Wanted: KJV Preacher Bible

VERSES ep.0 | Pilot | KJV vs. NKJV by KJVPictures

Even though the NKJV claims to be an easier to understand version of the KJV, it is actually an Alexandrian translation disguised as a Textus Receptus, meaning that every change they made aligns more with the Alexandrian translations than the Textus Receptus. For those that don't know, there are over five thousand manuscripts, all agreeing with one another, that form the Textus Receptus (the Received Texts), while only about thirty comprise the Alexandrian texts (only four of which are "complete"). The King James translators used the Textus Receptus, while Wescott and Hort used the Alexandrian texts. All modern bibles, including the New King James Bible, use the Wescott and Hort translations of the Alexandrian texts.

So, is the NKJV easier to understand? You tell me.
It claims so be, but what does Hades mean?
The KJV translates Hades to Hell. The NKJV just transliterates the word without translating it.
How is that supposed to be easier for people to understand?

What about 1 Kings 10:28?
Here's the NKJV translation:
"And Solomon had horses imported from Egypt and Keveh; the king's merchants bought them in Keveh at the current price."
What does the above verse say Solomon purchased? Horses, right? From Egypt and Keveh. But Keveh isn't a place. It isn't a town or a city. It doesn't exist.
Now read the "hard to understand" King James Version:
"And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt, and Linen Yarn: the king's merchants received the linen yarn at a price."
Wow, that must have been very difficult to read. People will argue that "Keveh" is a city or town, but there is no historical evidence whatsoever for such a place. It's actually just another transliteration of the Hebrew word for Linen Yarn "Miqveh."

And what about all those "Ye's" and "Thee's" it takes out? The KJV translators specifically used those words to denote plural and singular, making verses like John 3:7 much easier to understand and with less room for error.

But those are small changes. They don't mean anything significant, right? And let's just ignore removing the name Belial (a name for Satan) and replacing it with words like "rebel" and "rogue." What about doctrinal changes?
Well, it turns out the NKJV is more Catholic than you might think.

Take for instance the Catholic reverence for their "Queen of Heaven," the title they give to Mary, mother of Jesus (see more on that here: https://kjvpictures.com/2022/03/22/my.... In Isaiah 7:14 (and Matt.1:23) a prophecy of a virgin bearing the Messiah is made. The NKJV changed "a virgin" to "the virgin," changing the indefinite article to a definite article, giving Mary more significance.

But lets see some not so subtle changes, ones with major implications.
Do you know why Catholics have to confess? It's because they believe they have to work for their salvation. They confess their sins to a priest who tells them how they have to repent. The KJV is pretty clear that we are saved the moment we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, but the NKJV inserts words to imply that is not the case.

2 Corinthians 2:15 in the KJV reads:
"For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:"
Who is the verse talking about? Us, right? Aren't we saved? I know I am.
But the NKJV changes "in them that are saved" to "among those who are being saved."
Being saved? So who is that? Sounds like these are people who are in the process of being saved, kind of like Catholics who have to work to be saved.
And that's not the only place the NKJV does this.

Hebrew 10:14 in the KJV reads:
"For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified."
What a beautiful verse! It's speaking of Jesus's offering of himself (past), has perfected is forever! You can't improve on it! It's perfect! Amen!
So what does the NKJV read?:
"For by one offering He has perfected forever those that are being sanctified."
There it is again... "being sanctified." It's a process, according to the NKJV.
How can Jesus have perfected the offering once and forever (1 Peter 3:18) if this verse in the NKJV suggests it's an on going process? Who else believes Christ's sacrifice is an ongoing process?
The Catholics believe the eucharist is Christ being offered every day! The NKJV agrees!

Each time the NKJV changes a verse, it aligns more and more with the corrupt Alexandrian texts. The creme de le creme of this corruption can be seen in every verse where the KJV uses "New Testament." In ALL of these verses "New Testament" has been changed to "New Covenant". Only ONE of the EIGHT covenants in the bible is a testament and the "New Covenant" is an exclusive covenant meant only for the Hebrew people. This completely changes doctrine and for those who are interested I've written an extensive article on this very matter that you can read here: https://kjvpictures.com/2024/04/16/co...