s one for the New King James opposite of Sister Riplinger’s claim.

Deuteronomy 32:36. New King James has “have compassion.” So six for Sister Riplinger.

Judges 2:18. New King James has “moved to pity.” So that’s seven for Sister Riplinger.

Judges 21:6. New King James has “grieved.” So that’s eight for Sister Riplinger.

Judges 21:15. New King James has “grieved.” So that’s nine for Sister Riplinger.

I Samuel 15:11. Translated “regret” in the New King James. Ten for Sister Riplinger.

I Samuel 15:29. New King James has “relent” twice. So score eleven and twelve for Sister Riplinger.

I Samuel 15:35. New King James has “regretted.” So that’s thirteen for Sister Riplinger.

II Samuel 24:16. New King James has “relented.” So that’s fourteen for Sister Riplinger.

I Kings 8:47. Translated “repent” in both. That is now two against Sister Riplinger’s claims.

I Chronicles 21:15. New King James has “relented.” So that’s fifteen for Sister Riplinger.

II Chronicles 6:37. Translated “repent” in the New King James, but “turn” in the King James Version! Did the New King James translator care more about “Key Christian Words” than the King James translator did in this case?

Job 42:6. Translated “repent” in both. So now that’s three against Sister Riplinger’s claim.

Psalm 90:13. Translated “have compassion” in the New King James. So that’s sixteen in favor of Sister Riplinger’s claim.

Psalm 106:45. Translated “relented” in the New King James, so seventeen for Sister Riplinger.

Psalm 110:4. Translated “relent” in the New King James, so eighteen for Sister Riplinger.

Psalm 135:14. Translated “have compassion” in the New King James, so nineteen for Sister Riplinger.

Jeremiah 4:28. Translated “relent” in the New King James. So that’s twenty for Sister Riplinger.

Jeremiah 8:6. Translated “repented” in both, so that’s four against Sister Riplinger.

Jeremiah 15:6. Translated “repenting” in the New King James. Twenty-one for Sister Riplinger.

Jeremiah 18:8. Translated “relent” in the New King James. Twenty-two for Sister Riplinger.

Jeremiah 18:10. Translated “relent” in the New King James. Twenty-three for Sister Riplinger.

Jeremiah 20:16. Translated “did relent” in the New King James. Twenty-four for Sister Riplinger.

Jeremiah 25:5. Translated “repent” in the New King James, but “turn” in the King James. So score two for the New King James translator caring more about “Key Christian Words” than the King James translator did.

Jeremiah 26:3. Translated “relent” in the New King James. Twenty-five for Sister Riplinger.

Jeremiah 26:13. Translated “relent” in the New King James. Twenty-six for Sister Riplinger.

Jeremiah 26:19. Translated “relented” in the New King James. Twenty-seven for Sister Riplinger.

Jeremiah 31:19. Translated “repented” in both. So that’s five against Sister Riplinger.

Jeremiah 42:10. Translated “relent” in the New King James. Twenty-eight for Sister Riplinger.

Ezekiel 14:6. Translated “repent” in both. So that’s six against Sister Riplinger.

Ezekiel 18:30. Translated “repent” in both. So that’s seven against Sister Riplinger.

Ezekiel 24:14. Translated “relent” in the New King James. Twenty-nine for Sister Riplinger.

Hosea 11:5. Translated “repent” in the New King James, but “return” in the King James. So that’s three times the New King James translators cared more about “Key Christian Words” than the King James translators did.

Hosea 11:8. Translated “sympathy” in the New King James. Thirty for Sister Riplinger.

Joel 2:13. Translated “relents” in the New King James. Thirty-one for Sister Riplinger.

Joel 2:14. Translated “relent” in the New King James. Thirty-two for Sister Riplinger.

Amos 7:3. Translated “relented” in the New King James. Thirty-three for Sister Riplinger.

Amos 7:6. Translated “relented” in the New King James. Thirty-four for Sister Riplinger.

Jonah 3:9. Translated “relent” in the New King James. Thirty-five for Sister Riplinger.

Jonah 3:10. Translated “relented” in the New King James. Thirty-six for Sister Riplinger.

Zechariah 8:14. Translated “relent” in the New King James. Thirty-seven for Sister Riplinger.

Matthew 3:2. Translated “repent” in both. So that’s eight against Sister Riplinger.

Matthew 4:17. Translated “repent” in both. So that’s nine against Sister Riplinger.

Matthew 11:20. Translated “repent” in both. So that’s ten against Sister Riplinger.

Matthew 11:21. Translated “repented” in both. So that’s eleven against Sister Riplinger.

Matthew 12:41. Translated “repented” in both. So that’s twelve against Sister Riplinger.

Matthew 21:29. Translated “regretted” in the New King James. Thirty-eight for Sister Riplinger.

Matthew 21:32. Translated “relent” in the New King James. Thirty-nine for Sister Riplinger.

Matthew 27:3. Translated “was remorseful” in the New King James. Forty for Sister Riplinger.

Mark 1:15. Translated “repent” in both. So that’s thirteen against Sister Riplinger.

Mark 6:12. Translated “repent” in both. So that’s fourteen against Sister Riplinger.

Luke 10:13. Translated “repent” in both. So that’s fifteen against Sister Riplinger.

Luke 11:32. Translated “repent” in both. So that’s sixteen against Sister Riplinger.

Luke 13:3. Translated “repent” in both. So that’s seventeen against Sister Riplinger.

Luke 13:5. Translated “repent” in both. So that’s eighteen against Sister Riplinger.

Luke 15:7. Translated “repent” in both. So that’s nineteen against Sister Riplinger.

Luke 15:10. Translated “repent” in both. So that’s twenty against Sister Riplinger.

Luke 16:30 Translated “repent” in both. So that’s twenty-one against Sister Riplinger.

Luke 17:3. Translated “repent” in both. So that’s twenty-two against Sister Riplinger.

Luke 17:4. Translated “repent” in both. So that’s twenty-three against Sister Riplinger.

Acts 2:38. Translated “repent” in both. So that’s twenty-four against Sister Riplinger.

Acts 3:19. Translated “repent” in both. So that’s twenty-five against Sister Riplinger.

Acts 8:22. Translated “repent” in both. So that’s twenty-six against Sister Riplinger.

Acts 17:30. Translated “repent” in both. So that’s twenty-seven against Sister Riplinger.

Acts 26:20. Translated “repent” in both. So that’s twenty-eight against Sister Riplinger.

II Corinthians 7:8. Translated “regret” twice in the New King James. Forty-one and forty-two for Sister Riplinger.

II Corinthians 7:10. Translated “regretted” in the New King James. Forty-three for Sister Riplinger.

II Corinthians 12:21. Translated “have repented” in both. So that’s twenty-nine against Sister Riplinger.

Hebrews 7:21. Translated “relent” in the New King James. Forty-four for Sister Riplinger.

Revelation 2:5. Translated “repent” twice in both. So that’s thirty against Sister Riplinger.

Revelation 2:16. Translated “repent” in both. So that’s thirty-one against Sister Riplinger.

Revelation 2:21. Translated “repent” in both. So that’s thirty-two against Sister Riplinger.

Revelation 2:22. Translated “repent” in both. So that’s thirty-three against Sister Riplinger.

Revelation 3:3. Translated “repent” in both. So that’s thirty-four against Sister Riplinger.

Revelation 3:19. Translated “repent” in both. So that’s thirty-five against Sister Riplinger.

Revelation 9:20. Translated “repent” in both. So that’s thirty-six against Sister Riplinger.

Revelation 9:21. Translated “repent” in both. So that’s thirty-seven against Sister Riplinger.

Revelation 16:9. Translated “repent” in both. So that’s thirty-eight against Sister Riplinger.

Revelation 16:11. Translated “repent” in both. So that’s thirty-nine against Sister Riplinger.

So my final score is 39 the same, 44 not in New King James, 3 not in King James.

So what Sister Riplinger said is, indeed, correct. But let us look a little bit deeper at what is going on here.

The Old Testament Hebrew word the King James uses for “repent” is “nacham.” It occurs 108 times in the Old Testament. The King James Version, however, has translated it “comfort” 57 times, “repent” 41 times, “comforter” 9 times, and “ease” once. That means that, out of 108 times that the King James Version could have used a “Key Christian” word, they only actually used it 41 times, and they failed to use it 67 times. This is only 40% of the times they could have used “repent,” if they really believed that “nacham” means “repent,” and “repent” is a Key Christian word that must be used as often as possible. Why should the New King James be faulted for not using the word “repent” every time they could have, if the King James did not use the word every time they could have either?

Three times, the King James translates the Hebrew word “shuwb” by “repent” (I Kings 8:47, Ezekiel 14:6, Ezekiel 18:30.) “Shuwb” occurs 1,117 times, and is only rendered by “repent” three times. The New King James joins them in all three. However, the New King James translates “shuwb” by “repent” three more times that the King James does not. That means that the New King James favors “repent” twice as much as the King James does when it comes to the Hebrew word “shuwb.” Should the King James Version be rebuked for not caring about “repent” as much as the New King James does when it comes to the word “shuwb”?

In Hosea 11:8, a word that occurs only three times in the Hebrew Bible, “nichuwm,” is translated as “repentings” in the King James Version. The New King James makes this “sympathy.” In the other two occurrences in Hebrew, the King James makes it “comforts” and “comfortable.” It seems hard to fault the New King James Version here.

One New Testament Greek word the King James uses for “repent” is “metanoeo.” It occurs 34 times in the New Testament, and it is translated “repent” every time in the King James Version. Well, we can’t fault them with not caring about a “Key Christian” word here. Yet the New King James also translates this word by “repent” all 34 times. So it cares equally about this “Key Christian” word as the King James does.

Another New Testament Greek word the King James uses for “repent” is “metamelomai.” It occurs 6 times in the New Testament, and it is translated “repent” every time in the King James Version. Again, we can’t fault them with not caring about a “Key Christian” word here. The New King James never translates “metamelomai” by “repent.” So my question would be this: does this mean that the New King James Version translators did not care about the Key Christian word “repent” in these six cases? Or does this rather indicate that the New King James translators agreed with the King James translators that “metanoeo” means “repent,” but they disagreed with them about whether or not “metamelomai” means “repent”?

So when I examine the facts of the matter, I do not see any great reason to condemn the New King James when it comes to the word “repent.” The only real difference in philosophy between the two of them seems to be regarding whether or not “metamelomai” means “repent.” Other than that, the two use the same strategy for translating regarding the word “repent.” It is just the King James chooses to employ that word a few more times than the New King James does. But they are using the word as a translation of the same Hebrew and Greek words. And neither of them employ it every time they could have.

Blood is omitted 23 times is out of 447 times. This does not seem very significant to me.

Again, hell is very similar to “repent.” Neither version uses the word every time it could have. The biggest difference seems to be that the New King James does not translate “hades” by “hell,” whereas the King James does.

“JEHOVAH” only occurs four times in the King James Version, not at all in the New King James. In Hebrew the word occurs over 6,500 times. The King James translators almost consistently translated the word “Jehovah” by “LORD,” and yet four times they went away from that and transliterated the word to “JEHOVAH.” The New King James, however, was consistent and did not do this. To fault the New King James for this is nothing short of ridiculous.

It is a well-known fact that the word “testament” comes from the Latin “testamentum” from the Latin Vulgate version of the Bible. The proper translation of the word is “covenant,” and the King James Version translators translated it that way in 20 of 33 occurrences. In the other 13 they followed the Latin by making it “testament.” It should be covenant in every occurrence. The King James is in error here.

It is true that “damnation” is not in the NKJV. The more modern word “condemnation” is used in the New King James instead. The whole point of modern translations is to update the language to use more modern words.

The word “devils” is a completely outdated word. The modern word is “demons.” Since the Greek word is “daimon,” the New King James is closer to the original and therefore more accurate anyway.

This statement about how many times the NKJV “ignored” the Textus Receptus is very difficult to confirm or deny, since the NKJV is English and the Textus Receptus is Greek. Since the whole point of the NKJV was to use Greek texts that were much more similar to the Received Text than other modern translations, this seems quite unlikely to me. In my own experience, the New King James seems to go along with the King James most of the time, differing only in the meaning of certain Greek words or the modern word to use as opposed to the language of the seventeenth century, when the King James was published.

I will admit that the different Hebrew text of the Old Testament was new information for me, so I cannot say much about it. What I found in a quick online search is the claim that most of the differences are ones of spelling, with the differences that are actually “translatable” changes numbering only something like nine differences. I cannot say more about it without looking into it more.

As far as “demoting” Jesus Christ, the Greek word “Kurios” is used as the Greek equivalent of both the Hebrew Jehovah, as well as the Hebrew Adonai. The word “Adonai” is used of human “masters” or lords, and the Greek word “Kurios” is also used of human masters or lords. The New King James is making a judgment call in deciding that this vineyard keeper did not believe his master to be Jehovah. I would agree with their decision. Christ was telling a parable, and in the parable the vineyard owner was a human being. Whether or not the parable symbolizes the Lord is irrelevant. Christ never owned a vineyard.

Again, in Matthew 18:26 and 20:20, it seems doubtful that these servants viewed their king to be Jehovah. I don’t view Obama to be Jehovah, I know that.

In Matthew 26:64, the word “the” occurs in Greek. What the Lord meant by this statement is mysterious, and so it is hard to say which way is the better translation.

Regarding Genesisu 22:8, I find it hard to say that this “demotes Jesus Christ,” since what Abraham was referring to was a lamb for the sacrifice they were performing that day. God provided “the lamb” they used that day, and He provided “a lamb” for their sacrifice on that day. To claim the New King James translation is demoting Christ is nothing but a hand-waving argument.

Again, the interpretation of this passage is a matter of opinion. If the “Son” here is Christ, who is the slave?

Okay, since you are insisting on suggesting I read Gail Riplinger’s book, I will offer you the same book exchange I offered your friend, which he never took me up on. If you will be willing to read “I Will Have One Doctrine and One Discipline: The Influence of Religion and Politics on the King James Bible” by a man named Ross Purdy, then I will read a Riplinger book of your choice. Pick any one book you wish by Riplinger, and I will read it if you will agree to read the book I suggested. What do you say? By the way, multiple books collected under one cover is cheating. The book I suggested is fairly short, so I may well be getting the harder end of the deal.

While the exact origin of the triquetra is a mystery, it is claimed by both Christians and pagans today. While it might seem more likely that the symbol had a pagan origin and that Christians appropriated it from them, as they did many other things, it is no more correct to accuse the NKJV of paganism because they use it than it is to accuse the vast majority of Christians out there of paganism because they celebrate Easter or Christmas. Most Christians have no paganism in mind when they celebrate these holidays, whether or not they are unwittingly doing some things that have pagan origins. In the same way, it is hardly fair to accuse the NKJV of being pagan for using a symbol that many Christians have used down through the ages. Whether or not you agree with the use of the symbol, it is just foolish to try to insist on some pagan/NKJV connection because of it.

As I said, I am willing to spend time on Riplinger’s book if you will spend time on the book I mentioned by Purdy.

With you in Christ Jesus as well, brother.

Advertisements