f you are a believer in Biblical creationism, NKJV by +Thomas Nelson. The book dates human history to way before the Bible does

Jeremy Jesenovec

Apr 21, 2012 (edited)  -  Public

If you are a believer in Biblical creationism, then don't get the Chronological Study Bible, NKJV by +Thomas Nelson. The book dates human history to way before the Bible does, indicating the stone age took place before 10,000 BC and early human civilization can be traced back to 26,000 BC. It states that, "Very early dates are based on theories of evolution and geology." Instead of discounting them as only theories, it publishes these dates as truth. I wonder what +Answers in Genesis would have to say about it. I would imagine that most people wanting a study Bible would not want there Bible to say that the Biblical story of creationism is only a story. I could be wrong, but just a thought. I am disappointed.

+5

Hide comments

Jo DunawayApr 21, 2012

+1

Whatever happened to not adding one jot or one tittle to the gospel?

Dean Marlett-SmithApr 21, 2012

Did they lump all humanoids together? If so, then yes. If they are referring to the only human a species to survive, us, then no. the Jewish Bible (old testament to Christians) is closer to our rise.

Jeremy JesenovecApr 21, 2012

Huh?

Jeremy JesenovecApr 21, 2012

Half of Page 1 talks about the stone age before 10000 BC pre-Biblical history. Page 1!
Page 2 in a standout block in the center of the page: "Scholars have placed the first human settlements as early as 7,000 to 8,000 years before Christ.
Page 5 Time Capsule shows 8 events going back to 26,000BC. Other stuff in between.
I've yet to get past page 5

Adam DeanApr 21, 2012

+2

+Dean Marlett-Smith All "humanoids" were created during the six-day creation account that Genesis details as complete, fully-formed human beings with souls. Evolution is not just a theory, it's an impossible idea. The only human species to survive is the one that was there in the first place, somewhere around 6000 years ago when God created us and everything else.

Rachel LubbeApr 21, 2012

+1

Nelson is untrustworthy. My Husband has a New Defenders by Morris and I love my Ryrie. Also, I've heard that the NKJV pulls from the Alexandrian Transcripts(don't quote me on that), and therefore can't be trusted.

Jeremy JesenovecApr 21, 2012

+1

I don't normally read KJV or NKJV. I used to read NIV but have had it with their progressive changes (gender neutral Bibles). I am normally an NAS guy. I picked this up because I wanted a Chronological & Study Bible. Regrets.

Dean Marlett-SmithApr 21, 2012

I shall stick with the NAB (New American Bible.)

Jeremy JesenovecApr 21, 2012

Had lots of NABs around the house growing up, but my family is not Catholic anymore. This article pretty much sums up why I use NASB:http://pastorericdouglas.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/why-i-use-the-nasb/

Dean Marlett-SmithApr 21, 2012

There a newer NAB now but I can't recall where the R (revised) is placed in NAB. :) It's an ebook also hence I am always carrying it with me (in my mobile.) +Jeff Cavins has some great Bible study courses; the best one is the Timeline which covers the entire salvation history.

Jeremy JesenovecApr 21, 2012

You can download any mainstream version on your smartphone. I do so through the youversion app.

David WoodsApr 21, 2012

That's absolutely ridiculous.

Rachel LubbeApr 21, 2012

+2

I highly recommend sticking to the KJV, as it is the only Bible in the English language I am aware of which draws solely from the Textus Receptus; or Byzantine; line of Greek texts, whereas the more modern translations draw from the Westcott and Hort, and Nesle-Aland Greek New Testaments, derived from the highly suspect Alexandrian texts, including Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. The Alexandrian line has a long history of alterations via filtering through Gnostic cults, and the Catholic Church, and differs greatly from the Byzantine texts, which were very carefully copied and preserved in the Eastern leg of the empire. Some of these alterations include the removal of the phrase “Son of God”, attacks on the virgin birth, attacks on the deity of Christ, attacks on the physical resurrection of Christ, and many many more.

To be fair, out of all of the modern translations, the NASB is one of the best, as it does draw heavily, though certainly not solely, from the Byzantine text; definitely more so than the majority of modern translations. Regardless, I recommend steering away from any translation which draws at all from compromised text, as the NASB does. Here is a link to an excellent documentary which goes much further in depth on this topic. A Lamp in the Dark: The Untold History of the Bible (Full Length). I hope this helps.

Expand this comment »

Adam DeanApr 21, 2012

+Rachel Lubbe What about the Geneva? I believe that draws just from the Byantine, although I'm not sure about that....

Jeremy JesenovecApr 21, 2012

+1

+Rachel Lubbe I clearly am not at a level to debate with you. ;-)

Rachel LubbeApr 21, 2012

+1

The Geneva does draw copletely from it, and the notes are great, but I always forget to mention it because the english is even more outdated than the KJV. I'm not debating, just informing. My husband is convicted about the KJV thing, and while I think he's right, I have a hard time understanding it in it's entirety. I'd be a NAS girl if it were up to me, with a KJV for reference.

Rachel LubbeApr 21, 2012

+1

Philippians 2:6 KJV Jesus =God, other versions Jesus < God
KJV "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"
NIV "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,"
ESV "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,"
NAS "who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,"


Acts 8:37 "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."(KJV) is not in most versions.

I want to write a whole thing on this, but it's on a list of many things I want to study. I look forward to being dead and not having to worry about it anymore. (Philippians 1:21)

Expand this comment »

Adam DeanApr 21, 2012 (edited)

Well, one of the things I absolutely love about the KJV is the majestic language. It is so beautiful, so grand, very befitting to the Word of God, in my opinion. :)

I personally don't have any trouble understanding it. I was raised on KJV and am very well read literary-wise, and I have read many, many middle and old English works like Shakespeare, so I have a good foundation in understanding the words and terms. I understand people who don't, and indeed, sometimes go on short rants about people not reading KJV properly, like "helpmeet". "Helpmeet" isn't a noun, "meet" is a verb that means "good for" or "fit" or "perfect". It means a "perfect and fit help"... Lol. Anyway...

Expand this comment »

Adam DeanApr 21, 2012

+Rachel Lubbe Wow, that's pretty telling! I have never been comfortable with just about any other version than the KJV because there is always something that's not right...

Rachel LubbeApr 21, 2012

+1

+Adam Dean This goes into the differences a little and the sequel comes out soon. A Lamp in the Dark: The Untold History of the Bible (Full Length)

David WoodsApr 21, 2012

+2

I agree with +Rachel Lubbe , the KJV texts are the only ones worth studying from (especially word for word) for the reasons mentioned (I looked into it years ago, and came to the same conclusion). The Texus Receptus (the "received text") remained uncompromised over the years while the Alexandrian was very compromised (It was actually found in what amounted to a garbage can if I remember right). All the other English translations use the Alexandrian though because it's older, and therefore (in their minds) "closer" to the original. If you believe that God has preserved His Word down through the centuries, then the TR's age isn't a problem. If, however, you believe it's been messed with and changed throughout the years, then you have to find the oldest one, and the Alexandrian is the oldest one.

Prime Example: Look up Acts 8:37&38 in the KJV, then in the NIV, and see one of the major differences for yourself.

Collapse this comment

Add a comment...