Which version of the bible is best to read?

[Seeker Of Jesus]

Hello. I've recently came across this website that said "Why Would anyone use the NIV?" I wish i can post the link but because of the rules i cant (if you google that it shouldnt be too hard too find)

He made alot of good points but now i am very confused you see i currently have the KJV of the bible but that version is so confusing for me, And i was on the verge of buying a NIV so that i can finally read and fully understand the bible and then i came across that artical. so i wanna ask you is the NIV an evil version of the bible created by satan to somehow decieve us?

God bless you all

 

[jiggyfly]

First of all welcome to TJ Seeker.

My advice is go to a christian book store and sit down with several different translations and compare them, then buy the one you can best understand. Don't listen to the advice of the King James Version Only crowd they are deceived by religious spirits.

I personally like Young's literal and Knoch's Concordant versions. But use the New Living translation on the forums a lot.

 

[cman77]

I would recommend the Amplified Bible

 

[SpiritLedEd]

Jonathan, I suggest you postpone your inquiry as to which Bible version is the best and check out this link:

Ask Questions about College, Life, and God

Welcome to TalkJesus,

Spirit Led Ed (SLE)

 

[Boanerges]

Every translation has it's champions and detractors, let God lead your choice.
I love the KJV, the Amplified and many others. Find one you enjoy reading and when God starts speaking to you form it you will be at an end to your search. After while it will seem like seem like an old friend ready to great you daily.
As far as the NIV it is simply written on an 8th grade reading level for easy comprehension and although it is a little "bland" for my taste God can certainly use it for our growth and edification.
The number one thing we need id to ask the Holy Spirit (our Teacher given by the Father when Jesus asked) to teach us and give us revelation into the Word when we pick it up.
Personally I do a lot of Bible reading on my computer. You can get the E-Sword program free on their website and not counting the foreign language bibles there are about 30 freeware bibles to download. You can actually cross compare all 30 on any verse with one click of the mouse. There are 13 freeware dictionaries. 14 sets of freeware commentaries and dozens of great books to download there. There is also a selection of materials in each category for purchase if you want but I have over a gigabyte of freeware study material from them.
Many blessings in His Name,
brother Larry.

 

[Logos57]

I would say the KJV or Amplified Version. But I think you should pray on this seriously before you make your decision.

 

[Seeker Of Jesus]

Thank you all for your answers. I will definitly pray and ask the lord to guide me to the right version of the bible. I would like to go to a christian book stores and check out different versions and decide on which one to take but i've never seen or heard of a christian bookstore around where i live.
Thanks again for all of your responces and god bless

 

[cole]

If you're a translation nut (I kind of am) I would recommend the Artscroll Series Old Testament (Tanakh in Hebrew) Bible. It's direct Hebrew to English (like typical Jewish/Hebrew books it's Hebrew on one page and English on another).

I haven't gone as translation crazy with the New Testament yet but I typically bounce between the King James Version and a newer rendition.

I also recommend visiting various university web sites to see what some biblical and antiquities teachers recommend.

Sure wish I read Greek sometimes!

 

[alex franklin]

dear brother i have read that artscroll series contains some deviations from text to conform to jewish teachings, so check it out before choosing that version.

 

[MelodyC]

I prefer the NIV over the KJV.

 

[cole]

Alex: Interesting, I have never heard that and it's always come highly recommended by others to me. Another thing I enjoy about it is the exegetical rabbinic commentary at the bottom of each page to give the reader some food for thought.

 

[oboy]

Seeker,

I was raised on the KJV, but when I started reading the NIV in the mid-80's, the Bible came alive like it never had before.

In the 90's I read one of those books that told how bad the NIV is and how good the KJV is, so I switched back. And the Bible became a dead book to me again. At first, I thought it was just me, but then realized that I just don't like reading KJ English. When I switched back to the NIV, guess what? God started speaking to me again through His Word.

Having studied the matter further, I realize that most Bibles have positives and negatives, but none of them (except Bibles published by cults or other groups with an agenda) really differ much in what they say. All the main Christian doctrines are in each one.

For personal reading, I prefer the NIV.
When I read to my boys before bedtime, I read the NLT.
When studying, I use all kinds of translations, including the KJV, ESV, Amplified, and NASB.

You can find all of these versions online for free at BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages. and compare them that way before buying the one you like.

 

[sothankful]

I like to study with a combination of Bible versions. I usually carry my NIV, and use that the most. But we also have a NKJV, NAS, and ESV and I really appreciate the combination for study purposes.

 

[KingsKid4Ever]

I read the King James Version and the New King James Version and let GOD illuminate to me what HE wants for my life.

eace:

 

[lawrenceb]

Two spiritualists, Westcott and Hort, changed the traditional Greek text in well over eight thousand places using the Vaticanus manuscript and other corrupt texts. In 1881, this 1% minority text type supplanted the Majority Text KJB with its almost two millenia standing. All modern versions, including the NIV, are the product of these mystics.

There can be only one Truth, and everything else is a lie. The wisdom to discern the difference between the genuine and the counterfeits comes from God's Holy Spirit - not from copyright holders and marketers.

 

[tulsa 2011]

I have checked various popular Bible versions, all based upon Westcott and Hort's Greek text except the NKJ, on several verses I suspected of changing wordings so that the doctrine taught in the Textus Receptus is diminished. Almost always I have found that the new versions do diminish the doctrines taught in the Textus Receptus for some verses..

Two interesting verses for which I found that some of the new versions have wordings so different from the King James Version that they tend to obscure the doctrines taught are Revelation 9: 14-19 and II Peter 2: 1-3.

For Revelation 9; 15 and 9: 18 the older English translations, the Tyndale, Geneva and King James, all have "the third part of men," while most of the recent English versions have "a third of men" or "kill a third of mankind." Which versions are right depends upon the meaning of the Greek word tritos in Revelation 9: 15 and 9: 18.

The Strong's Exhaustive Concordance for third is Number 5154, tritos, from 5140, "as noun, a third part, or as adverb, third time,thirdly."

"A third of men" would more likely be interpreted as killing one third of men, while "a third part of men" could be interpreted as meaning killing a part of men, not literally killing one third of all men, but some part of man's being. The second important clue about this metaphor is that is says in Revelation 9:17 and in 9: 18 that the third part of men are killed by what comes out of the mouths of those in this army of two hundred thousand thousand. The third part of man is killed by words which come out of the mouths of the huge number of horsemen, who represent false prophets since what they say and write causes this to happen.

The false prophets kill the spiritual life of men. But the dominant "hermeneutic" of dispensationalism says scripture should be interpreted literally. So, following this "hermeneutic" the new Bible versions, or most of them, ignored the Strong's definition of tritos, and translated "triton ton anthropon" as "a third of mankind" or as "a third of the human race" or "a third of all the human race." The same Greek,. "triton ton anthropon" is in Revelation 9: 18, and translated in the new versions as "a third of mankind."

The Tyndale Bible of about 1525 was the first English translation directly from the Greek and Hebrew, and the later Geneva Bible and King James Versions were highly influenced by the Tyndale verse wordings. For II Peter 2: 1-3 it has "There were false prophets among the people even as there shall be false teachers among you: which privily shall bring in damnable sects, even denying the Lord that hath bought them, and bring on their own heads swift damnation, and many shall follow their damnable ways, by which the way of truth<small>[SUB]| [/SUB]</small>shall be evil spoke and through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you, whose judgment is not far off and their damnation sleepeth not."

While the older English translations from the Textus Receptus all have "make merchandise of you" the newer English versions translate emporeuomai as "they will exploit you," or "will exploit you,"

Emporeusontai, future tense, middle voice and indicative mode, is from emporeuomai, "to carry on business, to trade in, to cheat, make a gain of, exploit." But as a metaphor, the translation "make merchandise of you" is an accurate English translation of Emporeusontai, because "will exploit you" is not as much of a metaphor than to make merchandise of you. It is more of an interpretation of making merchandise of you. To allow the metaphor to have its power, the Greek word must be translated by an English word or phrase which is closest to the meaning of Emporeusontai.

The New King James has "By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber."

The New International Version has "In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping."

The NIV translates logois, words, as stories, which does not follow the Greek. And more important, the NIV translates emporeusontai as exploit rather than make merchandise of you.

Avoid metaphoric language, because John Darby, C. I. Scofield, Lewis S. Chafer and their followers teach that prophecy - and all scripture - must be literal. Making merchandise is metaphoric and more spiritually powerful than exploiting you, because making merchandise of you means reducing you to "merchandise," reducing you back to the level of the natural man, who does not receive the things of the Spirit (I Corinthians 2: 14).. Merchandise is of the flesh, of the world, and of the carnal mind, You are made merchandise of by what the many false prophets say and write,

But to discover which verses are translated so differently in the new Bible versions that the doctrine given in the Textus Receptus is diminished, made unclear, or eliminated requires searching through a lot of verses and through several new versions. That is a job, and requires a long attention span. And - sometimes the Greek text, which is the Westcott-Hort, has a different wording for a verse than the Textus Receptus, or the Westcott-Hort does not have that verse at all.

 

[lawrenceb]

That's all good, tulsa 2011.

The Strong's Exhaustive Concordance for third is Number...

1. Strong was a member of the Wescott and Hort Revised Version Committee (RV) of 1881 and worked in masterminding this corrupt version.

2. Strong was also a member of the American Standard Version Committee, finally published in 1901. It said that Jesus Christ was a creature, not the Creator.

3. On these committees Strong joined Unitarians (e.g. Thayer), a child molester (Vaughan), followers of Luciferian H. P. Blavatsky (e.g. Ginsburg, Schaff), and a horde of Bible critics (e.g. S. R. Driver), who together changed nearly 10,000 words of the text.

4. Strong's Concordance definitions are often the very words of these corrupt versions and also the Koran.

5. Strong also gathered his definitions from Gesenius' corrupt Hebrew Lexicon. His work also accesses the corrupt lexicons of Liddell-Scott, Thayer, Brown, Driver, and Briggs.

6. Strong's Greek text is not always that which underlies the King James Bible.

7. Strong's various definitions may not give anywhere near a literal translation of the Greek.

8. Some of the latest editions of Strong's Concordance are not even Strong's original. In the Greek and Hebrew lexicons in the back section, they contain even more corrupt definitions from new version editors. In the main body of the concordance, which originally was correct, new editions omit important KJB usages of the word 'Jesus' in order to match corrupt new versions.

...the dominant "hermeneutic" of dispensationalism...

Hermeneutics is a deception at worst and theory at best. In the Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy (1998), pp. 248-249, it says: Hermeneutics. (Gr. hermeneuin, to translate, interpret, make intelligible) n. sing. 1. Interpretation. 2. Inquiry into, or theory of, the nature or methods of interpretation.

"There has been reflection on the art of interpreting texts since ancient times, but the word 'hermeneutics' was first used by J. C. Dannhauer in the mid-seventeenth century [*in other words, it was not in the beginning in and with Christ]. He noted that texts for which a theory of interpretation was needed fell into three classes: Holy Scripture, legal texts (statutes, precedents, treaties, etc.), and the literature of classical antiquity.

"One important problem for traditional hermeneutics was that it had two radically different aims in its main areas: theology and jurisprudence [*confusion]. One aim was to provide a correct interpretation, the other to establish an authoritative statement of dogma [*creeds, confessions, articles of faith] or of law. It can at times be difficult to satisfy both requirements, and this is why it has been said that hermeneutics is the art of finding something in a text that is not there.

"The first major thinker to propose a general theory of interpretation was Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834). He went beyond the traditional view, in his proposal that interpretation requires not only a proper grasp of the relevant linguistic and historical facts, but also a mental retracing, an imaginative reconstruction [*conjuration], of the way in which a text came into being [*sans the Spirit of God.] An interpreter of a text may be in a position to see the author's life [*who has seen the shape of God or known His Life outside of Christ?] and work as a whole, and to place it in a historical setting. [*Is God limited by history?] Such knowledge, unattainable to the author [*how is this possible with God?], can enable the interpreter to understand the text better than the author. [*The theologician is now greater than God!?!?!?!?-In other words, Schleiermacher denies the Spirit of God is the Author of Scripture].

"From Schleiermacher and on, the field of hermeneutics was extended to include texts generally [*criticism], and not only those of Scripture, law and ancient classics. The historian J. G. Droysen (1808-1884) stressed that knowledge gained by interpretation-he had historical knowledge especially in mind-is entirely different from scientific knowledge [*ruse - hermeneutics itself is a science.] This contrast became well-established through Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911). He explained it as a contrast between understanding (Verstehen) and explanation (Erklaren). Our knowledge of historical, social and cultural facts - the realm of the Geisteswissenschaften (the human, or cultural sciences) - essentially involves interpretation. This is why it is radically different from the knowledge gained by appplication of the scientific method in the Naturwissenschaften (the natural sciences). Hermeneutics has since been regarded as a theory of interpretation of all bearers of meaning: not only texts but also human action and the various features of human culture and society [*social sciences and engineering].

"Hermeneutics can be seen as a part of a theory of knowledge [*Van Til and other moderns - but it is not knowledge or Truth] since it is a study of the principles by which certain kinds of knowledge are obtained [*not a true statement - man's conjurations are not knowledge but give a prima facie appearance of knowledge]. But the claim that interpretation provides knowledge seems incompatible with three fundamental tenets in positivist (POSITIVISM) thought which have enjoyed wide acceptance: (1) that in principle, scientific method can and must be applied in all fields of inquiry in order to gain knowledge; (2) that the method of the physical sciences is the ideal paradigm; (3) that facts are to be explained casually, and that such an explanation consists in subsuming individual cases under general laws.

"Paul Ricoeur has distinguished between a hermeneutics of tradition and a hermeneutics of suspicion. The former aims to listen to what is communicated in order to gain insight from, or become aware of, a message hidden under the surface. A representative of this tendency is Gadamer. The latter is 'subversive', attempting to show that, properly understood, texts and human action are not as innocuous as they may seem to be, but may be reflections of hidden drives [*lusts, etc.] class interests, etc. Representative of this tendency are Nietzsche, Freud, Foucault. There are affinities between these and the so-called critical hermeneutics represented by Apel and Habermas, which continue a tradition of critique of ideologies that goes back, via Marx, to the eighteenth century. The aim of this approach is to criticize existing social, political, and cultural conditions by interpretations that are at the same time demystifications.

"The so-called HERMENEUTIC CIRCLE presents a problem for interpretation. Hermeneutics' has also been used to denote an ontological inquiry, or theory, which explores the kind of existence had by beings who are able to understand meanings, and to whom the world is primarily an object of understanding (rather than, say, of sense-perception). Heidegger's philosophy can be described as hermeneutical in this sense."

"Hermeneutics. (Greek, to interpret). The art and science, or body of rules, of truthful interpretation. It has been used chiefly by theologians; but Zacharie, in "An Essay on General Legal Hermeneutics" (Versuch elner allg. Hermeneitik des Rechts), and Dr. Lieber, in his work on Legal and Political Hermeneutics, also make use of it. See INTERPRETATION; CONSTRUCTION." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 205.

"Hermeneutics. Science of interpretation. XVIII (Waterland). - mod.L. hermeneutica - Gr. hermeneutike, sb. use (sc. tekhne art) of fem. sg. of adj. (see -IC, -ICS), f. hermeneutes, agent noun f. hermeneuein interpret, f. hermeneus interpreter." Oxford's Dictionary of Etymology (1966), p. 438.

"Hermes. A deity, the son of Zeus and Maia, the messenger of the gods, the god of science, commerce, eloquence, and many of the arts of life; commonly figured as a youth, with the caducius or rod, petasus or brimmed hat, and the telaria or winged shoes. Identified with MERCURY." Oxford's Universal English Dictionary (1955), p. 894.

"Hermetic. A. Adj. 1. Pertaining to Hermes Trismegistus, and the writings ascribed to him 1676. 2. Hence, relating to or dealing with occult science [*philosophy], esp. alchemy; magical; alchemical 1637. 3. Pertaining to the god Hermes, or to a HERMA." Oxford's Universal English Dictionary (1955), p. 894.

"Hermetic. pert. to (the supposed writings of) Hermes Trismegistus; (hence) pert. to occult science esp. alchemy; h. seal airtight closure (as used by alchemists). XVII - mod.L. hermeticus, f. (prob. after magnes, magneticus) Hermes Trismegistus (Gr. Ermhj trij megistoj, late L. Hermes termaximus) 'thrice-greatest Hermes,' name given by Neoplatonists, mystics, and alchemists to the Egyptian god Thoth, who was identified with the Grecian Hermes (god of science, etc.) as the author of occult science and esp. alchemy; see -IC, -ICS, -ICAL. The adv. is earlier in XVII; after mod.L. hermitice." Oxford's Dictionary of Etymology (1966), p. 438.

Theology means "the science of God." But God says, "so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:9). Who can study God? How can you put Him under a microscope? How do you study One who is greater than you and One who cannot be fathomed by the limited capacity of a man's finite brain? So any conclusions one comes to would have to be faulty. The Word of God testifies against it.

1 Corinthians 2:11, "...the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God."

Psalms 145:3, "Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised; and his greatness is unsearchable."

Romans 11:33, "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out."

Ephesians 3:8, "...the unsearchable riches of Christ."

Job 11:7-9, "Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know? The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea."

Therefore, the natural man looks to create "a god" in his own image and likeness using philosophy, hermeneutics, and theology to give the image of truth.

Exegesis, means "an interpretation of a word, especially in the Bible.". 2 Peter 1:20, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." So, 'Exegesis' can be pronounced 'Exit Jesus'.

 

[ccfromsc]

:crazy: The KJV Only have arrived. Run for your lives! You have no idea what Wescott-Hort did. You have just been reading from a KJV only site or book and repeating the same drivel. Please answer me this: Which REVISION to the KJV do you have? You do realize there were 28+ revisions?

 

[lawrenceb]

You have no idea what Wescott-Hort did. You have just been reading from a KJV only site or book and repeating the same drivel.

1) You're presuming (which is a sin) that I have not done the work. Rather, I have done the research. The mystics Westcott and Hort called themselves heretics.

Which REVISION to the KJV do you have?

2) You’re asking the wrong question. It’s not about any ”translation” or "revision" per se, as the King James Bible describes several translations of scripture within itself. It’s about whether we believe God’s promise (Psalm 12:7) that he has preserved his pure inspired word for ever, and has made available that pure inspired word to every man in his own language for ever (Acts chap. 2).

It has gotten so weird in the last 150 years that in order to say that you believe in the Bible, you have to say, "I believe in the verbal, plenary, infallible, inerrancy of the -original autographs."

But what in the world is an "original autograph?" Well, if you take notes in church, that is your original autograph. That's your first copy, the one you write with your own hands.

So we ask: "Did God ever write anything down?" Yes, of course. On Mount Sinai, God gave Moses tables of stone "written by the finger of God." Now that is a real "original autograph!" What happened to those tables?

When Moses went down and saw the people sinning, he was so angry that he threw the tables down and broke them. He became the first person to break all Ten Commandments at once!

God made him cut out stones for a second set and God gave him His Words a second time. Now, was that second set of tablets inspired? Was it the words of God? Yes! But it wasn't the original autograph. It was a copy.

When Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, he included the Ten Commandments. Was that the original copy? No, it was a third copy. God knew that Moses was going to break the first set, the first thing God ever wrote that man had seen in all of creation.
God does not care about original autographs.

Later Jeremiah's scroll of prophecy was cut up by King Jehoiakim and burned in his fireplace. The next one Jeremiah dictated ended up in the Euphrates river! (See Jeremiah 36 and 51.) The earliest one he kept was the third copy. Did God care about these "original autographs?"

So, what is God saying in Psalms 12:6-7? Did He really preserve His words "from this generation for ever"? Is Jesus right that "my words shall not pass away" (Matt 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33)?

If God's inspired words were only in the "original autographs," then we do not have the real words of God, so He didn't keep His promise.

But God keeps His promises. So where can we look for the real words of God? All we have are copies and translations of copies. How can we know which copies are God's preserved words for us?

Gleason L. Archer was an important author to me when I was in Bible College. He gave good reasons for my faith. But, look at what Archer said about the Bible: "But what about the text of the Bible as we now possess it?... It would take nothing short of a miracle to insure the inerrancy of a copy of an original manuscript."

Well, God is a God of miracles! The second copy was like the first; the third copy was like the second, and the 826th copy was like the 825th. Because, God is a God who keeps His words. But He doesn't care about the original copy.

But God does care about two things: accurate copies and accurate translations. And we can look through history at thousands of copies and translations to see how consistently God transmitted His words by faithful believers. Careful research proves we have God's miraculously preserved words in English in the Authorized King James Version.

The common fallacy prevalent today is in overstating the value of Hebrew and Greek texts and thereby opening the door to the scribes instead of to Christ. The utility of those inspired Hebrew and Greek texts was intended solely for those of that day (which has long since passed), and not for those of our day.

Do you want a hundred Bibles made by men, or the Bible that God Himself kept His word to preserve? We expect perversions from man's work, but with God's preserved words in the King James Bible, we can always say with confidence, "Thus saith the Lord!"

The relevant question: Did God keep his promise of pure, inspired, preservation for ever, or did he not? And if God DID keep his promise, what vehicle remains as his choice to make his word available to us all? Answer: He has always given the COMMON man the COMMON bible in the COMMON language of the day, to do one thing - evangelize the world. So, the rather relevant question to ask is: which bible is it?

Today, there are over 5000 extant (existing) manuscripts and autographs.

The Holy Bible (more recently known as the King James Bible), is based on over 99% of those 5000+, commonly known as the Majority Text.

In contrast, all modern copyrighted "versions" (i.e. post-1881) are derivatives of what is commonly known as the Minority Text - the less than 1% which were rejected by The Holy Bible translators as corrupt. The two most notorious manuscripts are Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Even seminary/bible college students are not informed of this.

When someone "corrects" the King James Bible with "more authoritative manuscripts" or "older manuscripts," or "the best authorities," they're usually making some reference to Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. These are the primary manuscripts that spiritualists and necromancers Westcott and Hort relied so heavily on when constructing their Greek text (1851-1871) on which all modern versions are based.

Vaticanus (aka B) was officially catalogued in the Vatican library in 1475, and is still property of the Vatican today. Siniaticus (aka Aleph) was discovered in a trash can at St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai by Count Tischendorf, a German scholar, in the year 1844. Both B and Aleph are Roman Catholic manuscripts.

 

[tulsa 2011]

Revelation 9:14-19 and II Peter 2:1-3 as well as Matthew 24: 11 are important prophecy texts which provide knowledge about how a huge number of false prophets will deceive many and lead them away from sound doctrine into false doctrines. The falling away of II Thessalonians 2: 3-4 and the leavening of the Kingdom of God of Luke 13: 18-21 also give us important knowledge about this topic.

The NIV for Matthew 24: 11 says "and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people." It is not easy to diminish this doctrine in Matthew 24: 11 But Revelation 9:14-19 presents the doctrine in the language of metaphor. Dispensationalism begins from the assumptions that God now has two peoples, not one and that prophecy - and all scripture should be interpreted in a literal way, discouraging the admission that much of prophecy is in metaphoric language. And II Peter 2: 3 - "through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you" is metaphoric in that people are not literally merchandise. To make merchandise of people as a metaphor means to change them, while in the NIV exploit you does not necessarily mean to change your spiritual state and ability to discern and love the truth. The NIV avoids the metaphoric meaning in II Peter 2: 3. It also avoids the metaphoric meaning of Revelation 9: 15 and 9: 18 by translating "triton ton anthropon" as "a third of mankind," meaning one third of all people will be killed. On the other hand, the Tyndale, Geneva and KJV all have "the third part of men," which can mean man in three parts is "killed" in one part. That is. one part of three part man is "killed." This provides far different knowledge that saying "a third of mankind" is to be literally killed.

The New King James has "So the four angels, who had been prepared for the hour and day and month and year, were released to kill a third of mankind." So, the New King James says the same thing as the NIV, that a third of mankind will be killed, meaning the killing is literal.

But the New King James is supposedly translated from the Textus Receptus and not from the Westcott-Hort Greek text. It does not matter - for Revelation 9: 15, and 9: 18 - whether the English is translated for the Textus Receptus or from the Westcott-Hort.

What then might be behind the translation of tritos in the form of "triton ton anthropon" as "a third of mankind?" Remember that dispensationalism says prophecy should be interpreted in a literal way.

Since the New King James Version was first published in 1982, it is not surprising that many of the people who contributed to it were dispensationalists.

ARTHUR LEONARD FARSTAD was the main editor of the group who created the New King James Version, first published in 1982. "Arthur L. Farstad served as the Executive Editor of the New King James Version...He holds a Ph.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary."

Dallas Theological Seminary was founded by Lewis S. Chafer, one of the three main classical dispensationalists, along with John Darby and C.I. Schfield. The Seminary has remained an important institution for the promotion of dispensationalist theology.

Dr Ronald B. Allen was the Old Testament editor of the New King James Version, and has a Doctor of Theology degree from Dallas Theological Seminary.

Dr Thomas Ice is a well known dispensationalist who was on the committee that created the New King James Version. Ice got his Masters of Theology degree in 1981 from guess where, Dallas Theological Seminary.

Dr David E. Garland was on the Old Testament committee group, and he is apparently a Southern Baptist, having received his Ph.D. from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Now, in earlier decades, for example, back in the forties and fifties, the Southern Baptists leaders were not all followers of dispensationalism. But - starting in the sixties, the Southern Baptist Convention was taken over by what was then called Fundamentalism, which was essentially dispensationalism.

Dr. Louis Goldberg contributed to the NKJV, Professor of Theology and Jewish Studies
Moody Bible Institute. Moody is a dispensationalist institution.

Dr. Eugene H. Merrill contributed to the Old Testament. He was Associate Professor of Semantics and Old Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary

Dr. Allen P. Ross also contributed to the Old testament, He was Professor of Old Testament,
Dallas Theological Seminary

Dr. Boyce Blackwelder contributed to the New Testament, He was a professor at
Anderson College, Anderson, Indiana, which is part of the Church of God denomination, and probably dispensationalist.

Dr. Virtus E. Gideon contributed to the New Testament. He was Professor of New Testament and Greek
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and probably dispensationalist..

There were a few on the NKJV committee who were probably not followers of dispensationalist theology, such as Dr. Robert L. Reymond. Professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics, Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri. Yet the Committee was dominated by dispensationalists.