PDA

View Full Version : Why I'm not against modern versions (or translations) of the Bible



TrustGzus
May 4th 2009, 03:01 AM
Should this be in Bible Chat or controversial? I think all discussions on this belong in controversial. However, most of the discussions happen in Bible Chat. So I'll start here and see how it goes.

I don't usually start threads on these subjects. I usually respond to threads on this subject rather than start them. The link that shows threads I've started only has two on Bible versions. I think I've done one or two more that probably have been deleted over the years.

I used to be Textus Receptus only. That means I accepted only Bibles that used the Textus Receptus as the base of their New Testament. Thus, my conclusion was only the King James and New King James deserved my trust. I was against all modern versions except the New King James. I used to ridicule Bibles such as the NASB and NIV.

Many who have the bent I once had hold a tougher position than I did. Many more believe only the King James deserves our trust and that the New King James does not deserve our trust.

Today, I see the main thing being that Christians should read a Bible every single day. In general, I don't care if it's a KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, NIV, TNIV or a number of others. I reject the New World Translation of the Watchtower because it's not a translation, but a manipulation to make the Bible fit Watchtower theology.

Let me emphasize that I listed the King James as a version for people to read. I don't hate the King James. One of my favorite Bibles that I own is a King James Open Bible. I have concluded the King James is not as accurate as many modern versions, but I don't think it is bad. I think it's a good Bible.

So this is not an anti-King James thread. Rather, it's a pro-Bible thread. Get a Bible and read that Bible -- every day.

I am not omniscient. In many theological issues you and I study, there are multiple sides. On those differing sides, I can find born again believers. On various sides of a debate, some of those believers probably are more intelligent than I. So picking "heroes" doesn't solve a problem to me. Because on the other side of my "hero" would be an opponent of equal ability or maybe even better.

Also, every issue has some questions or holes that we can't quite clean up. So what is one to do?

I try, as much as possible, to study all sides. I try to get the best representatives from each view of an issue. Which view do I take? The one that leaves me with the least amount of problems. I take the one that leaves the least amount of problems and is the most comprehensive in dealing with all the factors.

So that is the approach I will take in this thread. Hopefully, I will post on Monday. But I work Monday through Wednesday this week and each work day is a 14-hour day for me. So . . . no promises for Monday. Worst case, I'll pick up Thursday.

I hope this thread will be helpful. I hope it will be edifying.

Grace & peace friends, brothers, sisters.

Joe

Psalms Fan
May 4th 2009, 03:11 AM
I also was once Textus Receptus only, and KJV only at that. But I no longer am. I will agree that we need to read the Bible daily, and the particular version is of little consequence, unless it's a version that has been deliberately manipulated to teach cultic doctrine.

So I guess I'd second everything that you said.

Izdaari
May 4th 2009, 08:01 AM
I totally agree, Joe. :thumbsup:

My own preference is the CT family of manuscripts, though I think the TR group are also worth referring to for the sake of comparison. That is, I think the CT is in general more accurate, but I'm sure the TR is better in places, so it behooves us to have both available to look at. And that I'll have to do in translation, since I'm only just beginning to learn Greek, and I haven't even started on Hebrew (and won't until I've mastered Greek to an adequate level).

My favorite formal-equivalence translation is the ESV, though I'm also fond of the HCSB, and I have nothing against the NRSV or the NASB. My favorite dynamic-equivalence translation is the TNIV, and I'll use the NIV or NLT2 as second choices. For a TR-based version, I'll take the NKJV. And I like to keep an NET around for the extensive translation notes. I also like The Message, but I'll be the first to admit it isn't a translation at all, but "Rev. Eugene Peterson tells Bible stories in his own words"... but that's a good thing, so long as you don't forget that and mistake it for an actual Bible.

matthew7and1
May 4th 2009, 08:41 AM
kudos to you! thak you for sharing your feelings because that is so true! reading the bible is what is truly important!

Windmill2000
May 4th 2009, 09:54 AM
I always carry a KJV to our church meetings and use it for study purposes however I have recentley purchased The Message (The Bible in Contemporary Language).

It's really light reading and I am enjoying comparing the two versions.

I also was once a hard head for KJV only but I think I've definately mellowed a bit.

As most of the posters have said.... it's the daily reading that matters most.

thepenitent
May 4th 2009, 02:34 PM
I always carry a KJV to our church meetings and use it for study purposes however I have recentley purchased The Message (The Bible in Contemporary Language).

It's really light reading and I am enjoying comparing the two versions.

I also was once a hard head for KJV only but I think I've definately mellowed a bit.

As most of the posters have said.... it's the daily reading that matters most.

I would say that although I agree with everything the original poster said, I don't consider "The Message" to be a translation. I think it is a commentary rather than a translation. I'm not opining on whether it is a good or bad commentary, just that it is not really a translation. Accordingly, if one is going to read "The Message" they should also read one of the fine translations identified in the original post.

Teke
May 4th 2009, 03:00 PM
Any scripture is better than no scripture. Both the person and the scriptures are part of the church. There is not one without the other.

I read the KJV, NKJV and the full Sept. in English. That is enough "translations" for me to deal with. :)

BadDog
May 4th 2009, 03:51 PM
TrustGzus,

Finally! A thread that supports the modern translations instead of putting them down because they don't sound like Old English.

I personally like modern translations because of
1) superior scholarship (though this is not a big deal - they were scholars centuries ago),
2) because we have many more and reliable Greek MSS,
3) because my main concern is that people get into the Word, and preferably one they understand and
4) I hold to a form of translation which emphasized meaning over structure (dynamic equivalent over formal equivalent).

Gotta go,

BD

Windmill2000
May 4th 2009, 04:10 PM
I would say that although I agree with everything the original poster said, I don't consider "The Message" to be a translation. I think it is a commentary rather than a translation. I'm not opining on whether it is a good or bad commentary, just that it is not really a translation. Accordingly, if one is going to read "The Message" they should also read one of the fine translations identified in the original post.

I agree with your posting regarding The Message.... however I also said that I enjoyed comparing the KJV with the message.

My wife uses the NIV which we also compare.

-SEEKING-
May 4th 2009, 04:18 PM
My preferred way to read the bible is to read each book I'm studying in all the versions I own. NIV, KJV, NKJV, NASB, Message and ESV. I think it really enhances my reading and comprehinding.

Dani H
May 4th 2009, 04:56 PM
This is a wonderful thread but I have to sprinkle reps around before I can give you more.

Why would we divide ourselves any longer into camps according to Bible translations? We should be encouraging people to read any Bible they can get their hands on instead of relying so heavily on pre-chewed messages given to them by other people, that are heavily laced with personal interpretations. People read more books about the Bible, than the Bible itself, and that's regrettable. I know this, because I've been guilty of it myself, and had to repent.

I own more than one Bible translation, and God speaks to me through them all. He really does. I love The Message for its wonderful readability, I love the NKJV because that's the first Bible I bought after I got saved, I love the KJV for its poetic language, I love the Amplified (I read through the whole thing in like a month because I enjoyed it so much), and I just ordered me a ESV. I love God's Word! Because it is spirit, and it is life. :pp

I think oftentimes when we want to hide behind whicher "truth" we've staked our claim behind, it's really because we secretly fear that if we step outside of what we think we know and hold dear, bad things will happen to us and we'll end up going astray. If that's your personal feeling, then that's your personal feeling (and something you should settle with God). But holding that over other people's heads and decrying them as "false" or "deceived" ... honestly, that's nothing to do with truth anymore, but with something else altogether.

Because there is only one Truth, and His name is Jesus. And God speaks to use through Him, not through whatever "most right" translation we want to so desperately hang on to. There are millions of believers around the world that own Bibles (or parts thereof) in hundreds of different languages, and they're doing just fine without the KJV or whatever, and are miraculously able to serve God and spread the Gospel like wildfire without arguing for hours about manuscripts and so forth. We really have to learn to become more open minded and understand that God is bigger than these things and well able to lead us into truth outside of whichever box we have chosen to live in. That doesn't obviously just apply to Bible translations either. ;)

As I've stated in prior threads, Truth is a Person, not a document, alive and well, and able to know what His own Word is, and guide us in it. :)

Stan777
May 4th 2009, 08:42 PM
When I got saved like 9 months ago I was into the NIV, then started to find that there are phrases and words in the KJV that are not in the NIV so I was stuck on the KJV for about a month. I really like the KJV because its just so powerful to read and also the downfall is that sometimes I wouldn't understand what I was reading so that really started to bother me. So I asked God what else could I read that is like the KJV besides the NKJV and I stumbled upon the ESV. I really believe that God will speak to you no matter what you use. Just as long as its not a paraphrase because you may miss some important points. The paraphrases are more like story bibles. Like one person mentioned about, I think its a good thing to read the same book from more than one translation, it helps me also when I do. God bless.

BadDog
May 4th 2009, 08:46 PM
I would say that although I agree with everything the original poster said, I don't consider "The Message" to be a translation. I think it is a commentary rather than a translation. I'm not opining on whether it is a good or bad commentary, just that it is not really a translation. Accordingly, if one is going to read "The Message" they should also read one of the fine translations identified in the original post.This is interesting. The "translator" of the The Message is skilled in both Greek and Hebrew languages. So what is so different about TM that most people, including myself, consider it to be a paraphrase rather than a translation?

1) It was done by one person - not a committee.
2) The meaning is emphasized, so it is not "formal equivalent," and the author strongly focused on meaning and impact over accuracy.
Finally,
3) The author referred to it as a paraphrase when interviewed for Christianity Today magazine.

The final point is the crucial one for me. Very free translations are often referred to as "paraphrastic" by translators, indicating that though it is quite free, it is a translation.

But when the author himself refers to it as a paraphrase, that's what it is in my book. Now NavPress has published it as a translation and advertised it as such... because they figured it would be more successful as such.

However, I would not go so far as to refer to it as commentary. Personally I like it. I think that sometimes he really captures the meaning of some difficult passages.

Remember, just because a translation is more free does not mean it is less accurate. A wooden more "word-for-word" (though no translation is strictly very close to word-for-word) translation can sometimes be less accurate since the meaning intended by the original author is misunderstood or not picked up by the readers.

FWIW,

BD

Prufrock
May 4th 2009, 10:13 PM
Finally! A thread that supports the modern translations instead of putting them down because they don't sound like Old English.
Yes, that would be a mistake. Of course, I rather doubt that anyone in this forum has ever spent much time reading a Bible that "sounds like Old English." You certainly can't be referring to the King James, which, by any standard of linguistics or etymology, is written in Modern English.

The English language as we know it has gone through four periods. The dates are roughly these:


Old English 450-1100 AD
Middle English 1100-1500 AD
Modern English 1500-1800 AD
Late Modern English 1800 - today


People who say that the King James Bible was written in "Old English" have not the slightest idea what they're talking about; it was published in 1611.

I've had the opportunity to discuss the matter of translations with the OP in another thread, and hoped to engage him further, but I don't know if this is the place. So far, this has been an uninterrupted celebration of the new versions, and I certainly don't want to be a spot in your love feast! But if the OP wants to continue here, I'm game. If not, I hope you enjoy yourselves!


:D

Dani H
May 4th 2009, 11:14 PM
So far, this has been an uninterrupted celebration of the new versions, and I certainly don't want to be a spot in your love feast! But if the OP wants to continue here, I'm game. If not, I hope you enjoy yourselves!

I've nothing against the KJV, as a matter of fact, I just purchased me another KJV Bible today because a course I'm studying requires me to use that translation. I've owned one previously and enjoyed it too. I just enjoy the NKJV more. Please don't make this a KJV versus other versions thread because it's not. Nobody here is bashing the KJV, and so let's leave it at that. It's like arguing if chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla ice cream. It's both ice cream. And all of these translation is Jesus speaking to us, so no sense arguing over preferences. And so you and KJV are certainly welcome to join us any time!! :hug:

And while we're talking about trust ... shouldn't that be in the God of the Bible more than the Bible itself? Do we trust the Bible because we trust God? Or the other way around? If we trust God first and foremost, then studying whichever translation He leads us to, is no issue, right? At least I shouldn't think so. :)

Izdaari
May 5th 2009, 12:17 AM
Yes, that would be a mistake. Of course, I rather doubt that anyone in this forum has ever spent much time reading a Bible that "sounds like Old English." You certainly can't be referring to the King James, which, by any standard of linguistics or etymology, is written in Modern English.

The English language as we know it has gone through four periods. The dates are roughly these:


Old English 450-1100 AD
Middle English 1100-1500 AD
Modern English 1500-1800 AD
Late Modern English 1800 - today


People who say that the King James Bible was written in "Old English" have not the slightest idea what they're talking about; it was published in 1611.

Right, the KJV isn't Old English, it's Early Modern English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Modern_English). But Late Modern English is what we speak now.




Early Modern English (often abbreviated EModE[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Modern_English#cite_note-0)) is the stage of the English language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language) used from about the end of the Middle English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_English) period (the latter half of the 15th century) to 1650. Thus, the first edition of the King James Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Bible) and the works of William Shakespeare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shakespeare) both belong to the late phase of Early Modern English, although the King James Bible intentionally keeps some archaisms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaism) that were not common even when it was published.

<snip>

Current readers of English are generally able to understand Early Modern English, though occasionally with difficulties arising from grammar changes, changes in the meanings of some words, and spelling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_spelling) differences.I didn't grow up with the KJV, but I'm coming to appreciate it for its literary qualities. I'll probably always keep one around for that reason, and for comparison.

TrustGzus
May 5th 2009, 03:35 AM
Thank you to everyone for the supportive posts. Thank you to Prufrock for being respectful. In the couple threads I've seen Prufrock interact in so far, Prufrock has been careful to not derail the thread. I'm assuming there is prior forum experience there.

As I said, 14 hours from the time I left home till I got home. I did one post in another thread. Then my son had an 8pm baseball game. Tomorrow I have 8 teens that come to my house for Bible study. So, I'll begin to talk about why I'm not against the modern versions, or why I'm simply Pro-Bible -- KJV and modern translations, beginning Wednesday or Thursday.

Grace & peace, everyone.

Joe

My heart's Desire
May 5th 2009, 04:11 AM
I'm also Pro-Bible. As I've discussed in many other threads at one point I got into that KJv onlyist thing, not that I was one but that I got into all the pro's, con's difference's and bought so many versions. In the end I got almost to the point of wondering if ANY were God's Word that I could trust. I was actually sick over it. Thank the Lord, I resumed some sense of reason, picked the NASB and enjoy my other versions as well. It's a sad thing to get to distrust EVERY Bible ever produced.

BadDog
May 5th 2009, 12:00 PM
Yes, that would be a mistake. Of course, I rather doubt that anyone in this forum has ever spent much time reading a Bible that "sounds like Old English." You certainly can't be referring to the King James, which, by any standard of linguistics or etymology, is written in Modern English.

The English language as we know it has gone through four periods. The dates are roughly these:


Old English 450-1100 AD
Middle English 1100-1500 AD
Modern English 1500-1800 AD
Late Modern English 1800 - today


People who say that the King James Bible was written in "Old English" have not the slightest idea what they're talking about; it was published in 1611.

I've had the opportunity to discuss the matter of translations with the OP in another thread, and hoped to engage him further, but I don't know if this is the place. So far, this has been an uninterrupted celebration of the new versions, and I certainly don't want to be a spot in your love feast! But if the OP wants to continue here, I'm game. If not, I hope you enjoy yourselves!


:D





Prufrock,

Yes, I realzie that the KJV is really "middle English," though I'm not sure where you got those dates, as the KJV is clearly not "modern" English. ('Late modern" by your dates, though that is not good enough as people will not understand very well anything written before the turn of the 20th century. And understanding is "critical.")

Perhaps I should change my comment before to be that I want it to be modern English.

Thx,

BD

TrustGzus
May 7th 2009, 03:35 PM
I mentioned in the OP two different views Textus Receptus Only (TRO) and King James Version Only (KJVO). There's only one Bible on the market that separates these two positions -- the New King James Version (NKJV). I used to be TRO and so I accepted the NKJV. I could always be wrong now. I could have been wrong then. But since I've been a Christian, I've never been against the NKJV.

So what are some of the objections? Here's a website (http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nkjvdead.htm) that includes most, if not all, of what I usually hear. The author provides 16 objections.
1. The text of the NKJV is copyrighted by Thomas Nelson Publishers, while there is no copyright today on the text of the KJV. If your KJV has maps or notes, then it may have a copyright, but the text itself does not. The copyright objection applies to all modern versions.

First of all, this assumes having a copyright is sinful. Secondly, the KJV doesn't escape this charge. Wikipedia has a commentary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version#Copyright_status) stating the KJV copyright has expired in most of the world but not England. Thirdly, the copyright on each version will eventually expire . . . just like it has with the KJV. This objection comes up non-stop. It gets old to hear. Fourthly, this doesn't tell if the NKJV is more accurate than any version.
2. There's nothing "new" about the NKJV logo. It is a "666" symbol of the pagan trinity which was used in the ancient Egyptian mysteries. It was also used by satanist Aleister Crowley around the turn of this century. The symbol can be seen on the New King James Bible, on certain rock albums (like Led Zepplin's), or you can see it on the cover of such New Age books as The Aquarian Conspiracy. (See Riplinger's tract on the NKJV.) I think much of the church suffers from a weak view of God's omnipotence. Those who object to the modern versions are infected with this heavily. If Satan supposed has gotten a hold of a calendar date, some think Christians need to avoid it. Christmas, Easter and Halloween are examples. I can't help but wonder how if Satan gets a hold of calendar date, that God can touch it.

Same thing here. Let's grant that the triquetra has a pagan origin (maybe it does, maybe it does not). The NKJV states . . .


NKJV Logo: The triquetra (from a Latin word meaning “three-cornered”) is an ancient symbol for the Trinity. It comprises three interwoven arcs, distinct yet equal and inseparable, symbolizing that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct yet equal Persons and indivisibly One God.
The New King James Version. 1982. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
I don't see any real problem with this. This argument seems like a desparate attempt to vilify a modern version which is the best representative of the Textus Receptus today.
3. It is estimated that the NKJV makes over 100,000 translation changes, which comes to over eighty changes per page and about three changes per verse! A great number of these changes bring the NKJV in line with the readings of such Alexandrian perversions as the NIV and the RSV. Where changes are not made in the text, subtle footnotes often give credence to the Westcott and Hort Greek Text. First . . . 100,000 changes compared to what? The answer is the KJV. The answer assumes the KJV is 100% correct and that these supposed 100,000 changes are all wrong and not improvements. Without a list, this point doesn't help. Without a list, we have no proof of the claim either. Secondly, this charge assumes any changes brought in accordance with Alexandrian readings or the Greek text of Westcott and Hort are wrong. We are given no proof. This is circular reasoning. The author assumes the KJV is correct. Any deviation is wrong. By the way, Westcott & Hort didn't change anything. Any thing in their Greek text that differs from the Textus Receptus had manuscript support. I'm not saying every choice the made is correct. What I am saying is that they didn't willy-nilly make changes. They had ancient manuscripts to support their choices.
4. While passing off as being true to the Textus Receptus, the NKJV IGNORES the Receptus over 1,200 times. Circular reasoning again. The assumption is the TR is correct in every instance. We need proof. Plus, let's see the list of 1200 differences so we can form our own conclusions. Four objections into this and we haven't looked at a single verse.
5. In the NKJV, there are 22 omissions of "hell", 23 omissions of "blood", 44 omissions of "repent", 50 omissions of "heaven", 51 omissions of "God", and 66 omissions of "Lord". The terms "devils", "damnation", "JEHOVAH", and "new testament" are completely omitted. Now this sounds scary. This is finally a possible reason to be against the NKJV.

HELL

It's true that the KJV uses hell 54 times and the NKJV 32 times -- a difference of 22. Ten of those are in the NT; twelve in the OT.

But this is misleading. While the English word hell is "omitted" the Greek and Hebrew words are never omitted. In those 22 instances, the NKJV brings the words sheol (the Hebrew word) or hades (the Greek word) right into English.

Furthermore, can I mention when the KJV omits hell when the NKJV has it? In Ezekiel 31:15, The KJV translates sheol as grave when the NKJV translates it as hell. Why is it wrong when the KJV translates sheol as hell but the NKJV does not but it's ok when the NKJV translates it as hell and KJV does not? Sounds like a double-standard. Inconsistencies like that make me unable to accept the position that opposes the NKJV. I can't live with the inconsistency.

BLOOD

It's true. Doing a computer search shows us that the KJV has this word 447 times. The NKJV only has it 424 times. That's a difference of 23. All of these but one are in the OT. The only NT difference is Hebrews 12:4 where the KJV uses blood and the NKJV uses bloodshed. This accounts for many of the OT references too. The NKJV often in those differences uses bloodshed or lifeblood or bloodline so a computer search over looks them. This accounts for most of the differences.

We could say by the same logic the KJV omits blood in Ezekiel 7:23 where the NKJV has blood but the KJV has bloody.

A handful of times the NKJV uses guilt instead of blood.

When I do searches and these are the kinds of results I find, I find the case against the NKJV uncompelling. Also, I think giving these kinds of "omissions" is misleading.

Never is a Hebrew or Greek word omitted in any of the above cases. They have been translated differently, and not necessarily in a bad way. Perhaps better. That's a different discussion.

REPENT

Five of the six differences in the NT are in Matthew 21:29; 21:32; 27:3; 2 Cor 7:8 and Heb 7:21. But in each of these a different word is used and the NKJV translates that different Greek word with a different English word. The common Greek word translated repentence is μετανοέω. But in these five verses the word is μεταμέλλομαι. The only other time is Romans 11:29 in which the word is the negative of μεταμέλλομαι. In other words stick the letter a in front. Such as the difference in gnostic or agnostic.

So I think I've made my point and don't need to go on to the other words. The so-called omissions given in this aren't very convincing.

I'll look at more reasons why I'm not against the NKJV later. It's time to go play catch with my 6-year-old and he really wants to go. So I'm not proof-reading. I apologize if there are any mistakes I didn't catch. Let me know.

Grace & peace, everyone.

Joe

TrustGzus
May 7th 2009, 06:43 PM
If anyone has any questions about the words in the last post and the supposed omissions, or about words I didn't bother with, feel free to ask. I think I made my point, i.e. the NKJV didn't omit Greek or Hebrew words, it merely deals with some of them in different ways than the KJV . . . sometimes in a better way. Next point from the link I provided that explains why the NKJV is deadly . . .
6. The NKJV demotes the Lord Jesus Christ. In John 1:3, the KJV says that all things were made "by" Jesus Christ, but in the NKJV, all things were just made "through" Him. The word "Servant" replaces "Son" in Acts 3:13 and 3:26. "Servant" replaces "child" in Acts 4:27 and 4:30. The word "Jesus" is omitted from Mark 2:15, Hebrews 4:8, and Acts 7:45. The NKJV demotes Jesus in John 1:3 by saying all things were made through him? That's the claim.

As I mentioned, I struggle with inconsistency. If I adopt the anti-NKJV view, then I must become anti-KJV also. Why? Because the KJV says the same thing in Romans 11:36 . . .

36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.
[/URL] (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftn1)
The Holy Bible : King James Version.


Now Romans 11:36 is speaking of God in general, not just Jesus, the second person of the Trinity. But this says through him are all things.

The Greek is the same as in John 1:3 . . . δι αυτου. Plus, the NKJV does say all things were made by Jesus. Look at Colossians . . .
16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftn1)
The New King James Version. 1982 (Col 1:16). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.


I find it common when critics of newer versions make their criticisms, they fail to look at all of the KJV or all of the new version they criticize. By doing so, it leaves these critics open to the criticism of having a double-standard. It's wrong for the new version to do X here, but it's ok for the KJV to do X over there.

In regard to the criticisms of the NKJV at Acts 3:13, 26 & 4:27, 30 . . . the Greek word is the same. The NKJV uses the same word all four times. The KJV uses two different words. All four are said by Peter as he gives sermons in the early chapters of Acts. So I think the NKJV is correct in using the same English word four times. The Greek word is παι̂ς. Twice the KJV uses the word son; twice it uses child. παι̂ς is not the easiest word to translate. It's not the primary word for son (that word is υἱός). Nor is it the primary word for child (that word is τέκνον). So what should it be? The word has in its meaning both child and servant.

The word is used 24 times and the KJV renders it 11 different ways. Of those, the KJV renders it servant more times than any other way (8x). So, it seems to me that the author is overstating his case to vilify the NKJV for translating as παι̂ς servant in these four instances.
7. The NKJV confuses people about salvation. In Hebrews 10:14 it replaces "are sanctified" with "are being sanctified", and it replaces "are saved" with "are being saved" in I Corinthians 1:18 and II Corinthians 2:15. The words "may believe" have been replaced with "may continue to believe" in I John 5:13. The old straight and "narrow" way of Matthew 7:14 has become the "difficult" way in the NKJV. In regard to Hebrews 10:14, 1 Corinthians 1:18 and 2 Corinthians 2:15 . . . in each of these instances the verb is a present participle. The NKJV got these correct. The KJV didn't. It's a fact. The author here has made the KJV the standard and not the Greek. Notice the NKJV in 1 Cor 1:18 and 2 Cor 2:15 mentions those who are perishing. Those are also present participles. If the KJV was conistent, it would have translated those are perished (past tense), but they didn't.

Do we allow our theology to manipulate the Greek or do we allow the Greek to form our theology? It should be the latter. The Greek shapes our theology and not the reverse.

Having said that, salvation is a package. There are many parts to it. There is justifcation. There is sanctification. There is glorification. All of that is part of salvation. So I don't have a problem with believing I'm being saved if I look at the whole package. I am justified currently. I'm not entirely sanctified (made holy practically, only positionally). I have not been glorified.

Unfortunately, the author, making the KJV the standard, instead of the Greek -- even the TR supports the NKJV rendering -- has made a mistake and demonstrates his ignorance of the original language.

In 1 John 5:13, the word is a present subjunctive. What the NKJV did is perfectly fine (the last part of that verse isn't in any other modern translation).

Let me repost that last objection from point#7 . . .
The old straight and "narrow" way of Matthew 7:14 has become the "difficult" way in the NKJV. The NKJV still uses narrow. The KJV had strait and narrow. The NKJV has narrow and difficult.

This is where the KJV's outdated English causes a problem. Strait means narrow in today's English. A modern reader might just think it's a different way of spelling straight, but it isn't. Here's Merriam-Webster's . . .

1strait \ˈstrāt\ adjective

[Middle English, from Old French estreit, from Latin strictus strait, strict, from past participle of stringere]

(13th century)

1 archaic : strict, rigorous

2 archaic

a : narrow

b : limited in space or time

c : closely fitting : constricted, tight

3 a : causing distress : difficult

b : limited as to means or resources
And the word that the KJV translates as narrow is never translated that way again in the KJV. It is translated in some way using forms of words such as afflicted or troubled or tribulation.

This is more nit-picking at the NKJV. Let's look at objection # 8 . . .
8. In II Corinthians 10:5 the KJV reads "casting down imaginations", but the NKJV reads "casting down arguments". The word "thought", which occurs later in the verse, matches "imaginations", not "arguments". This change weakens the verse. This word is only used once in the NT. So we can't compare. However, arguments are completely related to thoughts. Arguments are built upon thoughts. This again seems desperate. It's such a stretch.

Besides I worry more about thoughtful arguments than imaginations. I'm glad the weapons of our warfare can take on thoughtful arguments and not merely imaginations.

Onto #9 . . .
9. The KJV tells us to reject a "heretick" after the second admonition in Titus 3:10. The NKJV tells us to reject a "divisive man". How nice! Now the Alexandrians and Ecumenicals have justification for rejecting anyone they wish to label as "divisive men". First, let me point out at the mention of "Alexandrians" that there is no difference between the TR and Westcott & Hort and Nestle-Aland. They agree 100%. So this is a translational difference, not a textual difference.

This Greek word (αἱρετικὸν) is never used again in the NT. So again, we can't see how else the KJV or NKJV use this. However, heretics are divisive. It's what they do. Plus, look at the context . . .
9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. 10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; 11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.
[URL="http://bibleforums.org/#_ftnref1"] (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftn1)The Holy Bible : King James Version.


Foolish questions, genealogies, contentions, strivings about the law . . . i.e. divisive topics and divisive people - heretics included.

Again, with only use of the word, and an apparant lack of Greek training, I don't know how the author of the article I'm quoting can be so dogmatic on this.

TrustGzus
May 7th 2009, 07:18 PM
Objection 10 . . .
10. According to the NKJV, no one would stoop so low as to "corrupt" God's word. No, they just "peddle" it (II Cor. 2:17). The reading matches the Alexandrian versions. The author once again demonstrates he doesn't know what he's talking about. All readings have the Greek word καπηλευοντες. There is no "Alexandrian" reading for this word that differs from the Byzantine reading or the TR reading. The idea is to merchandise it; to be a huckster. Strong's supports this . . .

2585. καπηλεύω kapēlĕuō, kap-ale-yoo´-o; from κάπηλος kapēlŏs (a huckster); to retail, i.e. (by impl.) to adulterate (fig.):— corrupt.
[/URL] (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftn1)Strong, J. (1997, c1996). The new Strong's dictionary of Hebrew and Greek words (H8674). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.


Vine's supports this . . .
1. kapeleuo (καπηλεύω, 2585) primarily signifies “to be a retailer, to peddle, to hucksterize” (from kapelos, “an inn-keeper, a petty retailer, especially of wine, a huckster, peddler,” in contrast to emporos, “a merchant”); hence, “to get base gain by dealing in anything,” and so, more generally, “to do anything for sordid personal advantage.” [URL="http://bibleforums.org/#_ftnref1"] (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftn1)
Vine, W. E., Unger, M. F., & White, W. (1996). Vine's complete expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words (2:130). Nashville: T. Nelson.


Again, the author, who doesn't understand what a participle is, wants us to take his word on this Greek word used only one time in the NT. Why? Because it doesn't match the KJV. That's the only true reason.
11. Since the NKJV has "changed the truth of God into a lie", it has also changed Romans 1:25 to read "exchanged the truth of God for the lie". This reading matches the readings of the new perversions, so how say ye it's a King James Bible?Well, it's a King James because it used the TR while trying to stay as close to the KJV as possible, but still updating the language and not blatantly mistranslating when better Greek understanding required a different translation.

One problem is the author assumes that new versions are perversions as the NKJV matches them. He hasn't proven this. Second, no new version, nor the KJV, calls it the lie. Only the NKJV does this. And it is a definite article in the Greek. So it looks like only the NKJV nailed that little fact.

But really, read the context . . . throw out my NKJV over this? Exchange or change my NKJV for KJV? I'll just keep both. I like them both. I've read them both cover-to-cover multiple times and I keep coming up with the same doctrine.
12. The NKJV gives us no command to "study" God's word in II Timothy 2:15.No opponent of modern versions has given me a good reply to this. The Greek word is σπουδασον. Where I get hung up is Paul uses the word three times in 2 Timothy. Both of the other times it starts a sentence and both other times the KJV renders it do thy diligence. See 2 Timothy 4:9, 21.

Why does the author blame the NKJV for translating 2 Timothy 2:15 the way the KJV translators translated 4:9 and 4:21?

Again, if I switched sides, I'd have to live with that piece of knowledge and claim the NKJV is wrong for doing what the KJV does in two other points. I can't do that.
13. The word "science" is replaced with "knowledge" in I Timothy 6:20, although "science" has occurred in every edition of the KJV since 1611! How say ye it's a King James Bible?I already stated why we call it a New King James.

Anyway . . . um . . . science means knowledge. The Greek word is a form of γνω̂σις. You might recognize it better as gnosis. When we say God is omni-scient, we don't mean he has all science, but that he has all knowledge.

And I should reject the NKJV for that reason?

Three more things to look at from that web-page.

TrustGzus
May 7th 2009, 07:38 PM
Let's see why else I'm supposed to reject the NKJV . . .
14. The Jews "require" a sign, according to I Corinthians 1:22 (and according to Jesus Christ - John 4:48), but the NKJV says they only "request" a sign. They didn't "request" one when signs first appeared in Exodus 4, and there are numerous places throughout the Bible where God gives Israel signs when they haven't requested anything (Exo. 4, Exo. 31:13, Num. 26:10, I Sam. 2:34, Isa. 7:10-14, Luke 2:12, etc). They "require" a sign, because signs are a part of their national heritage. The KJV translates this word, αιτουσιν, as asked or desired and a couple times as begged.

Anyway, Jews constantly requested signs. See Matthew 12:28, Mark 8:11, John 2:18, John 6:30. Sure, God may have given signs at times when they didn't ask. But many times they asked or begged Jesus for them. The NKJV rendering in 1 Corinthians 1:22 is fine. The author of the article trying to get us to abandon the NKJV is grasping.
15. The King James reading in II Corinthians 5:17 says that if any man is in Christ he is a new "creature", which matches the words of Christ in Mark 16:15. The cross reference is destroyed in the NKJV, which uses the word "creation." 19 occurrences of the word in Greek. The KJV uses creation five of those times. Why is the NKJV wrong for doing here what the KJV does in other locations? I don't see the big deal.
16. As a final note, we'd like to point out how the NKJV is very inconsistent in it's attempt to update the language of the KJV. The preface to the NKJV states that previous "revisions" of the KJV have "sought to keep abreast of changes in English speech", and also that they too are taking a "further step toward this objective". However, when taking a closer look at the language of the NKJV, we find that oftentimes they are stepping BACKWARDS! Please note a few examples of how well the NKJV has "kept abreast of the changes in the English language":Then the author has a chart that I didn't paste.

I don't know about the NKJV being very inconsistent here. Seems like an overstatement. I can grant that verses can be found where a new version picks an odd word and that sometimes a KJV word may be simpler. But we can reverse that more often on the KJV. Also, the NKJV is at a higher reading level than many other Bibles. It is much more formal than functional as it was an attempt, and a good one, at a revision of the KJV.

But will I abandon the NKJV? No. Is it a "deadly tranlsation" as the author of the article identified it? Not at all.

If you like the KJV . . . use it. If you like the NKJV . . . use it. They're both decent. Read whichever you like and read it every day.

And in my pro-Bible stance, I see no reason to discard either.

Grace & peace,

Joe

TrustGzus
May 9th 2009, 08:29 PM
The New American Standard Bible is a modern version that receives some attention from those who are against modern versions, but not as much as the New King James or New International. My guess as to why is that the NASB doesn't outsell the KJV.

The NASB is very formal. It's more formal than any Bible on the market other than an interlinear. Since it has not gotten the attention that the NKJV or NIV have from those who are against modern versions, there isn't as much negative commentary to grab from. I will use this link (http://www.scionofzion.com/nasvx.htm) as the criticisms on this page are the most common type against the NASB - that of missing words or verses.

Matthew 1:25
KJB: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

NAS: and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.
NWT: But he had no intercourse with her until she gave birth to a son; and he called his name Jesus.
NAB: He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son whom he named Jesus.

(To exchange "a son" for "firstborn" perpetuates the Roman Catholic doctrine that Mary was a perpetual virgin and had no other children than Jesus which is false as the Bible openly refutes this heresy - Matt. 12:46; 13:55; Mark 3:31; John 2:12; 7:3,5; 1 Cor. 9:5; Gal. 1:19)FYI, NWT stands for the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses. NAB stands for the New American Bible - a Roman Catholic Bible.

So the charge is that the NASB is supporting the Roman Catholic doctrine that Mary was a perpetual virgin and had no other children. I have a couple of objections with the information presented.The NASB in Matthew 1:25 states Joseph kept Mary a virgin until . . . .

What conclusion do you come to when you see the word until? Probably the same one I would. The plain reading would be that he didn't keep her a virgin after Jesus' birth. So the NASB doesn't support perpetual virginity.

Another problem I have . . . Dr. Ken Matto didn't list for us what the NASB said in the other verses he listed: Matt. 12:46; 13:55; Mark 3:31; John 2:12; 7:3,5; 1 Cor. 9:5; Gal. 1:19. Why not? Because in all those verses, Jesus' earthly brothers are plainly spoken of in the NASB.

Why does the KJV mention the word firstborn and the NASB does not? It's manuscript differences. It has nothing to do with Roman Catholics. Both readings have uncials that support them. There are no papyri that cover this section. The NASB went with Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as both do not have this word here.

However, in Luke 2:7, all include firstborn. If they were trying to preserve a Roman Catholic teaching, why not remove it here? And if it says it here, is it more true if it says it in Matthew? If the Bible says something one time, that's sufficient. If it says something twice, that's great. But if it still teaches that Mary was not a perpetual virgin and that she did have other kids, the absence of a word in Matthew 1:25 doesn't make the case against all the other locations.

So, I can't side with the case against the NASB at Matthew 1:25. The supposed reason being that it supports Roman Catholic theology isn't true. Matthew 1:25 in the NASB makes it quite clear that Mary wasn't a perpetual virgin, several verses in the NASB mention Jesus' siblings and Luke 2:7 calls Jesus Mary's firstborn.

TrustGzus
May 10th 2009, 02:00 PM
The thread I linked to has 30 verses for which the author claims the "NASV" (sic) is "exposed." I'm not going to go over all thirty. Some of these supposed errors are similar in how to solve the apparent difficulty - particularly the passages that "show" the NASB "deleted" something.

So last time I unexposed the NASB and exposed the article The NASV Exposed on its commentary of Matthew 1:25 and the NASB's dealing with the virgin birth and Jesus' siblings throughout the New Testament. The NASB is very clear in Matthew 1:25 that Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus. Also, a multiplicity of passages point out that Jesus had siblings. Finally, the word firstborn, found in the KJV and NKJV at Matthew 1:25 is found in Luke 2:7 of all versions and the Greek word is found in the manuscripts that many love to hate.

So, let's look at the 2nd "exposure" . . .

Matthew 5:44
KJB: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

NAS: "But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you
NWT: However, I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those persecuting you;
NAB: My command to you is: love your enemies, pray for your persecutors.
So what's up with the phrase in question?

First of all, let me point out the author assumes the NASB omitted this. While that's logically possible on the one hand (and we should look into that option), isn't it logically possible on the other hand that someone added it?

This raises an important question: is it okay to add to the Bible - even if what is added is theologically accurate? The answer is that it's not okay to add or remove things from the Bible.

So the article starts out on this verse with a circular reasoning fallacy. He's already assumed that this is original and the NASB is incorrect for not including it.

I'm left wondering why they would want to "omit" this? What good reason is there? Because it's hard to do these commands? I don't know. We can ask those who "expose" the NASB what they think.

However, where I would struggle if I were to hold there position is when I run into Luke 6:27-28 in the NASB . . .

27 “But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,

28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.

New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Lk 6:27-28). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.


There it is! Why not omit it there too? I can't see any reason why. If someone were against this passage, and had the guts to remove it from one, wouldn't they remove it from the other? I would think so. Yet Sinaiticus and Vaticanus both have the part in question at Luke 6 but don't contain it in Matthew 5. Wouldn't the copyist have thought oh yeah, I didn't like this earlier in Matthew and I still don't like it now in Luke? But they both left it.

Those two manuscripts are the primary reason modern versions such as the NASB have what they have at this point. There are no papyri for this passage so there is no earlier evidence in the manuscripts.

There is a third reading in the manuscripts. Some manuscripts just have half of this. They have the bless those that curse you part but do not have do good to them that hate you at Matthew 5:44. I don't know any Bible version that goes with that choice as there are only a handful of miniscules that read that way. And since miniscules are late and since there are only a few, it doesn't make much sense to go with that third option.

So in summary:


The author commits a circular reasoning fallacy by assuming the part in question was omitted rather than added and doesn't provide any evidence for his view.
If it really was omitted, we must believe that the copyists (and perhaps Satan) somehow nailed it in the one passages but never omitted it in Luke 6:27-28. Were they all that dumb?
While the manuscripts are in agreement in Luke 6:27-28, there are three different renditions in Matthew in the manuscripts. The manuscripts that are closest to the time of the apostles' writings line up with the NASB.

This kind of approach is the solution to many of the exposures listed in the article. Matthew 19:9 is an example. The part in question is in Luke 16:18. Matthew 19:9 isn't as clear in manuscript evidence. The NASB goes with Sinaiticus. Vaticanus includes the part in question. However, there are a multitude of readings in a multitude of manuscripts. If this was original, why so many different readings? This lends itself to the idea that all of these were trying to "fix" Matthew to read like other gospels and they did it in different ways. Thus, it's most likely that none of the different endings of this verse are original.

The part in question in Matthew 27:35 in the article can be found in John 19:24 of the NASB.

That's how it is for most of the supposed omissions in the gospels. Anyone can take a concordance or a Bible with good cross-references and find these phrases in the NASB.

Getting out of the gospels . . . look at this one the author picked from Paul's writings . . .

Romans 8:1
KJB: There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

NAS: THERE IS therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
NWT: Therefore those in union with Christ Jesus have no condemnation
NAB: There is no condemnation now for those who are in Christ Jesus.
The phrase in question is in verse 4 of the NASB. I get a kick out these "omissions" . . . i.e., "omissions" where the same phrase is used within a few verses. Is something doubly true if it is said twice in a passage rather than once?

And just like Matthew 19:9, there aren't only two readings in Greek. There are some that offer a third option in which the verse says who do not walk according to the flesh, but then they do not contain the last part about walking in the spirit. The multiplicity of endings tagged onto this verse suggest that none of them are original and that the NASB has this right. Plus, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus agree.

Check out this one . . .

Romans 11:6
KJB: And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

NAS: But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.
NWT: Now if it is by undeserved kindness, it is no longer due to works; otherwise, the undeserved kindness no longer proves to be undeserved kindness.
NAB: But if the choice is by grace, it is not because of their works-otherwise grace would not be grace.
First of all, does the phrase work is no more work really make sense?

Secondly, this passage is extremely overwhelming in manuscript evidence to support that this is an addition in the KJV and NKJV and not an omission. Texts that do not include the phrase include Sinaiticus, Ephraemi Rescriptu, Bezae, several other much later uncials and even p46. P46 is one papyri that sometimes has pushed readings back to a Byzantine type. But not here. P46 really tips the scales heavily as it dates to around 250 A.D. This is long before Sinaiticus.

I think it's pretty clear the NASB is closer to the original writing in these verses. However, if someone reads a KJV or NKJV there's no real harm. So they end up reading certain phrases one extra time than the original actually had. The only reading above that looks like an addition with no other text that corresponds is Romans 11:6.

In summary:


The author commits a circular reasoning fallacy by assuming the parts in question weres omitted rather than added and doesn't provide any evidence for his view.
If they really was omitted, we must believe that the copyists (and perhaps Satan) somehow nailed it in the one passage but never omitted these parts in question in similar passages. Were they all (including Satan) that dumb?
Where manuscripts differ in one verse or passages, they usually agree about the phrase in question in another passage.

So read your Bible every day: NASB, NKJV, KJV, NIV, ESV, TNIV, NLT . . . get into a version that you understand on a daily basis. There's no need to sweat this stuff. Consider the NASB un-exposed in these passages.

BadDog
May 13th 2009, 05:25 PM
Thank you to everyone for the supportive posts. Thank you to Prufrock for being respectful. In the couple threads I've seen Prufrock interact in so far, Prufrock has been careful to not derail the thread. I'm assuming there is prior forum experience there.

As I said, 14 hours from the time I left home till I got home. I did one post in another thread. Then my son had an 8pm baseball game. Tomorrow I have 8 teens that come to my house for Bible study. So, I'll begin to talk about why I'm not against the modern versions, or why I'm simply Pro-Bible -- KJV and modern translations, beginning Wednesday or Thursday.

Grace & peace, everyone.

JoeJoe,

For a couple of years I led a group of teens (youth) who met at a coffee house (Jittery Joe's) in the area for discipleship. Really cool time! We called it "Which dog?", and people's lives were really impacted by God's Word.

The reason I mention it is that I am sure that you have experienced the need for a Bible which they can read and clearly understand and which will motivate them to dig into God's Word.

My experience has been that as we become involved in getting God's Word into people's lives, we find ourselves gravitating toward a very readable Bible. When I was involved in children's classes, I wanted even more readable Bibles. Until then, it's just theoretical stuff.

Nice comments on the NASB and NKJV.

BD

JesusMySavior
May 13th 2009, 06:20 PM
Ah, I'll stick with my KJV and NKJV. ;)

I also use the Message sometimes for casual reading. That's like saying I like country and rap but nothing in between. Isn't that interesting?



If I was pastoring a church, the KJV and NKJV would be the versions we'd use. But for Bible study, I don't yell at anybody for bringing in an NLT or NIV. I'd prefer they not, but it's not my place to start criticizing. It's just tough when you try to teach a lesson in Bible study and there is a key word that expresses your point yet the other bibles completely eradicate or replace it.


I guess I've gleaned a lot more from the NKJV than from any other translation, and I've gleaned more from the KJV than I have from the NKJV.

That's reason enough for me. :)


Glad to hear you're digging though.

thepenitent
May 13th 2009, 09:19 PM
Ah, I'll stick with my KJV and NKJV. ;)



I guess I've gleaned a lot more from the NKJV than from any other translation, and I've gleaned more from the KJV than I have from the NKJV.




Aha!! you contradict yourself. This just illustrates the inherent imbalance of the spiritual and metaphysical center which is inevitable when you combine the KJV and NKJV.

or not. ....................................:spin:


(it's all good)

St-Vox
May 13th 2009, 11:49 PM
Sorry, wrong thread.:B

JesusMySavior
May 14th 2009, 02:29 AM
Aha!! you contradict yourself. This just illustrates the inherent imbalance of the spiritual and metaphysical center which is inevitable when you combine the KJV and NKJV.

or not. ....................................:spin:


(it's all good)


Aha! But you see I listed the KJV first, as the preference, having seniority and prestige over the NKJV so your hypothesis is incorrect, my friend!


But there's no way you could have known what I was thinking...

Say, do you like cotton candy? :hmm:

JesusMySavior
May 14th 2009, 02:31 AM
Sorry, wrong thread.:B


It's okay. When you're new these things happen. We love you anyways. But hey, welcome to the board! :)

TrustGzus
May 14th 2009, 02:33 AM
Joe,

For a couple of years I led a group of teens (youth) who met at a coffee house (Jittery Joe's) in the area for discipleship. Really cool time! We called it "Which dog?", and people's lives were really impacted by God's Word.

The reason I mention it is that I am sure that you have experienced the need for a Bible which they can read and clearly understand and which will motivate them to dig into God's Word.

My experience has been that as we become involved in getting God's Word into people's lives, we find ourselves gravitating toward a very readable Bible. When I was involved in children's classes, I wanted even more readable Bibles. Until then, it's just theoretical stuff.

Nice comments on the NASB and NKJV.

BDIt's so important to understand what you read. There is a thread in Bible chat currently about Hebrews 4. The thread starter read the chapter in both KJV and The Message. The thread starter misinterpreted the KJV as to imply that we should keep the Sabbath. When the thread starter read The Message, the point was understood that Jesus is our Sabbath.

I'll leave it at that.

BadDog
May 18th 2009, 04:14 PM
Ah, I'll stick with my KJV and NKJV. ;)

I also use the Message sometimes for casual reading. That's like saying I like country and rap but nothing in between. Isn't that interesting?



If I was pastoring a church, the KJV and NKJV would be the versions we'd use. But for Bible study, I don't yell at anybody for bringing in an NLT or NIV. I'd prefer they not, but it's not my place to start criticizing. It's just tough when you try to teach a lesson in Bible study and there is a key word that expresses your point yet the other bibles completely eradicate or replace it.


I guess I've gleaned a lot more from the NKJV than from any other translation, and I've gleaned more from the KJV than I have from the NKJV.

That's reason enough for me. :)


Glad to hear you're digging though.
JmS,

Thx. I like the NKJV also. Can I suggest the NKJV Nelson Study Bible edited by Earl Radmacher?

I understand the frustration when various Bibles express things in different words. But just FYI, sometimes those different words used by the NIV, NLT, HCSB or NASB are the more accurate ones.

Question: why do you think it is that you've gleaned more from the KJV than from any other translation? Just curious.

Thx,

BD

BadDog
May 18th 2009, 04:16 PM
It's so important to understand what you read. There is a thread in Bible chat currently about Hebrews 4. The thread starter read the chapter in both KJV and The Message. The thread starter misinterpreted the KJV as to imply that we should keep the Sabbath. When the thread starter read The Message, the point was understood that Jesus is our Sabbath.

I'll leave it at that.Wow! That's kinda an important distinction. It's the whole point of the text.

BD

KATMAN
May 18th 2009, 07:19 PM
I have four different versions,KJV,NKJV,NIV,and NLT(New Living Translation).When I first got saved and involved in the church,I bought a KJV bible.It was 1982,I was new to Christ and didn't relize there were other versions.I was confused often when reading a bible that had a language of 400 years ago.I then moved on to the NIV when a lot of things became clearer in my mind.The words know and knew takes on a whole new meaning in the KJV!

I got a NLT after one of our pastors came.This version is almost that of the Living Bible of the 70's.Anybody remember them? I like the new version,it's easy to read and understand. But I also have not gave up the KJV,I still use it for memorize with.

Izdaari
May 18th 2009, 07:32 PM
I have four different versions,KJV,NKJV,NIV,and NLT(New Living Translation).When I first got saved and involved in the church,I bought a KJV bible.It was 1982,I was new to Christ and didn't relize there were other versions.I was confused often when reading a bible that had a language of 400 years ago.I then moved on to the NIV when a lot of things became clearer in my mind.The words know and knew takes on a whole new meaning in the KJV!

I got a NLT after one of our pastors came.This version is almost that of the Living Bible of the 70's.Anybody remember them? I like the new version,it's easy to read and understand. But I also have not gave up the KJV,I still use it for memorize with.
Yes, the NLT is based on the Living Bible, which was a paraphrase, but the NLT is not, it's a true translation. It took the Living Bible as a starting point, but the translators went back to the Greek and Hebrew texts. Their goal was do a dynamic equivalent translation that's as easy to read and understand as the Living Bible. They mostly succeeded.

grit
May 18th 2009, 07:32 PM
The publishers of the NLT also came out this past Fall with a study Bible that's very good - the NLT Study Bible. It's my favourite of the newer ones, after the ESV Study Bible.

JesusMySavior
May 19th 2009, 08:02 AM
Wow! That's kinda an important distinction. It's the whole point of the text.

BD


It wasn't the Bible's fault. It was primarily my mis-interpretation.

Re-reading it in the KJV, I realize where it says these things. I have never been good with jewish history, and the message spells things out pretty clearly.


Nonetheless, I like my KJV the best, and to answer your question, the scriptures that were once only somewhat important to me have become absolutely paramount in my walk with God after reading them in the KJV. They are powerfully sound, perfect, and holy to me. There's some scriptures that other Bibles seem to compromise on, while the KJV says it just like it is.

I have been able to memorize a fair bit more and the scriptures go deeper and impact me more than most other translations. I could also go into the whole fact that the KJV is the only Bible that is NOT copyrighted, therefore men are not making copyright money from reprinting God's Word. At the beginning of my Bible, there is about a dozen pages (give or take) explaining the beginnings and the sovereignity of the preservation of the (KJV) Word of God, the meticulous translation processes upon penalty of death, and how so many saints died to preserve it against the tribulations of the Catholic church. It was beautiful. It was also the Bible I asked God to find for me, when I was Bible searching. I opened this one up and started weeping.

Everyone finds different translations speak to them differently, and if God can work through them, great. But most other translations aren't as effective for growth I have found, personally.

Anyways,


.02

BadDog
May 20th 2009, 12:15 PM
It wasn't the Bible's fault. It was primarily my mis-interpretation.

Re-reading it in the KJV, I realize where it says these things. I have never been good with jewish history, and the message spells things out pretty clearly.


Nonetheless, I like my KJV the best, and to answer your question, the scriptures that were once only somewhat important to me have become absolutely paramount in my walk with God after reading them in the KJV. They are powerfully sound, perfect, and holy to me. There's some scriptures that other Bibles seem to compromise on, while the KJV says it just like it is.

I have been able to memorize a fair bit more and the scriptures go deeper and impact me more than most other translations. I could also go into the whole fact that the KJV is the only Bible that is NOT copyrighted, therefore men are not making copyright money from reprinting God's Word. At the beginning of my Bible, there is about a dozen pages (give or take) explaining the beginnings and the sovereignity of the preservation of the (KJV) Word of God, the meticulous translation processes upon penalty of death, and how so many saints died to preserve it against the tribulations of the Catholic church. It was beautiful. It was also the Bible I asked God to find for me, when I was Bible searching. I opened this one up and started weeping.

Everyone finds different translations speak to them differently, and if God can work through them, great. But most other translations aren't as effective for growth I have found, personally.

Anyways,


.02JmS,

Thx. I will comment just FYI on the bold portion above briefly. The NET was developed to be used without any copyright restrictions. The WEB was also developed for the same reason and has never had any copyright restrictions, and the ASV-1901, because it's been over 100 years, has no copyright restrictions at all as well.

I would think that any Bible published more than 75 years ago has no copyright restrictions on it as well.

I think the NET was copyrighted, simply to prevent people from using it to make money or from abusing it, but anyone can use it, quote it extensively, without any restrictions - without even writing the publishers. No one has to ever pay a single penny to the publishers of the NET or ask permission to quote it without limit.

BD

BadDog
May 20th 2009, 12:22 PM
Yes, the NLT is based on the Living Bible, which was a paraphrase, but the NLT is not, it's a true translation. It took the Living Bible as a starting point, but the translators went back to the Greek and Hebrew texts. Their goal was do a dynamic equivalent translation that's as easy to read and understand as the Living Bible. They mostly succeeded.
Agree 100%. Taylor originally tasked a handful of translators to revise the Living Bible. They came back to him and said that they needed to make it a whole new translation, and that it would take many resources.

But it is not really a revision of the Living Bible. And I agree that they did a good job. I was hoping at the time that they would be more free in the translation effort, since the original Living Bible was so paraphrastic.

BD

Emanate
May 20th 2009, 01:37 PM
When the thread starter read The Message, the point was understood that Jesus is our Sabbath.

I'll leave it at that.


Fauly interpretation. The message is not a translation but an interpretation.

TrustGzus
May 21st 2009, 03:19 AM
Fauly interpretation. The message is not a translation but an interpretation.Questions:

What do you mean by faulty interpretation?
Are you saying Jesus is not our Sabbath and that Hebrews 4 means something else?
Also, how do you define "a translation"?
When qualities cause a Bible to qualify as a translation in your mind?

jazzbone
May 25th 2009, 08:06 AM
I used to be in the KJV only camp. But I saw a video where the guy talks about how the Bible compares itself to food. He says that though one person may prefer steak and another a burger, both are equally nourishing. To my mind, The Message, though called a paraphrase, is a translation. Mr. Peterson is, or was, a professor of biblical languages and brought those languages to us in our language. When I read the KJV, I feel it's an obligation to be fulfilled. When I read The Message, it's a joy and God speaks to me as though He's right there (He is!) True enough, The Message may not be one fit for 'study'. But, I don't need to study the Bible. I need to READ it. Most people simply need to read the Bible. The Bible is a collection of poetry, history, and letters that the original recipients didn't need a dictionary for. They just read it. Many studied it, but most probably not. If you read something enough, it becomes part of you. That's good enough for me. Ok...I'm done now ;-)

Izdaari
May 25th 2009, 09:08 AM
I used to be in the KJV only camp. But I saw a video where the guy talks about how the Bible compares itself to food. He says that though one person may prefer steak and another a burger, both are equally nourishing. To my mind, The Message, though called a paraphrase, is a translation. Mr. Peterson is, or was, a professor of biblical languages and brought those languages to us in our language. When I read the KJV, I feel it's an obligation to be fulfilled. When I read The Message, it's a joy and God speaks to me as though He's right there (He is!) True enough, The Message may not be one fit for 'study'. But, I don't need to study the Bible. I need to READ it. Most people simply need to read the Bible. The Bible is a collection of poetry, history, and letters that the original recipients didn't need a dictionary for. They just read it. Many studied it, but most probably not. If you read something enough, it becomes part of you. That's good enough for me. Ok...I'm done now ;-)
Yes, Eugene Peterson is a good scholar of the biblical languages, and since he did work from the original languages, technically The Message would be a translation rather than a paraphrase except for one thing -- Peterson himself calls it a paraphrase. I think in doing so he's admitting to including his own interpretations. He said he didn't intend it to be an actual bible, but a teaching tool for those who were having trouble understanding the bible. I think it's excellent for that.

I'm a fairly moderate Christian myself, not especially liberal or conservative. Peterson is a Presbyterian pastor and seems to me a very mainstream Christian. I get the impression that those who constantly criticize his interpretations are those who are much more conservative than he is. Alright, he's not a fundamentalist. That's ok with me, neither am I. I find no fault with his interpretations, though it wouldn't put me off if I did find some I disagreed with. I don't after all expect him to be divinely inspired, but only a good human teacher.

Count me as a fan ofThe Message, but also as one who acknowledges its limitations. And still I consider my The Message//Remix and my NASB/The Message parallel bible among the most useful things in my collection.

jazzbone
May 25th 2009, 06:07 PM
I realized between when I posted that last response and now the folly of a portion of what I said. Of course we shoul all study! Paul said it to Timothy. So I was wrong there. But would you say there is anything wrong with using The Message everyday to read from and studying maybe twice a week or so from my KJV or a NKJV?

Izdaari
May 25th 2009, 06:48 PM
I realized between when I posted that last response and now the folly of a portion of what I said. Of course we shoul all study! Paul said it to Timothy. So I was wrong there. But would you say there is anything wrong with using The Message everyday to read from and studying maybe twice a week or so from my KJV or a NKJV?I would think reading The Message and studying from any regular translation would be just fine. And comparing different translations is often useful in study.

billy-brown 2
May 26th 2009, 12:16 AM
I would think reading The Message and studying from any regular translation would be just fine. And comparing different translations is often useful in study.

Yep . . .

Great thread, everybody . . .

To take an "all of the above approach" with translations is a good thing (it seems to me . . .)

Your Advert here


Hosted by Webnet77