Is the MKJV better here than the KJV?

[Christian40]

God the Son was the Jehovah who spoke to Moses:

(KJV)
Exodus 3:
14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

(MKJV)
Exodus 3:
14 And God said to Moses, I AM THAT I AM. And He said, So you shall say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you.

(KJV)
John 4:
26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

(MKJV)
John 4:
26 Jesus said to her, I AM, the One speaking to you.

Analysis: Here and in Mark 13:6, 14:62, Luke 22:70, John 18:5, 6, 8 the KJV fails to identify Jesus as the I AM, the Jehovah who spoke to Moses at the Bush (Ex 3:14). By claiming Himself to be the one who said to Moses I AM THAT I AM, Christ proclaims His eternal existence, the fact that He is self-existing, underived, uncreated, independent of all except the other persons in the Godhead! And since it is Jesus who is speaking, it is at least an insensitivity to fail to give Him the title I AM, which is due to Him as God the Son.

(KJV)
John 8:
24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

(MKJV)
John 8:
24 Therefore I said to you that you shall die in your sins, for if you do not believe that I AM, you shall die in your sins.

Analysis: Again Jesus is telling them that He is God, the I AM, the only one who can save them from their sins. Yet only 4 (MKJV, LITV, ERV, NAB) of the new versions let the reader know why He said I AM!

(KJV)
John 8:
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

(MKJV)
John 8:
58 Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into being, I AM!

Analysis: Those who do not capitalize "I AM" fail to reveal to the reader why the Jews picked up stones to stone Christ. It was because by saying I AM, our Lord was telling them that He was God. 

From:
The Gnostics, The New Versions, and The Deity of Christ by Jay P.Green Sr. pg 34-35

[Christian40]

Modern King James Version    

Modern English 1990 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus

by Jay P. Green, Sr.

[Kilika]

Short answer? No. Not in the context it is presented.

The reason being it shows lack of contentment, otherwise they would have been just fine with the KJB, and would have saw no need for new, "updated" version. Basically, they are saying the KJB is not good enough, and instead they offer something they claim is better. Sound familiar? Is that not the very thing Jesus Himself said would happen? What did Jesus say? Jesus said, "...believe it not".

If a person believes "helps" are okay, all they can really justify is a dictionary of the words used. And even then, I have a real problem with that, as I understand the Scriptures just fine, as do millions of other english-reading peoples. Admittedly, I have used both a dictionary and exhaustive concordance over the years, but desire not to, and rather desire to solely live by faith in the Holy Ghost to give me rememberence of scripture.

"Gnostics" is a big red flag. Anything that includes that word or it's variations, such as "gnotic", pay close attention to sound doctrine.

(KJV)
John 8:
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

(MKJV)
John 8:
58 Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into being, I AM!

Analysis: Those who do not capitalize "I AM" fail to reveal to the reader why the Jews picked up stones to stone Christ. It was because by saying I AM, our Lord was telling them that He was God.

That right there is an opinion not based on sound doctrine.

Who are they to say to whether or not scripture properly conveys to the reader a given message or ideology? It is the Holy Ghost that gives the believer the understanding, not man and his interpretations. That is the very reason, in my opinion, that scripture says, "is of any private interpretation".

If people insist on putting out their interpretations, then it must be noted what they are publishing, and not be allowed to call it such things as "MKJV", as that thing is no KJV. Technically, it is a version based on the KJV apparently. But the "KJV" part should not be allowed as part of the book title.

Personally, I think those people need to repent, quit causing divisions, strivings, and contentions about the Word, and put away that thing, and ask Jesus for some faith in His Spirit.

"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or [whether] I speak of myself." John 7:17 (KJB)

[Christian40]

"One such "trick ‘n treat" is the so-called updated "King James Bibles" flooding the Bible horizon.

Unlike the NIV, NASV, NCV or NRSV these King James "wannabes" come with courageous claims of faithfulness to the "original" King James Bible. They wouldn’t dare deviate from the beloved text of our King James Bible (or would they?). They possess impressive sounding "King James" names such as the New King James Bible, 21st Century King James (KJ21), King James III and the Modern King James version. But as we’ve discovered many times, despite the sincerity or spiritual motivation for updating the King James Bible – the results are always the same – a departure from the text of our King James Bible. Whenever the feeble and fallible hands of men touch the Word of God wearing the devious gloves of change – it always breeds corruption and confusion.

The Apostle Paul zeroed in on this enticing corruption of the Word of God in 2 Corinthians 2:17:

For 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.

Our attention in this article is on the corruption in the Modern King James Version (MKJV).

The MKJV was released in 1962 with several revisions including the latest in 1999. It is the work of Jay P. Green, Sr. and published by Sovereign Grace Publishers in Lafayette, Indiana. According to the Sovereign Grace website, the MKJV is being replaced with Green’s King James 3. Green is the author of several Bibles including the King James II, King James 3, Literal Translation and his most popular work the Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible.

THE EXPLANATION. . .

Green poses as a defender of the King James Bible and has even written books defending the King James Bible including the popular, Unholy Hands on the Bible: A Comparison Between Six Major Bible Versions. Green includes a section in the MKJV titled "The Explanation" in which he "explains" his reasoning and rational for the Modern King James Bible.

Even in the Explanation and Preface to the MKJV, Mr. Green praises the King James Bible while condemning the other versions for their departure from the King James Bible.

In the Explanation section of the Modern King James Bible, Green writes:

Every lover of the beloved King James Version should be aware by now that those who are willing to add and subtract words from God's Word have used the archaic Elizabethan English of the KJV as an excuse to issue new versions. And though the translators of these new versions praise the KJV, they then depart from its message, and from its Greek and Hebrew texts. . . (the Received Text and the Masoretic Text). (Green, Jay P., Modern King James Bible, Explanation)

After blasting the new versions for "changing" the King James Bible, then Green writes (in BOLD capitals, no less):

    IS IT BETTER TO LEAVE THE KJV UNCHANGED?

    The answer is NO!
    (Green, Jay P., Modern King James Bible, Explanation)

Uh oh. . . Here it comes. . .

Green writes:

First, the Authorized/King James Version, as we know it, has been changed several times. . . (Green, Jay P., Modern King James Bible, Explanation)

Parroting the mantra of the other perversions, Green presumes since the "original" King James Bible has been changed – it must be ok to change it again. Anyone familiar with this worn out excuse recognizes it as fraud. For anyone interested in the truth about the mythical "revisions" of the King James Bible read Dr. Reagan’s excellent work entitled, "The King James Version of 1611–the Myth of Early Revisions." Dr. Reagan demolishes the mythical "revisions" of the King James Bible. Presenting the evidence, Dr. Reagan concludes his expose with these reflective words:

The purpose of this book is to expose a fallacious argument that has been circulating in fundamentalist circles for what it is: an overblown myth. That is, the myth that the New King James Version and others [aka Modern King James Version] like it are nothing more than a continuation of revisions which have periodically been made to the King James Version since 1611. There is one problem with this theory. There are no such revisions.

The King James Bible of 1611 has not undergone four (or any) major revisions. . . We still have no reason to doubt that the Bible we hold in our hands is the very word of God preserved for us in the English language. The authority for its veracity lies not in the first printing of the King James Version in 1611, or in the character of King James I, or in the scholarship of the 1611 translators, or in the literary accomplishments of Elizabethan England, or even in the Greek Received Text. Our authority for the infallible words of the English Bible lies in the power and promise of God to preserve His Word! God has the power. We have His Word. ." (Reagan, David. The King James Version of 1611--the Myth of Early Revisions)

Next Green, digs up a fabled "dinosaur." He claims the King James Bible should be "revised" since the King James Bible is simply a "revision" of Tyndale’s work. Green writes:

Secondly, "William Tyndale's influence on various versions down to the Bishop's Bible fixed the general tone of the translation....it [the AV/KJV] is a revision, not a new translation" (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 112). In fact the majority of the wording of the New Testament of the Authorized/King James Version is that of Tyndale, but in updated English. . . (Green, Jay P., Modern King James Bible, Explanation)

Anyone familiar with the history of the King James Bible acknowledges not only the English influence of Tyndale’s work, but more important the work of the Bishop Bible. Fifteen general guidelines were established by the King James translators. The first guideline read, "The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit." So Green’s assertion the King James Bible was merely a revision of Tyndale’s works crumbles quickly with the hammer of truth. It was the Bishop Bible used as the "model" by the King James translators, not Tyndale. But even then, the King James translators were not bound by any English, Hebrew or Greek text.

Green then sings the popular new-version song titled "You Can Not Understand the Archaic, Out-Dated, King James Bible." Green writes:

School teachers do not want pupils to read the KJV, because it confuses their ability to spell English words (for inability to spell is one of the weaknesses of pupils in our day). Not only the spelling, but the archaic words stumble younger readers today. Besides, there are many awkward, strange words which were the style in the seventeenth century, which today turn away readers. Therefore, it is important for us to give the new reader a Bible they can read, yet one that keeps every one of the God-breathed words. (Green, Jay P., Modern King James Bible, Explanation)

This is easily the most persistent excuse triumphed by the King James rebels to change the King James Bible, and it’s also the easiest to 100% disprove.

Gail Riplinger has a chapter in her best-selling New Age Bible Versions titled "King James for Kids". Mrs. Riplinger provides 23 pages of irrefutable evidence proving the King James Bible is far easier to understand and read. She lists over 350 examples in the New Testament where the King James Bible is much easier and simpler to understand.

In comparing the first chapter of the first and last books of the Old and New Testaments, the Flesch-Kincaid research company’s Grade Level Indicator shows "The KJV ranks easier in 23 out of 26 comparisons" (Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions, 1994, p. 195)

Mrs. Riplinger writes:

"Why is the KJV easier to read? The KJV uses one or two syllable words while new versions substitute complex multi-syllable words and phrases." (Ibid, p. 196) She lists over 270 examples in the New Testament. Mrs. Riplinger also attributes the King James’s ease of understanding to "Simple sentence structure. . .." (Ibid, p. 204) She again lists many examples.

Much of Green’s foundation for "replacing" your beloved King James Bible is built upon humanistic sinking sand. And make no mistake, while Green may masquerade as a King James "man," Green’s motive in the Modern King James is to replace your King James Bible. As Green writes (again BOLD caps to emphasis):

IF NOT UPDATED, THE KJV WOULD FADE AWAY

Then Greens writes:

Who is it that has quit reading the KJV, and have gone either to reading the new versions, or have quit reading the Bible altogether? It is not a secret that this generation, and most of the last generation, has on the whole refused to learn Elizabethan English in order to read the Bible.

While Green claims most people are no longer reading the King James Bible, again the facts tell a much different story. According to surveys by Barna Research of people who read their Bible on a daily basis, "The King James Version is more likely to be the Bible read during the week than is the NIV by a 5:1 ratio."(Barna Research, The Bible survey, http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PageCategory.asp?CategoryID=7)

Like ever other Per-version since 1611, after molesting the "beloved" King James Bible, Green just happens to have the solution to the unread, archaic, bumbling King James Bible – you guessed it - the Modern King James Version. Green writes:

IS THE MKJV THE ANSWER?

Yes, we believe it is what is needed, a King James Version that our children can and will read both now and from now on. . .

The Explanation and the Preface of the Modern King James Version provides much more fodder for the trampling of the King James Bible, but let us examine the Modern King James Bible in the light of our "beloved" King James Bible."

From:
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/mod_kjv.html

"Gnostics" is a big red flag. Anything that includes that word or it's variations, such as "gnotic", pay close attention to sound doctrine.

Green's books attempt to challenge Gnosticism!

[Christian40]

THE EXAMINATION. . .

To show the hypocrisy of the MKJV, as we examine the MJKV, we’ve also listed the text of some the new perversions such as the New International Version (NIV), New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) to show their agreement with the MKJV.

JESUS OR LUCIFER?

One of the more shocking changes in the MJKV is the removal of "Lucifer". Matching the corrupt NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, NCV and the "Bible change team," the MKJV changes Isaiah 14:12 from "Lucifer" to "shining star". Consequently, Isaiah 14:12 and Revelation 22:16 create a serious issue by equating and confusing Lucifer with Jesus Christ, who is also called the "the bright and morning star" in Revelation 22:16. Not only that, the Hebrew word kowkab for star is not in Isaiah 14:12!

Isaiah 14:12

    KJB
    How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

    MKJV
    How you are fallen from the heavens, O shining star, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations!

    NIV
    How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

    Revelation 22:16

    MKJV
    I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify these things to you over the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the bright and Morning Star.

JESUS CHRIST — A PAGAN "SON OF THE GODS?"

One of the more blatant attacks at the Lord Jesus amongst the new versions occurs in the book of Daniel. The fourth person in the fire protecting Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego is no longer like "the Son of God" as the King James Bible declares, but the pagan "like a son of the gods."

Daniel 3:25

    KJB
    He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

    MKJV
    He answered and said, Behold! I see four men loose, walking in the middle of the fire, and there is no harm among them. And the form of the fourth is like a son of the gods.

    NIV
    He said, "Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods."

THE LOVE OF MONEY?

Again agreeing with the NIV, NASV, RSV, and the "Bible correctors union" the love of money is no longer THE root of ALL EVIL — but "A root of all EVILS".

1 Timothy 6:10

    KJB
    For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

    MKJV
    For the love of money is a root of all evils, of which some having lusted after, they were seduced from

    NIV
    For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

CREATOR OR NEW AGE BEING?

In the KJB, John 1:3 is an empathic and clear declaration that Jesus Christ was the sole Creator of "all things." But not so in the MKJV. For the MJKV changes the Creator’s active, personal work of "made by Him" into a passive, New Age evolutionary, progression of "came into being through Him."

John 1:3

    KJB
    All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

    MKJV
    All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.

    NIV
    Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Again in Colossians 1:16, the KJB tells the world that Jesus Christ is Creator and "BY him were all things created". And again the MJKV muddles the clear scripture to negate the Creative power of Jesus Christ by replacing the simple word "BY" with "IN" and "THROUGH". This also rubs shoulders with the New Age teaching of a pantheistic "all in all" Christ. Simple. . . Slight. . . But Fatal.

Colossians 1:16

    KJB
    For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

    MKJV
    For all things were created in Him, the things in the heavens, and the things on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers, all things were created through Him and for Him.

    NRSV
    for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers--all things have been created through him and for him.

DUMPING KEY BIBLE WORDS

In the Preface to the Modern King James Version, under the heading, "Homogenizing he Scriptures By Dumping Key Words," Mr. Green "blasts’ the new versions for their "dumping" of established Bible terms:

    In the new versions there is no propitiation, nor mercy seat, but in one of them it is merely "a remedy for sins;" justification by faith is gutted by adding words that make it a justification by a faith that works to bring about salvation; redemption becomes a mere release; believing degenerates into a simple yielding of allegiance; meekness is gentleness; righteousness is goodness; and demon-possession is only epilepsy (Matthew 4:24; 17:15). (Green, Modern King James Version, Preface 1)

But like the Pre-Version he berates, Mr. Green quickly "dumps" "Key Bible Words". Don’t look for "New Testament" in the MKJV, just like the NIV NASV, NCV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV and about ever other perversion known to man, it’s now the "New Covenant." The replacement of "covenant" with "testament" is a subtle attack at the written Word of God. It’s interesting that all these new versions with their "new covenant" still print "New Testament" on the cover of their Bibles. Wonder why? They know nobody would buy a Bible with "New Covenant" on the cover. And you’d better believe – if most people knew the "new covenant" underneath the cover – they wouldn’t touch it . . .

Read more:
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/mod_kjv.html