Ana səhifə

The False Witness of


Yüklə 238.5 Kb.
səhifə2/3
tarix27.06.2016
ölçüsü238.5 Kb.
1   2   3

The Triquetra


The NKJV carries a triquetra as part of its cover design. The publishers explain this symbol on the copyright page of each edition as follows:


Cover Design: The triquetra (from a Latin word meaning "three cornered") is an ancient symbol of the Trinity. It comprises three interwoven arcs, distinct yet equal and inseparable, symbolizing that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct yet equal Persons and indivisibly One God.
Concerning the triquetra, the logo used on the NKJV, Riplinger asserted:

The NKJV 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 B.C.), 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. The symbol's shape is duplicated as three initiates join arms and feet, while repeating the names of [the] ancient pagan trinity. The NKJV's symbol can be seen on satanic rock group albums like Led Zeppelin, as well as on New Age bestsellers like The Aquarian Conspiracy.

This statement is false in several respects. It is false because it is in direct contradiction with authorities on Christian symbolism. Thomas Albert Stafford declared that the triquetra is

one of the most beautiful and most satisfying of the symbols of the Holy Trinity. The three equal arcs of the circle denote equality of the three Persons of the Godhead. The lines run continuously and therefore express their eternal exis­tence. They are interwoven, which expresses their unity. The center forms an equilateral triangle, itself a symbol of the Trinity. Each pair of arcs combines to form a "vesica," previously explained as an aureole, indicative of glory. So, here we have a complex expression of equality, eternity, unity and glory in what is essentially a simple form.92

Heather Child and Dorothy Colles affirm the same details, indicating that the symbol is early:

The Triquetra is an early symbol of the Trinity; the continuous interweaving of indivisible but equal arcs may be taken to express Eternity; in the centre is the triangle of the Trinity.93

Robert P. Wetzler and Helen Huntington also identify the triquetra as a symbol of the Holy Trinity.94

Riplinger's statement is false because the symbol that appears on some albums of the rock group Led Zeppelin has been modified with a superimposed circle. Furthermore, Riplinger falsely identifies the triquetra with the symbol on the cover of Marilyn Ferguson's book The Aquarian Conspiracy. However, that symbol is not a triquetra, as Riplinger rightly knows--she has been informed.95 The symbols are similar but distinctly different as the following illustration indicates. The triquetra has three distinct corners, as its name indicates; the symbol on Fergu­son's book has three rounded lobes which cannot be confused with corners.

Triquetra Ferguson's Symbol


From this false equating of the symbols, Riplinger imagines that the triquetra forms three sixes which she then identifies with the number 666 of the antichrist. One could visualize sixes on a Ferguson's symbol, but never on a triquetra. No one writes or prints a six with a pointed bottom! The following illustration demon­strates how ridiculous the suggestion is:

Triquetra 6 (?) Mobius 6


The evidence indicates that Riplinger bore false witness. The triquetra is an ancient symbol of the Holy Trinity and it remains so today. The fact that recent unbelievers have abused, misused, and even desecrated this symbol does not deprive it of its ancient sacred significance.
Demotes Jesus

Riplinger included a section that she entitled "NKJV Demotes Jesus Christ." This is a false statement given to persuade her unsuspecting readers that the NKJV deliberately undermines the doctrine of the deity of Christ. The truth is that the NKJV is stronger on the deity of Christ than the KJV. Besides improving the translation of several passages related to Christ's deity, the NKJV capitalized every pronoun referring to Christ, along with other key words such as Lord, Master, Teacher, One, Savior, etc. that refer to Him. Riplinger listed twelve references that are supposed to demonstrate demotion.


In Luke 13:9 the NKJV reads "Sir" instead of the KJV "Lord." According to Riplinger this is supposed to convince the reader that the NKJV demoted Jesus from Lord to Sir. However, the word in this text was not addressed to Jesus, but was contained in Jesus' parable of the barren fig tree. In this verse the caretaker of the vineyard addressed the owner of the vineyard as "Sir." The use of such an example is evidence of extremely careless scholarship or deliberate deception.

In Matthew 18:26 the NKJV reads "Master" instead of the KJV "Lord." Like the above example, this is supposed to convince the reader that the NKJV demoted Jesus from Lord to Master. However, the word in this text was not addressed to Jesus, but was contained in Jesus' parable of the unforgiving servant. In this verse the servant addressed his king as Master. More carelessness or deception.

In Matthew 20:20 the NKJV reads "kneeling down" instead of the KJV "worshipping." According to Riplinger this is supposed to persuade the reader that the NKJV demotes Jesus by denying Him worship. The Greek word used here means either to kneel down or to worship. Context determines which meaning is appropriate. In this passage the mother of Zebedee's sons came to ask Jesus for a selfish favor which He denied her. The woman was not worshipping, but attempt­ing to manipulate Jesus. One cannot attempt to manipulate God and worship Him at the same time.

In Matthew 26:64 the NKJV reads "right hand of the Power" instead of the KJV "right hand of power." According to Riplinger, this is supposed to convince the reader that the NKJV demotes Jesus. But how the NKJV demotes Jesus with these words is not self evident. The Greek Textus Receptus has the definite article with the word for power, whereas the KJV omitted the article. The NKJV word "Power" is capitalized indicating that it is a name of God. This is in keeping with the policy of the KJV to capitalize words when they function as a name of God. For example: "the Majesty" (Heb. 1:3; 8:1); "the Highest" (Luke 1:35); "most High" (Num. 24:16); and "the Rock" (Deut. 32:4). On the other hand, these words are not capitalized in the KJV when they do not function as a name of God. Now the word "Power" in Matthew 26:64 clearly is a name of God. This is witnessed by the modern versions nearly all of which capitalize the word in this verse, including even the RSV and NRSV. Yet in other passages the term "the power" refers to secular authorities (Rom. 13:2-3) or human power (1 Cor. 4:19). It is a mystery how saying that Jesus will sit at the right hand of God is demoting Him.

In Genesis 22:8 the NKJV reads "God will provide for Himself96 the lamb" instead of the KJV "God will provide himself a lamb." According to Riplinger this is supposed to persuade the reader that the NKJV demotes Jesus by denying that the lamb (Jesus) is God Himself. Riplinger, like other careless Bible readers, has read this KJV text as though it reads "God will provide himself as a lamb." How­ever, this adds a word to the text that is not in the KJV nor in the Hebrew Textus Receptus. A straightforward reading of the KJV does not, and cannot mean that, even though the thought is theologically correct. Furthermore, in the Hebrew Textus Receptus, the pronoun Himself is governed by the preposition for which the KJV omitted, and it contains the definite article with the word lamb which the KJV omitted. The KJV does not promote Jesus in this verse, and the NKJV does not demote Him. Rather, the NKJV made the KJV more accurate and more faith­ful to the Hebrew text. More of Riplinger's carelessness.

In John 8:35 the NKJV reads "a son" instead of the KJV "the Son." According to Riplinger this is supposed to convince an uninformed reader that the NKJV has demoted Jesus from deity to humanity. However, like the first two examples, the word son in this verse does not refer to Jesus. The verse sets forth the general cultural principle of the difference between the status of a slave and that of a son. A slave remains in the household only as long as his owner wishes, but a son is a permanent member of the household--his sonship and heritage are secure. So when the Son of God sets us free from slavery to sin, and we are born into God's family as sons, we are free indeed (8:36).

One may argue that the Greek text has a definite article with the words servant and son here. However, this is a Greek construction that often must be translated with an indefinite article in English, as is frequently done in the KJV. For example: "a bishop" (1 Tim 3:2); "a bishop" (Titus 1:7); "an elder" (1 Pet 5:1); "a servant (Mark 14:47)--in these and other passages the Greek Textus Receptus has a definite article, whereas the KJV translated with an indefinite article.

In Colossians 2:2 the NKJV reads "the mystery of God, both of the Father and of Christ" instead of the KJV "the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ" which Riplinger associates with the "Trinity." According to Riplinger this is supposed to persuade the reader that the NKJV is undermining the doctrine of the Trinity. But the truth is that the KJV does not mention the Holy Spirit in this text. Where else in the Bible is the Holy Spirit referred to as God in the same context with the Father and the Son (Christ)? Riplinger is wrong in assuming that this verse refers to the Trinity. In fact, here the KJV distinguishes God from the Father and from Christ. So the NKJV is stronger on the deity of Christ here than is the KJV. The NKJV places Christ on the same par with the Father, and identifies both the Father and Christ as God. It refers to the mystery of God, namely the mystery of both the Father and Christ. In this verse the NKJV promotes the Lord Jesus above what is stated in the KJV.

In Matthew 8:19, 19:16, 22:16, 23:8, and 23:10 (and others) the NKJV reads "Teacher" instead of the KJV "Master." According to Riplinger these are supposed to convince the reader that the NKJV demotes Jesus from Master to Teacher, thus questioning His deity. The truth is that the Greek word used in these passages is didaskalo" (didaskalos), meaning teacher,97 being derived from the verb didaskw (didasko), meaning to teach.98 Three times the word is kaqhght" (kathegetes), meaning teacher or guide.99 None of these examples contains the word kurio" (kurios), the usual word for referring to a lord or master. This is a classic example of a twentieth century reader misunderstanding an old English word. In earlier generations the word master meant teacher. So even today, a per­son who earns a master's degree in a college or university is qualified to teach. While the word still means teacher today, it is rarely used with that sense. So it is appropriate for the NKJV to distinguish the usage of the various Greek words, and to update the word usage so that the text means today what it meant in 1611. The KJV states that Jesus was a Teacher (= Master in 1611) and the NKJV states that Jesus was a Teacher. No demotion took place. More of Riplinger's carelessness and evident ignorance.

In Acts 3:13, 3:26, 4:27, and 4:30, the NKJV reads "Servant" instead of the KJV "Son" or "child." According to Riplinger this is supposed to persuade her readers that the NKJV demotes Jesus from a Son to a slave or servant. The truth is that the Greek word used in these places is not uiJov" (huios), the usual word for son, but the word pai" (pais), meaning child or servant.100 Context determines the proper sense. Obviously Jesus was not a child at the time of Peter's sermon and prayer. By using this word, Peter was alluding to the Old Testament passage in Isaiah 52:13, which identifies the Messiah as the Servant of the LORD. In this pas­sage the Aramaic Targum renders the text as "My Servant Messiah." The native language of Jesus and the common people in Israel was Aramaic. Peter's audience would have clearly understood this allusion. Furthermore, the NKJV capitalized the word Servant, thus indicating the deity of Christ, and, in this case, also His messiahship. The NKJV did not demote Jesus, but made the KJV more literal to the Greek Textus Receptus and thus associated Him with the title God Himself gave Him--Servant.

In Mark 2:15 the NKJV reads "He" instead of the KJV "Jesus." Riplinger would have her readers believe that the NKJV demotes Jesus by omitting His name. The truth is that the Greek Textus Receptus does not have the word Jesus in the text; the KJV added the word (not in italics), giving the false impression that the mentioned feast took place in Jesus' house, whereas the parallel passage in Luke 5:27-32 clearly indicates that the feast took place in Levi's house. The NKJV did not demote Jesus, but made the KJV more faithful to the Greek Textus Recep­tus and cleared up an apparent contradiction in the KJV.

In Hebrews 4:8 and Acts 7:45 the NKJV reads "Joshua" instead of the KJV "Jesus." Riplinger would have her readers believe that the NKJV demotes Jesus by attributing His deeds to Joshua. The truth is that the KJV 1611 edition has a mar­ginal note at Hebrews 4:8 that reads "that is, Joshua." The same is true for con­temporary Oxford and Cambridge editions of the KJV and others that contain the original marginal notes. The Greek name for Joshua is !Ihsou'" (Iesous), the same as that for Jesus. Unfortunately, the KJV did not distinguish between Joshua and Jesus in the New Testament. So the context must decide. In Acts 7:45 the context clearly indicates that the Old Testament Joshua is the one to whom the text refers. In Hebrews 4:8 the KJV marginal note makes it clear that the referent is Joshua. Throughout the NKJV the spelling of the Old Testament characters was made consistent in both the Old and New Testaments. Thus the name of Isaiah is spelled as Isaiah in the NKJV New Testament instead of the KJV Esaias, it is Jeremiah not the KJV Jeremy, Judah not the KJV Judas, Boaz not the KJV Booz, Joshua not the KJV Jesus, etc. Thus the NKJV did not demote Jesus, but made the KJV self consistent, thus clearing up a source of confusion. This is another classic example of the need for the NKJV. Here a self-proclaimed authority on the Bible misunderstood the KJV, supposing that the texts were referring to Jesus instead of Joshua. She appar­ently does not know the simple principle of checking the context. How sad!


The evidence indicates that Riplinger bore false witness. The NKJV does not demote Jesus, nor undermine His deity. Riplinger's examples do not demon­strate her accusation, but rather they demonstrate her careless scholarship or per­haps her deliberate deception. Riplinger is an example of the real need for the NKJV. She does not understand the Elizabethan English of the KJV; so she mis­understands, misinterprets, and misrepresents the very Bible she so ferociously defends.
A Few More False Accusations

Riplinger listed many more criticisms of the NKJV that involve false wit­ness in some form. Space does not permit responding to all of her trivial accusa­tions. However, a few more are included in this section.

In Genesis 2:18 the NKJV reads "helper comparable to him" instead of the KJV "help meet for him." Riplinger would convince her readers that the NKJV wording supports androgyny101 and gender equality by this revision. The truth is that the KJV words are not in current usage. The word help, when referring to a person, now usually refers to an employee such as a farm worker or a domestic servant; the current equivalent is the NKJV helper. The KJV word meet, meaning fitting or proper, is an archaic word no longer in contemporary usage. These words have been misread as the compound word helpmeet, meaning a helpmate, a helpful companion, or a spouse. According to the English dictionary the word helpmeet developed from a misreading of this passage. The word translated by the KJV as "meet" is from the Hebrew word  (kenegdo) which means compara­ble or suitable. In the context God had brought all the animals to Adam for him to name. Adam saw that none of them were comparable or suitable to be his compan­ion and mate, and that he was alone. The NKJV word comparable does not refer to gender, but to kind, as the context clearly indicates. Riplinger has read into the NKJV her own psychological hang-ups.

In 2 Corinthians 11:5 the NKJV reads "eminent" instead of the KJV "chiefest." Riplinger would have her readers to believe that the NKJV used a hard word in place of an easy word. The truth is that the word chiefest is a double superlative not in good English usage and missing in ordinary dictionaries. For the NKJV to be in Modern Standard English this word had to be changed to its mod­ern equivalent. The KJV uses this non-grammatical, unconventional word eight times in the Bible;102 in these places the NKJV revised the word to chief, upper, best, first, honor, or eminent, depending on the associated Hebrew or Greek word and the immediate context. The word chiefest may be easy but it is not proper English.

In Psalm 109:6 the NKJV reads "accuser" instead of the KJV "Satan." Riplinger would have her readers believe that the NKJV omitted a reference to Satan in order to support New Age ideas. The truth is that the NKJV did not omit a word but translated the underlying Hebrew word by a different and more accu­rate English word. The Hebrew word  (satan) means accuser, adversary, or Satan, depending on the context. When the word refers to a human then the trans­lation accuser or adversary is appropriate; when the referent is Satan, then the word should be translated as a proper name. The KJV translated this word as "adversary" seven times and as "Satan" nineteen times. In this passage the referent is a human accuser not Satan, as the KJV marginal note and the poetic parallelism indicate: the human accuser is in parallel with a wicked man. Contrary to the con­text the KJV has Satan and a wicked man standing together in a human court against David's false accusers. Satan stands as an accuser in the heavenly court, but not in an earthly court. The NKJV did not omit a word, but made the KJV more consistent with the context and with itself.

In 1 Samuel 13:21 the NKJV reads "the charge . . . was a pim" instead of the KJV "they had a file . . . for the coulters." Riplinger would have her readers believe that the word pim is an acronym for "positive identification microchip" and that the NKJV has introduced the mark of the beast into the Bible. This sounds very much like Peter Ruckman's "advanced revelation" only in the NKJV! Such a suggestion would be ridiculous if it were not so pathetic. Riplinger assumed with­out a shred of Biblical evidence that the mark of the beast is a positive identifica­tion microchip (PIM); this is just one of a multitude of modern speculations about the identity of that mark. If the Lord tarries His coming, new technology will make this speculation look primitive. Furthermore, to imagine this in a non-prophetic Old Testament passage is to introduce the most glaring of anachronisms. The truth is that the wording of Riplinger's example demonstrates that she knows no Hebrew.103 The word pim is a transliteration of the Hebrew word  (pim) which the KJV conveniently omitted because they did not know what it means. The KJV translated the Hebrew word  (petsirah), a word of unclear meaning, as "file"; but in so doing the KJV introduces a self contradiction. Verse 20 states that all the Israelites had to go down to the Philistines to sharpen their farm tools, but verse 21 states that they had a file for sharpening them. Why would they go to their enemies for a service they could do for themselves? The NKJV translated the word  (petsirah) as a service "charge" and the word  (pim) as a unit of Philistine currency;104 it also revised the old word coulters to its modern equivalent plowshares. This makes good sense in the context and avoids the contradiction in the KJV. Far from introducing an anachronistic mark of the beast in an Old Testa­ment agrarian passage, the NKJV makes the KJV more literal to the Hebrew Tex­tus Receptus and clears up its confusion.



Conclusion

It is time for the enemies of modern versions of the Bible to stop bearing false witness, to stop using misrepresentations, to stop using subtle deceptions, and to begin to deal honestly with the truth. If their position cannot be defended with honesty and truth, then it is not worthy of defense. Unfortunately, their current tactics are bringing reproach to themselves, to the Bible version they defend, and to the name of Christ whom they claim to honor.


James D. Price

July 12, 1996.



1 It is likely that she derives her erroneous information from the writings of Peter Ruckman and D. A. Waite, but she generally avoids acknowledging them as her sources.


2 Gen 39:16; Judg 3:25; 19:26, 27; 1 Sam 16:16; 1 Kings 18:8, 10, 11, 14; 2 Kings 5:3, 4; 9:11; 18:23; Isa 19:4; 22:18; 26:13; Jer 22:18.


3 Gen 27:29, 37.


4 Ezra 8:25.


5 2 Kings 7:2, 17, 19; Ezek 23:23.


6 Dan 4:36.


7 Matt 10:24, 25; 18:25, 26, 27, 31, 32, 34; 24:45, 46, 48, 50; Luke 12:36, 37, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47; 14:23; 16:3, 5, 5, 8; 19:16, 18, 20, 25; John 13:16; 15:15, 20; Gal 4:1.


8 Matt 20:8; Mark 12:9.


9 Luke 13:8.


10 Mark 6:21.


11 Mark 10:51.


12 Psa 68:4; Isa 12:2; 26:4; 38:11.


13 Psa 68:4; the NKJV transliterated the name as YAH instead of JAH in order to be more consistent with the way the KJV transliterated it in compound names.


14 The NKJV is a revision of the KJV. As such it was intended to "make" the KJV more accurate with respect to the Hebrew and Greek texts, and more consistent with itself, in addition to correcting the English to Modern Standard English.


15 Isa 44:8; Hab 1:12.


16 2 Sam 22:2, 32, 47; 23:3; Psa 18:31, 46; 28:1; 62:2, 7; 78:35; 89:26; 92:15; 94:22; 95:1; Isa 17:10.


17 Gen 44:7, 17; Josh 22:29; 24:16; 1 Sam 12:23; 14:45; 20:2; Job 27:5.


18 In keeping with the third commandment: "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain" (Exod 20:7).


19 1 Sam 10:24; 2 Sam 16:16, 16; 1 Kings 1:25, 34, 39; 2 Kings 11:12; 2 Chr 23:11.


20 Num 14:2, 2; 20:3; Josh 7:7.


21 Exod 16:3; Num 11:29; Deut 28:67, 67; Judg 9:29; 2 Sam 18:33.


22 Deut 5:29; Job 6:8; 11:5; 14:13; 19:23, 23; 23:3; 29:2; 31:31, 35; Psa 14:7; 53:6; 55:6; Song 8:1; Jer 9:1.


23 2 Kings 5:3.


24 Psa 119:5.


25 Luke 20:16; Rom 3:4, 6, 31; 6:2, 15; 7:7, 13; 9:14; 11:1, 11; 1 Cor 6:15; Gal 2:17; 3:21. Note that in Gal 6:14 the NKJV did not correct the KJV.


26 Matt 2:12, 22; Acts 10:22; Heb 11:7.


27 Rom 11:4.


28 Heb 9:6.


29 2 John 10, 11.


30 Acts 15:23; 23:26; James 1:1.


31 Deut 16:10.


32 In Gen 6:5 and 2 Sam 12:22 the Hebrew Textus Receptus (both ben Chayyim and ben Asher texts) reads  "LORD" not  "GOD" as the KJV translates. In Acts 19:20 the Greek Textus Receptus reads Kurio" "Lord" not Qeo""God."


33 Compare Gen 1:1, 9, 14, etc. with Gen 2:4, etc.


34 Gen 1:1, 9, 14, 15, 17, 20; 11:4; 19:24; Exod 9:8; 20:11; 24:10; 31:17; Lev 26:19; Deut 11:17, 21; 28:12, 23: 33:26; Judg 5:20; 1 Kings 8:35; Neh 1:9; Job 20:27; 28:24; Psa 78:26; 79:2; 103:11; 104:12; 107:26; 113:6; 147:8; Prov 25:3; Jer 8:7; 15:3; 32:17; 51:48; Lam 4:19; Ezek 29:5; 31:6, 13; 32:4, 7, 8; 38:20; Dan 4:11, 12, 20; Zeph 1:3; Hag 1:10.


35 Amos 9:6.


36 Hos 2:18; 4:3; 7:12.


37 Psa 77:18.


38 Psa 89:6.


39 Psa 89:37.


40 Rev 6:14.


41 Matt 16:2, 3, 3; Luke 12:56; Heb 11:12.


42 Usually in the niphal stem of the verb; in a few instances in the hithpael stem.


43 Exod 32:12, 14; 1 Sam 15:29, 29; 2 Sam 24:16; 1 Chr 21:15; Psa 106:45; 110:4; Jer 4:28; 15:6; 18:8, 10; 20:16; 26:3, 13, 19; 42:10; Ezek 24:14; Joel 2:13, 14; Amos 7:3, 6; Jonah 3:9, 10; 4:2; Zech 8:14.


44 Gen 6:6, 7; 1 Sam 15:11, 35.


45 Deut 32:36; Judg 2:18; Psa 90:13; 135:14.


46 Exod 13:17.


47 Heb 7:21.


48 Matt 21:32.


49 Matt 21:29; 2 Cor 7:8, 8, 10.


50 Matt 27:3.


51 Exod 22:2, 3; 1 Sam 25:26, 33; 2 Chr 19:10; Prov 28:17; Isa 33:15; Ezek 9:9; 22:9, 13; 38:22; Hos 1:4; 4:2, 2; Mic 3:10; Hab 2:12.


52 Lev 17:4; Deut 19:10; 22:8; Hos 12:14; Joel 3:21.


53 Lev 19:16.

54 Ezek 19:10.


55 Heb 12:4.


56 For example: David (Psa 16:10; 86:13), Jonah (Jon 2:2).


57 2 Sam 22:6; Job 11:8; 26:6; Psa 16:10; 18:5; 86:13; 116:3; Isa 5:14; 14:15; 28:15, 18; 57:9; Jon 2:2.

58 Prov 1:12; Isa 14:11; 38:10, 18.


59 Job 17:16.


60 Ezek 31:15.


61 Matt 11:23; 16:18; Luke 10:15; 16:23; Acts 2:27, 31; Rev 1:18; 6:8; 20:13, 14.


62 1 Cor 15:55.


63 Gen 24:4; Exod 6:3; 17:15; Judg 6:24; Psa 83:18; Isa 12:2; 26:4.


64 There is some evidence that the name may have been introduced in AD 1270 by Roman Catholic Raymond Martin.


65 F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs,
1   2   3


Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©atelim.com 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət