PDA

View Full Version : Your opinions on the NKJV Version?



Gentile
Apr 26th 2008, 07:55 PM
I read the KJV and have a copy of the NKJV but I have heard the NKJV has been somewhat changed and re-arranged and you lose the real meaning of the scriptures. What is the purpose of the NKJV? I dont understand why the word of GOD would be changed by man.
The NKJV definitely seems like an easier read but I dont want to be mis-lead in reading false pretexts. I lalso heard the NKJV is like rated PG book, for example the word satan is left out and they stay clear of the violence as well. That is what I dont want.

I really dont have a problem with the KJV, i am acctually used to it and the way its written. But reading some of NJKV is seems to flow better but I even noticed a big difference in the scriptures, I just dont want to be misguided. I am kind of torn on this.


This is interesting: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/whatabout-nkjv.html

Saved7
Apr 26th 2008, 07:59 PM
I prefer the NKJV over the other modern translations, however, I choose to read from the KJV. The old english was so different, that when you read it, you notice more meaning. It's the wording, not just the language, but the order in which the words are placed.

tgallison
Apr 26th 2008, 08:02 PM
I read the KJV and have a copy of the NKJV but I have heard the NKJV has been somewhat changed and re-arranged and you lose the real meaning of the scriptures. What is the purpose of the NKJV? I dont understand why the word of GOD would be changed by man.
The NKJV definitely seems like an easier read but I dont want to be mis-lead in reading false pretexts. I lalso heard the NKJV is like rated PG book, for example the word satan is left out and they stay clear of the violence as well. That is what I dont want.

I really dont have a problem with the KJV, i am acctually used to it and the way its written. But reading some of NJKV is seems to flow better but I even noticed a big difference in the scriptures, I just dont want to be misguided. I am kind of torn on this.


This is interesting: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/whatabout-nkjv.html

IMO it has a strong odor about it.

terrell

daughter
Apr 26th 2008, 08:04 PM
Most modern translations annoy me... particularly when they transliterate a word, instead of translating it. You know when they say "Hades" instead of "Hell"? Like they're not the same place! I've studied enough classics to know that nobody wanted to go to Hades. The Greeks believed in two hells, Hades, where the damned mourned for eternity, and the Elysian fields... which I think corresponds roughly with Abraham's bossom.

I'd say that the NKJV is okay for the most part, but it does sometimes soften the blow... which isn't what we always need.

I also much prefer the KJV... I must be a bible thumping fundy! :rolleyes:

Rullion Green
Apr 26th 2008, 08:06 PM
I read the KJV and have a copy of the NKJV but I have heard the NKJV has been somewhat changed and re-arranged and you lose the real meaning of the scriptures. What is the purpose of the NKJV? I dont understand why the word of GOD would be changed by man.
The NKJV definitely seems like an easier read but I dont want to be mis-lead in reading false pretexts. I lalso heard the NKJV is like rated PG book, for example the word satan is left out and they stay clear of the violence as well. That is what I dont want.

I really dont have a problem with the KJV, i am acctually used to it and the way its written. But reading some of NJKV is seems to flow better but I even noticed a big difference in the scriptures, I just dont want to be misguided. I am kind of torn on this.


I read the KJV also i have looked into the subject and there is a woman who has done extensive research on it also over a period of servral years and it get a bit sinister, it's on my website if your interested. It's a bit controversial but i would stick with the Authorized KJV. Just a side note on language used it was Biblical English they wrote in and the peole of the day didn't really talk like that :) I think you lose the Majisty of the writing with the " Thus says the Lord" and that type of thing ! just a personal note :D

daughter
Apr 26th 2008, 08:09 PM
Yes, the language was archaic even in Shakespear's time. Deliberately so, in order that people would be awe struck by the majesty of God's word. And yet some parts of it were very up to the minute and almost tabloid in their presentation... I honestly believe that God guided the people who translated it, so that it would impact the most people. And it continues to do so today.

Athanasius
Apr 26th 2008, 08:11 PM
I prefer the KJV, there was such a richness to that language.
Also the reason I like Paradise Lost, just ignore that Milton was a bit of a heretic, that's besides the point :P

daughter
Apr 26th 2008, 08:17 PM
How was he heretical? I mean, besides the fact that he was nearly suicidally unhappy in his marriage, and thought Jesus didn't mean it when He criticised divorce!

Athanasius
Apr 26th 2008, 08:22 PM
How was he heretical? I mean, besides the fact that he was nearly suicidally unhappy in his marriage, and thought Jesus didn't mean it when He criticised divorce!

The only two I can think up off my head was his denial of the Trinity, that the Son was subordinate to the Father. . .The Arian heresy (Arianism). And his denial of the divinity of Jesus.

daughter
Apr 26th 2008, 09:01 PM
Huhm, I think he must have kept that pretty quiet... I only read his poetry, and didn't perceive that in it. But I wasn't Christian at the time, so might have missed it... I know that something of his has been found recently, and translated from Latin (which he originally wrote it in) and the JW's got all excited... so I presume that would be what you're referring to. But I just read Paradise Lost and Regained, and his "minor" poetry, not any of his theology. At the time I read his stuff I thought he was just a bible thumping proddy, with a great gift for beautiful poetry (never imagining that I'd be a bible thumper myself one day...)

Rullion Green
Apr 26th 2008, 09:12 PM
At the time I read his stuff I thought he was just a bible thumping proddy, with a great gift for beautiful poetry (never imagining that I'd be a bible thumper myself one day...)

I'm a Celtic fan from Glasgow raised a catholic and a former member of sinn fien ! i never thought i'd be a Bible thumping proddy one day also :rofl:

baxpack7
Apr 26th 2008, 09:17 PM
I myself read a lot from the KJV, but when I'm teaching or reading to youth, I like to use the NKJV. Reason being, the youth are not so much into the old English language used in the KJV, and when you can replace "thee" or "thy" with "you" or "your" it makes it easier to understand(for them). I do, however like to reference back to the reliable KJV when I feel the need. God bless!

daughter
Apr 26th 2008, 09:18 PM
Yahay! I'm not the only one who became, officially, a "left footer." I'm Irish originally, and where I come from being Catholic is a matter of heritage and family pride, more than religion. My Dad STILL thinks I'm a Catholic, thinks my son (Séamus... can you tell we're Irish?) is a Catholic... despite the fact that my son argues with him that Mary is not divine, that the Pope is "a bit of a prat", that the Bible is a God given gift, and that we only get to heaven through Jesus Christ.

Me Dad's heard all this from us, still thinks we're Catholic! Since I don't intend to join any orange marches, I'm not sure he'll ever believe I defected! Yes, I hear you. I'm amazed that I've turned into what my family fondly refer to as "proddy dogs."

Though, as my son says, "I'm not a protestant. I'm a Jesus follower."

(Oh, my Dad supports Celtic by the way. I'm a Liverpool and Man City fan...)

Rullion Green
Apr 26th 2008, 09:28 PM
Yahay! I'm not the only one who became, officially, a "left footer." I'm Irish originally, and where I come from being Catholic is a matter of heritage and family pride, more than religion. My Dad STILL thinks I'm a Catholic, thinks my son (Séamus... can you tell we're Irish?) is a Catholic... despite the fact that my son argues with him that Mary is not divine, that the Pope is "a bit of a prat", that the Bible is a God given gift, and that we only get to heaven through Jesus Christ.

Me Dad's heard all this from us, still thinks we're Catholic! Since I don't intend to join any orange marches, I'm not sure he'll ever believe I defected! Yes, I hear you. I'm amazed that I've turned into what my family fondly refer to as "proddy dogs."

Though, as my son says, "I'm not a protestant. I'm a Jesus follower."

(Oh, my Dad supports Celtic by the way. I'm a Liverpool and Man City fan...)

sounds like your in the same boat as me ! i've tried to tell my family about the stuff i've learned from the Bible but my mum still thinks i'm catholic ?
i'm still praying for them :pray:

Man city are fine by me i'm into boxing and like Ricky Hatton and he's a big Man city fan lol, i still support Celtic my pals can take me believing the Bible but if started suppoerting Rangers i think i'd be lynched !

Sonds like wee Seamus is well grounded in the Lord :pp think i'll use his way of putting it lol

daughter
Apr 26th 2008, 09:31 PM
I myself read a lot from the KJV, but when I'm teaching or reading to youth, I like to use the NKJV. Reason being, the youth are not so much into the old English language used in the KJV, and when you can replace "thee" or "thy" with "you" or "your" it makes it easier to understand(for them). I do, however like to reference back to the reliable KJV when I feel the need. God bless!
There are times when I'm reading to others from the KJV when I'll modernise it. The one that springs to mind being "charity". If I'm reading Paul's chapter on Love, I'll say "Love", not charity... because humans are so fallen and sinful that we'll always diminish something beautiful. As a society we've turned God's love (caritas, charity) to something "cold as charity". So there's no option when reading to folks who don't know the language but to say "love."

Saved7
Apr 26th 2008, 09:41 PM
I used to do that with that word charity as well....until the Lord taught about love. love is giving, to the point of sacrifice. Charity is indeed giving and sacrificial for those who can't afford to but do it anyway out of love.:saint:

daughter
Apr 26th 2008, 09:49 PM
I agree... but remember, that though when we read the word charity, we hear what God means by it, the world doesn't hear it. So when I'm reading with other solid Christians, I use "charity", but when I'm reading to a mixed audience, I use "love". Because we really have destroyed the word. Poll one thousand people, ask them what charity means. In fact, I am considering doing just that... because our idea of love is so small, and it is a demonstration of the corruptability of man. Love is too grand for us... Charity is too grand for us. We're doomed, without Him. :cry:

Sorry, one of my griefs, what we have done to "charity".

Saved7
Apr 26th 2008, 10:11 PM
I understand that.

Gentile
Apr 27th 2008, 12:26 AM
Thanks for the replies! I am sticking to my good ol' KJV! I will donate my NKJV or give it to someone. I was doing some comparisons and I love the flow of the KJV version.

Athanasius
Apr 27th 2008, 01:06 AM
Don't get rid of the NKJV. . . It's always good to compare translations.

Ayala
Apr 27th 2008, 01:33 AM
Don't get rid of the NKJV. . . It's always good to compare translations.

Indeed. I've begun starting a collection of Bibles in different translations to see how much (or little) they differ.

tgallison
Apr 27th 2008, 01:46 AM
Don't get rid of the NKJV. . . It's always good to compare translations.

Xel'Naga Greetings

If we have enough different translations saying enough different things, then perhaps we can make the Bible say what ever our desire is.

terrell

Athanasius
Apr 27th 2008, 02:10 AM
Xel'Naga Greetings

If we have enough different translations saying enough different things, then perhaps we can make the Bible say what ever our desire is.

terrell

Would not be the point of my comment.

tgallison
Apr 27th 2008, 02:23 AM
Would not be the point of my comment.

My apologies, I understand where you are coming from. But if some of the translators that helped translate the NIV wanted a new translation why didn't they give it another name. If they wanted to take some of the Old English out, like the thee and thou that wouldn't have been so bad, but they slipped in some of the biases of the NIV, and in so doing deceive many.

terrell

Clifton
Apr 27th 2008, 02:24 AM
Thanks for the replies! I am sticking to my good ol' KJV! I will donate my NKJV or give it to someone. I was doing some comparisons and I love the flow of the KJV version.

I have read some comments by translators that if you have the NKJV, MKJV, or LITV, you should by no means toss them out, because despite the may contain errors (according to what those translators say), they are closer and more honest than other translations.

Bibles like KJV, NKJV, MKJV, LITV, YLT, and VW are of the TR (Textus Receptus) archetype, a family of the MT (Majority Text) archetype. Many Other Bibles are of the CT (Critical Text) archetype, and the problem with those are they are a "patchwork", and translator's of Bibles using a CT archetype can pick and choose from many variants, thus, all such Bibles are not consistent with each other. My personal preference for Greek is the Byzantine Textform 2005, which is a MT archetype. It has some alternative readings available, but IMO, is much smoother.

IMO, you should keep BOTH the KJV and NKJV. :2cents:

Blessings.

TrustGzus
Apr 27th 2008, 03:33 AM
I read the KJV and have a copy of the NKJV but I have heard the NKJV has been somewhat changed and re-arranged and you lose the real meaning of the scriptures. What is the purpose of the NKJV? I dont understand why the word of GOD would be changed by man.
The NKJV definitely seems like an easier read but I dont want to be mis-lead in reading false pretexts. I lalso heard the NKJV is like rated PG book, for example the word satan is left out and they stay clear of the violence as well. That is what I dont want.

I really dont have a problem with the KJV, i am acctually used to it and the way its written. But reading some of NJKV is seems to flow better but I even noticed a big difference in the scriptures, I just dont want to be misguided. I am kind of torn on this.


This is interesting: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/whatabout-nkjv.htmlThe complaints about the NKJV are highly exaggerated.

Satan is left out? Not True. Satan is mentioned 55 times in the NKJV.

The NKJV stays clear of violence? Read whatever passages you consider violent and see what you think. Take the book of Judges for example. Plenty of violence in the NKJV.

The NKJV loses the meaning of Scripture? Look, the NKJV is innocent until proven guilty. Where does it lose the meaning of Scripture?

Is the NKJV a perfect translation? No, but no translation is perfect.

The KJV was revised a few times. Currently, the KJV we buy in stores is the 1769 Blaney edition. The NKJV is a fine update of the KJV. If it hadn't been over 200 years since the KJV had been revised, it would probably have simply replaced the KJV. But the Blaney edition was so firmly established, that a new revision needed a new identity.

The link you provided will not offer where the NKJV is better than the KJV. The NKJV translates 2 Corinthians 2:17 more accurately. See also 1 Thessalonians 5:22; Romans 1:18; Romans 1:25; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; Genesis 36:24; 1 Samuel 2:25; Isaiah 19:10; Hosea 13:9; Malachi 2:12; 1 Corinthians 1:18; 2 Timothy 2:15.

Any person schooled in Greek and/or Hebrew can confirm what I am claiming about the above verses, including King James Version only advocates - if they are schooled in the languages.

And on and on the list can go where the NKJV is more accurate than the KJV.

The KJV was an outstanding translation in its day. It still can be used for profitable Bible study. But in my opinion, unless you were born sometime around 1769 (the last revision that was done to it), then there is probably a better translation for you.

The NKJV is a great update of the KJV. I've read through the KJV several times. I've read through the NKJV several times. Both are fine. However, the chances are smaller that you will misinterpret something if you are reading the NKJV.

Grace & peace to you, Gentile.

Joe

1of7000
Apr 27th 2008, 04:30 AM
I like the NKJV cause I have Elizabethan Dyslexia.

NKJV keeps the italics so you know where the translators got confused.

Roelof
Apr 27th 2008, 07:23 AM
I love to read the modern language of the NKJV, but if I want to do serious studies I use my electronic 1611 KJV.

godsgirl
Apr 27th 2008, 10:44 AM
The NKJV is by far, a much better read than the KJV. It's more a matter of personal preference-but for me, it's easier to get the origianal meaning from the NKJV because of the changes in the English langauge over the years.

9Marksfan
Apr 28th 2008, 08:55 AM
The NKJV is by far, a much better read than the KJV. It's more a matter of personal preference-but for me, it's easier to get the origianal meaning from the NKJV because of the changes in the English langauge over the years.

This is a crucial point - I heard a series of tapes many years ago when I was (ashamed to admit it now) an NIV fan - it was seeking to convince people that the KJV was the only "true" translation. Result? The tapes convinced me that the Textus Receptus was in all likelihood the best source material - but the man completely failed to deal with the fact that the language is now HUGELY archaic even for well-educated people (I practised law for 20 years and I haven't a clue what some of the passages mean - what chance does the man in the street have?!?). I often say "The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth - but He doesn't give you a crash course in 17th century English!" So I ditched my NIV as a study bible and bought an NKJV Geneva Study Bible (which I still use to this day).

Ironically, even though one of the Reformation's great aims was to make the Scriptures available and accessible (ie not in Latin) to the ordinary "lay" people, I fear that a KJV-only approach today will actually bring about the same error as Rome fell into - depriving ordinary people of access to the Scriptures, because they're in a language only the highly educated can understand......

2 Peter 2:20
Apr 28th 2008, 11:12 AM
This is a crucial point - I heard a series of tapes many years ago when I was (ashamed to admit it now) an NIV fan - it was seeking to convince people that the KJV was the only "true" translation. Result? The tapes convinced me that the Textus Receptus was in all likelihood the best source material - but the man completely failed to deal with the fact that the language is now HUGELY archaic even for well-educated people (I practised law for 20 years and I haven't a clue what some of the passages mean - what chance does the man in the street have?!?). I often say "The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth - but He doesn't give you a crash course in 17th century English!" So I ditched my NIV as a study bible and bought an NKJV Geneva Study Bible (which I still use to this day).

Ironically, even though one of the Reformation's great aims was to make the Scriptures available and accessible (ie not in Latin) to the ordinary "lay" people, I fear that a KJV-only approach today will actually bring about the same error as Rome fell into - depriving ordinary people of access to the Scriptures, because they're in a language only the highly educated can understand......

It's not often that we agree so I have to point it out...minus the dropping of the NIV of course. Good post! The KJV was once the new kid on the block and it was met with the same resistance as the newer versions of today. The words "This is the only way God intended it to be read" shouldn't be used...IMO.

9Marksfan
Apr 28th 2008, 11:42 AM
It's not often that we agree so I have to point it out...minus the dropping of the NIV of course. Good post! The KJV was once the new kid on the block and it was met with the same resistance as the newer versions of today. The words "This is the only way God intended it to be read" shouldn't be used...IMO.

We actually agree even more than you realise! I only ditched my NIV as a STUDY bible (ie stopped using it as such - have never thrown any bible out, although I reckon I should maybe thrwo my GNB out - never realised what a heretic its translator was!) - but I still read from it and have occasionally preached from it - I also believe that, in certain passages, it's actually better than ANY of the others!

Brother Mark
Apr 28th 2008, 11:46 AM
We actually agree even more than you realise! I only ditched my NIV as a STUDY bible (ie stopped using it as such - have never thrown any bible out, although I reckon I should maybe thrwo my GNB out - never realised what a heretic its traslator was!) - but I still read from it and have occasionally preached from it - I also believe that, in certain passages, it's actually better than ANY of the others!

I don't use the NIV for study either though I will use it for reading. I tend to like to use many translations. But I only "trust" a few. For instance, Young's translation can be awesome with some passages, but with others, it doesn't seem quite right. All in all, I am for whatever translation someone will read.

2 Peter 2:20
Apr 28th 2008, 09:23 PM
We actually agree even more than you realise! I only ditched my NIV as a STUDY bible (ie stopped using it as such - have never thrown any bible out, although I reckon I should maybe thrwo my GNB out - never realised what a heretic its translator was!) - but I still read from it and have occasionally preached from it - I also believe that, in certain passages, it's actually better than ANY of the others!

I know we do...I just like to give you a hard time!:P

I don't know who should be concerned more me or you???:hmm:

Saved7
Apr 28th 2008, 10:57 PM
We actually agree even more than you realise! I only ditched my NIV as a STUDY bible (ie stopped using it as such - have never thrown any bible out, although I reckon I should maybe thrwo my GNB out - never realised what a heretic its translator was!) - but I still read from it and have occasionally preached from it - I also believe that, in certain passages, it's actually better than ANY of the others!


What's a GNB bible, and why is the translator considered a heretic?
:confused

thethirdtuttle
Apr 28th 2008, 11:39 PM
I remember back when I was a teenager and wanted to get involved in some kind of church, but didn't know which, so I picked up my mom's King James Bible and started reading about how, "So-and-so begat Such-and-such and Such-and-such begat Thus-and-such." To my untrained, unsaved, teenaged mind, those words came across as, "Blah blah blah." Yuck! I promptly put that Bible down, and didn't read it again for many years. The funny thing is, a few years ago, some time after I became a Christian, my mom gave me that same Bible, asking me to take it out of her house. As you can probably guess, she is not saved, but I keep hoping and praying God will lead her to Himself.

As far as which Bible I use, I read the New American Standard for my devotions and studying. I heard from a former Bible professor that it is the best word-for-word literal translation for serious study. I like it a lot because while it keeps all the "thees and thous" when the person in question is praying to God, it has somewhat more modern English without losing the Elizabethan flair that is inherent in the King James. That's just me, though. I'm a bit of a nerd, if you haven't figured that out already.:)

Yours in Christ,

Benjamin

Jamey
Apr 29th 2008, 03:07 AM
I use to be a staunch KJV only guy. But then some wise old Christian once told me when I asked him why he read out of the NIV "All scripture, not translations, are inspired." I now read NKJV but I'm very interested in the NASB and debating on getting one.
Funny thing is, we all worry about what translation we read and not which one we live out.

Lisa Ruby
Apr 29th 2008, 03:29 AM
I read the KJV and have a copy of the NKJV but I have heard the NKJV has been somewhat changed and re-arranged and you lose the real meaning of the scriptures. What is the purpose of the NKJV? I dont understand why the word of GOD would be changed by man.
The NKJV definitely seems like an easier read but I dont want to be mis-lead in reading false pretexts. I lalso heard the NKJV is like rated PG book, for example the word satan is left out and they stay clear of the violence as well. That is what I dont want.

I really dont have a problem with the KJV, i am acctually used to it and the way its written. But reading some of NJKV is seems to flow better but I even noticed a big difference in the scriptures, I just dont want to be misguided. I am kind of torn on this.




This is interesting: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/whatabout-nkjv.html


Years ago a Thomas Nelson Representative revealed the purpose of the NKJV to Pastor Kirk DiVietro of Franklin, MA: "Hopefully it [NKJV] will serve as a transitional bridge to eventually get your people to accept a more accurate Bible." See: Thomas Nelson Rep: NKJV is a Transitional Bridge http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/nkjv_transitional_bridge.html

Also see: NKJV: Transitional Bridge to More Corrupt Versions
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/nkjv_trans_bridge_modern.html

Lisa Ruby
Apr 29th 2008, 05:04 AM
Xel'Naga Greetings

If we have enough different translations saying enough different things, then perhaps we can make the Bible say what ever our desire is.

terrell

I believe that is the (New Age) purpose for the tremendous influx of "versions" of bibles. Relativism is much more easily integrated into the church if everybody's bible says something different.

Roelof
Apr 29th 2008, 07:25 AM
We can have an endless debate on what version or translation of the Bible is "correct and not corrupted."

In the end, this is all what one must understand and believe:


Because if you confess the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved. (Rom 10:9)

9Marksfan
Apr 29th 2008, 11:24 AM
What's a GNB bible, and why is the translator considered a heretic?
:confused

The Good News Bible - now called Today's English Version - the first dynamic equivalent "translation" (guess everyone knew that The Living Bible and JB Phillips' were "paraphrases" - but the GNB is a paraphrase too).

Check this site out to find out more about its gross errors and the views of its creator, Robert Bratcher:-

http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/tev.htm

9Marksfan
Apr 29th 2008, 11:27 AM
We can have an endless debate on what version of the Bible is "correct and not corrupted."

In the end, this is all what one must understand and believe:


Because if you confess the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved. (Rom 10:9)

So why do we have no bibles that just contain this verse alone, if it's "all one must understand and believe" - is the rest somehow superfluous?

Gentile
Apr 29th 2008, 01:21 PM
The good news bible?! wow stay very clear from that junk. I hear people say you have to have extensive studys in english to understand the KJV. In all honestly I completely understand the KJV in fact I get the message more than the NKJV.

One thing I dont like about the NKJV is it refers to hell as hades, now that is strange.

Its like a calling from GOD to have me stick to my trusty KJV, i love it and it flows so nicely.

9Marksfan
Apr 29th 2008, 02:36 PM
The good news bible?! wow stay very clear from that junk. I hear people say you have to have extensive studys in english to understand the KJV. In all honestly I completely understand the KJV in fact I get the message more than the NKJV.

Did you grow up with it? Or have preachers "translate" the archaic language for you?


One thing I dont like about the NKJV is it refers to hell as hades, now that is strange.

That's because the original Hebrew and Greek refer to Hades, not Gehenna! You may not like it, but it's biblically more accurate to the original language.


Its like a calling from GOD to have me stick to my trusty KJV, i love it and it flows so nicely.

The language is certainly majestic and the source texts are the best - but I believe you are very much in the minority of people who can actually UNDERSTAND it - surely you agree that it should be in readily understandable language?

VerticalReality
Apr 29th 2008, 02:43 PM
I study and preach mainly from the NKJV, but I am also a fan of referring to many different translations and also studying the Greek.

2 Peter 2:20
Apr 29th 2008, 02:50 PM
So why do we have no bibles that just contain this verse alone, if it's "all one must understand and believe" - is the rest somehow superfluous?


Did you grow up with it? Or have preachers "translate" the archaic language for you?



That's because the original Hebrew and Greek refer to Hades, not Gehenna! You may not like it, but it's biblically more accurate to the original language.



The language is certainly majestic and the source texts are the best - but I believe you are very much in the minority of people who can actually UNDERSTAND it - surely you agree that it should be in readily understandable language?

Here is something else we agree on.

I have set in several churches that were KJV only and when the preacher would start his sermon He would read from the Bible and then start to expound on it. He would start to talk in modern english to explain what was being said in the Bible. The KJV only preacher would use the same words that the NKJV or the NIV would use to explain the KJV. But let the condemnation begin if someone were to read from the NIV. That is strange to me.

Brother Mark
Apr 29th 2008, 03:29 PM
Here is something else we agree on.

I have set in several churches that were KJV only and when the preacher would start his sermon He would read from the Bible and then start to expound on it. He would start to talk in modern english to explain what was being said in the Bible. The KJV only preacher would use the same words that the NKJV or the NIV would use to explain the KJV. But let the condemnation begin if someone were to read from the NIV. That is strange to me.

:lol::lol:

That's funny. I saw the same thing growing up. Condemn the commentaries but preach away! Only read the bible. Those commentaries are evil. All the while I was trying to understand why it was OK to preach and expound on God from the pulpit but not in a book. :rolleyes:

Or even better, music is bad. If it gets your foot to pumping before it gets your heart to racing, the music is wrong, wrong, wrong. The music should be way different than the music of the world. Then I learned that some of the old hymns we use to sing were put to old bar tunes. Now how funny is that!

Clifton
Apr 29th 2008, 03:45 PM
One thing I dont like about the NKJV is it refers to hell as hades, now that is strange

Where?

Sounds more like that KJV refers to "hades" as "hell" which is strange.:hmm:

Blessings.

TrustGzus
Apr 29th 2008, 04:20 PM
Hi Lisa,
Years ago a Thomas Nelson Representative revealed the purpose of the NKJV to Pastor Kirk DiVietro of Franklin, MA: "Hopefully it [NKJV] will serve as a transitional bridge to eventually get your people to accept a more accurate Bible." See: Thomas Nelson Rep: NKJV is a Transitional Bridge http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/nkjv_transitional_bridge.html

Also see: NKJV: Transitional Bridge to More Corrupt Versions
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/nkjv_trans_bridge_modern.html
With all due respect, this is inaccurate and there is a better source to go to. Instead of going to a representative of Thomas Nelson, we can check out the general editor of the NKJV himself, Arthur Farstad.

Farstad was not a fan of the eclectic approach that the modern translations use. That was the reason the NKJV was developed, not as a transition to over modern versions, but as an alternative to them by sticking to the Greek textual basis of the KJV New Testament. He was an alternative to the NIV which came out at nearly the same time.

Just because someone is employed by Thomas Nelson doesn't mean they know about Bible translation anymore than a customer service representative on the phone for the electric company has a clue about how electrical distribution works.

All of this doesn't say which method is better, but it does inform us that that the NKJV was not transitional towards modern versions, rather it was reactionary and counter to them.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

TrustGzus
Apr 29th 2008, 04:24 PM
Hi Lisa,
I believe that is the (New Age) purpose for the tremendous influx of "versions" of bibles. Relativism is much more easily integrated into the church if everybody's bible says something different.I'm reasonably familiar with the New Age. I'm also reasonably familiar with relativism which is something totally different and unrelated. I'm familiar with Bible translations and have read many of them cover to cover.

Could you provide some evidence to back up your claim? How did you conclude that Evangelical scholars (who unanimously reject the New Age and relativism) are producing Bibles for the purpose of spreading New Age and relativism?

For good evidence, I would recommend quoting some passages that teach New Age or relativistic thinking. Do you have any examples to prove this claim?

Grace & Peace to you,

Joe

daughter
Apr 29th 2008, 04:29 PM
I think one reason that there are so many translations is human pride. For example, I've been seriously tempted to do my own translation of certain NT passages... then I realised that while it's okay for me to read and think about the Greek text, if I start formalising my reading by turning it into my version of an English translation, then I'm falling into quite serious error. And it was to a large extent intellectual pride tempting me that way.

I don't mind translating passages as part of a language learning excercise, but I don't think we need any more English versions. There are still over two thousand language groups needing bibles translated... but there's no money in it, sadly.

Clifton
Apr 29th 2008, 04:48 PM
Hi Lisa,With all due respect, this is inaccurate and there is a better source to go to. Instead of going to a representative of Thomas Nelson, we can check out the general editor of the NKJV himself, Arthur Farstad.

Farstad was not a fan of the eclectic approach that the modern translations use. That was the reason the NKJV was developed, not as a transition to over modern versions, but as an alternative to them by sticking to the Greek textual basis of the KJV New Testament. He was an alternative to the NIV which came out at nearly the same time.

To clarify, "most" of the Modern translations are using the CT (Critical Text) archetype, but not "all" of them.;) I have many that use the TR (Textus Receptus) archetype, and some of them that use the MT (Majority Text) archetype. You may know, that Arthur Farstad, along with Zane C. Hodges, put together the Majority Text Greek New Testament. The Byzantine Textform 2005 (http://rpbyztxt.com/) Greek New Testament (my personal preference) is an "MT archetype", by William G. Pierpont (now deceased) and Maurice A. Robinson, and it is about 98 to 99% in agreement with that of Hodges/Farstad, and includes variant readings from within the Byzantine tradition and variants found in the NA27 and UBS4 modern critical editions.

All Greek New Testaments are 85%+ in agreement.

Blessings.

TrustGzus
Apr 29th 2008, 08:03 PM
Hey Clifton,

Thanks for adding more detail. In regard to your comment that the Greek texts are in 85% agreement, here's a note from the intro to the NKJV (emphasis mine) . . .

In light of these facts, and also because the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the popup notes. Although these variations are duly indicated in the popup notes of the present edition, it is most important to emphasize that fully eighty-five percent of the New Testament text is the same in the Textus Receptus, the Alexandrian Text, and the Majority Text.

The New King James Version. 1982. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.


In addition to that of the remaining 15% that's left, 90% of that 15% is easily resolved. Which leaves us with only about 1-1/2% in which scholars have been unable to determine what the original really is. Pretty amazing.

No other religious book has this kind of support.

Athanasius
Apr 29th 2008, 08:13 PM
Yeap, 98% exactness.
Unheard of for a document from antiquity.

Clifton
Apr 29th 2008, 08:25 PM
Hey Clifton,

Thanks for adding more detail. In regard to your comment that the Greek texts are in 85% agreement, here's a note from the intro to the NKJV (emphasis mine) . . . In addition to that of the remaining 15% that's left, 90% of that 15% is easily resolved. Which leaves us with only about 1-1/2% in which scholars have been unable to determine what the original really is. Pretty amazing.

No other religious book has this kind of support.


Cool.:cool:

BTW, you probably know that TR is a family of MT.

As for popular Bibles that can be bought in Public Stores, IMHO, I would recommend NKJV since it is TR based. Yea, I got the NKJV in the computer program, and it has the "NU-" & "M-" Notes (though I have access to those variants myself).

Oh, I have nice black vinyl editions of MKJV (Modern King James Version) and LITV (Literal Translation Version) - they are TR-based as well.

Blessings.

baxpack7
Apr 29th 2008, 08:35 PM
I've found that the NIV version has really changed too much to be a useful teaching tool,IMO

2 Peter 2:20
Apr 30th 2008, 01:30 AM
:lol::lol:

That's funny. I saw the same thing growing up. Condemn the commentaries but preach away! Only read the bible. Those commentaries are evil. All the while I was trying to understand why it was OK to preach and expound on God from the pulpit but not in a book. :rolleyes:

Or even better, music is bad. If it gets your foot to pumping before it gets your heart to racing, the music is wrong, wrong, wrong. The music should be way different than the music of the world. Then I learned that some of the old hymns we use to sing were put to old bar tunes. Now how funny is that!

It is funny!!

I have always wanted to preach a sermon at a KJV only church...not that it will ever happen but I can dream. I would get up there and read a chapter from the KJV...any chapter...and after that I would close my Bible and say are there any questions? Then say thanks for having me, if you didn't understand any of it then it's not meant for you to understand right now and if you did understand it then it's for you right now.;)

Buck shot
Apr 30th 2008, 01:47 AM
It is funny!!

I have always wanted to preach a sermon at a KJV only church...not that it will ever happen but I can dream. I would get up there and read a chapter from the KJV...any chapter...and after that I would close my Bible and say are there any questions? Then say thanks for having me, if you didn't understand any of it then it's not meant for you to understand right now and if you did understand it then it's for you right now.;)

I am waiting for you to come to East Texas Brother!

I got a pulpit for you but I would like you to leave me a few minutes when you are done! :P

2 Peter 2:20
Apr 30th 2008, 02:12 AM
I am waiting for you to come to East Texas Brother!

I got a pulpit for you but I would like you to leave me a few minutes when you are done! :P


I'll read 1 Cor. 13...only 13 verses that should give you plenty of time!:P

At your church I would have to expound...sorry!;):D

Roelof
Apr 30th 2008, 06:35 AM
I have an electronic 1611 KJV, a KJV and NKJV and love to read from all of them.

Clifton
Apr 30th 2008, 01:11 PM
I have an electronic 1611 KJV, a KJV and NKJV and love to read from all of them.

I have an electronic 1611 KJV too (in e-Sword) - I wish I could say, "it looks Greek to me", since I can read Greek :D.

I have the commonly used 1769 KJV too, along with the 1850 Edition (with Strong's and extended Strong's Numbers for Verb Parsings). Not quite sure of all the reasonings the 1850 was such a "unaccepted revision" and people fell back to the 1769 revision - I believe Hebrews 4:8 was one of them because the name "Jesus" was changed to "Joseph" there - however, that was a correct move so people would not "confuse" the verse "as referring to the Messiah".

Blessings.

Gentile
Apr 30th 2008, 01:31 PM
I have moved over to the NKJV for my reading now. I like it. Talk about being a head case!:B

TrustGzus
Apr 30th 2008, 01:39 PM
Hey Clifton,
Cool.:cool:

BTW, you probably know that TR is a family of MT.

As for popular Bibles that can be bought in Public Stores, IMHO, I would recommend NKJV since it is TR based. Yea, I got the NKJV in the computer program, and it has the "NU-" & "M-" Notes (though I have access to those variants myself).

Oh, I have nice black vinyl editions of MKJV (Modern King James Version) and LITV (Literal Translation Version) - they are TR-based as well.

Blessings.Yes, I'm familiar with the TR and the MT and that often they are in common, though they differ in 1800 or so places.

I've been studying these issues for about 20 years.

I have no problem recommending the NKJV as it's a fine translation. I think that the Nestle-Aland and UBS texts represent the original more accurately. So obviously I think the NKJV is a little less accurate in the text and more accurate in its footnotes. But as we discussed, the amount of agreement is way more significant than different.

As long as someone doesn't take texts and make pretexts (as your signature says) and they don't read single Bible verses but always read a paragraph or more, then whatever translation they use, they will come to sound doctrine and right belief (as long as it's not a "translation" like the New World Translation).

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

Lisa Ruby
Apr 30th 2008, 07:54 PM
Hi Lisa,I'm reasonably familiar with the New Age. I'm also reasonably familiar with relativism which is something totally different and unrelated. I'm familiar with Bible translations and have read many of them cover to cover.

Could you provide some evidence to back up your claim? How did you conclude that Evangelical scholars (who unanimously reject the New Age and relativism) are producing Bibles for the purpose of spreading New Age and relativism?

For good evidence, I would recommend quoting some passages that teach New Age or relativistic thinking. Do you have any examples to prove this claim?

Grace & Peace to you,

Joe

Hi,

I will look for some texts but in the meantime you might want to see:

http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/nkjv_lucis_trust_one_world.html

http://libertytothecaptives.net/nkjv_theol_changes_belial.html

Lisa Ruby
May 2nd 2008, 12:19 AM
Hey Clifton,Yes, I'm familiar with the TR and the MT and that often they are in common, though they differ in 1800 or so places.

I've been studying these issues for about 20 years.

I have no problem recommending the NKJV as it's a fine translation. I think that the Nestle-Aland and UBS texts represent the original more accurately. So obviously I think the NKJV is a little less accurate in the text and more accurate in its footnotes. But as we discussed, the amount of agreement is way more significant than different.

As long as someone doesn't take texts and make pretexts (as your signature says) and they don't read single Bible verses but always read a paragraph or more, then whatever translation they use, they will come to sound doctrine and right belief (as long as it's not a "translation" like the New World Translation).

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

Joe,

Below is a link to a chart of some KJV texts compared with the John Darby translation.

http://libertytothecaptives.net/grb_compared_darby.html

Here is the link to the chart's table of contents that quickly gets to the nitty gritty:
http://libertytothecaptives.net/grb_darby_kjv_chart_headings.html

I consider this chart to evidence New Age markings in Darby's text. I have not carefully checked other Bibles for New Age teaching but I know others have and there are charts available too.

Some would look at this chart and say they don't see anything amiss regarding Darby's renderings. I do. I think it is a matter of personal discernment and I'm leaving these links for informational purposes.

timmyb
May 2nd 2008, 12:23 AM
NKJV is my favorite....

Clifton
May 2nd 2008, 01:08 AM
Hey Clifton,Yes, I'm familiar with the TR and the MT and that often they are in common, though they differ in 1800 or so places.

I've been studying these issues for about 20 years.

I have no problem recommending the NKJV as it's a fine translation. I think that the Nestle-Aland and UBS texts represent the original more accurately. So obviously I think the NKJV is a little less accurate in the text and more accurate in its footnotes. But as we discussed, the amount of agreement is way more significant than different.

As long as someone doesn't take texts and make pretexts (as your signature says) and they don't read single Bible verses but always read a paragraph or more, then whatever translation they use, they will come to sound doctrine and right belief (as long as it's not a "translation" like the New World Translation).

Grace & peace to you,

Joe
20 years? :hmm: Got me beat by about five years.:)

Blessings.

Clifton
May 2nd 2008, 01:16 AM
Joe,

Below is a link to a chart of some KJV texts compared with the John Darby translation.

http://libertytothecaptives.net/grb_compared_darby.html

Here is the link to the chart's table of contents that quickly gets to the nitty gritty:
http://libertytothecaptives.net/grb_darby_kjv_chart_headings.html

I consider this chart to evidence New Age markings in Darby's text. I have not carefully checked other Bibles for New Age teaching but I know others have and there are charts available too.

Some would look at this chart and say they don't see anything amiss regarding Darby's renderings. I do. I think it is a matter of personal discernment and I'm leaving these links for informational purposes.
I believe Darby just used a text that was a "in between" transition Greek from the TR archetype to the CT archetype (Tischendorf, Westcott & Hort, Nestles / UBS). It appears to me to be a "mixed" blend of those two archetypes. Perhaps he used Griesbach(sp?) Greek New Testament - I have never seen that - apparently it did not amount to much to be provided in Computer Bible Software programs - at least not yet. Someday perhaps it will.

I have several comparison charts between the Greek New Testaments myself, but none of them include Griesbach (I'm not even sure I got that spelled out correctly.). The proper way to compare Greek Testaments where KJV (at least the 1769 edition mostly used in the U.S.A.) would be a comparison to 1894 Scrivener's Greek New Testament, since that is an artificially constructed text (which was just a Greek, as much as honestly possible, underlying the KJV English).

Blessings.

Clifton
May 2nd 2008, 01:28 AM
NKJV is my favorite....

You (and/or others here) may already know this, and have this, but just in case, I want to note that the NKJV is available for various Computer Bible Software programs and the NKJV has the Strong's Numbers Embedded (which can be turned on or off) in the verses, including the extended Strong's Numbers for Verb parsings (TVM=Tense-Voice-Mood);

“ "For <1063> God <2316> so <3779> loved <25 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=25)> (5656 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=5656)) the world <2889> that <5620> He gave <1325> (5656) His <846> only begotten <3439> Son <5207>, that <2443> whoever <3956> believes <4100> (5723) in <1519> Him <846> should <622> <0> not <3361> perish <622> (5643) but <235> have <2192> (5725) everlasting <166> life <2222>.” (John 3:16 NKJV)

All you have to do is click on the Strong's Numbers to get the lexicon reading or TVM - I have hyperlinked <25> and (5656) after the English word "loved" in the above reference to see examples. Lexicons will vary according to which Bible Software one uses.;)

Blessings.

IBWatching
May 2nd 2008, 06:03 PM
...I have several comparison charts between the Greek New Testaments myself...

Since it appears that you have access to various Greek texts and are a student of the original, perhaps you would like to comment on a problem I see in the NKJV. It pertains to the rendering of a Greek word in Luke 11:27-28. Here are some of the the translations in English:


Luke 11:27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. 28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it. (KJV)
Luke 11:27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, "Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!'' 28 But He said, "More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!'' (NKJV)
Luke 11:27 As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you." 28 He replied, "Blessed rather are those who hear the Word of God and obey it." (NIV)
Luke 11:27 While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, "Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed." 28 But He said, "On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it." (NASU)
Luke 11:27 As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, "Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!" 28 But he said, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!" (ESV)
Luke 11:27 While he was saying this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, "Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that nursed you!" 28 But he said, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it!" (NRSV)
Luke 11:27 As He was saying these things, a woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, "The womb that bore You and the one who nursed You are blessed!" 28 He said, "Even more, those who hear the word of God and keep it are blessed!" (HCSB) As you can see, with the exception of the New King James Version and the Holman Christian Standard Bible, every other major English translation in use has Jesus taking exception to what the woman said. In those two versions, however, the text leaves the reader with the impression that Jesus is in agreement with what the woman said and is simply adding to that by what follows. This is incorrect theology IMO, and leaves the passages open to charges that they are being made "catholic friendly" when compared to the other translations.

Nowhere in the NT does it teach that a physical connection with Jesus "blesses" anyone. It is a Spiritual connection with Jesus as the Word which can Bless, and even then only if it is obeyed or followed after It's hearing. And as far as the ramifications concerning Mary go, this post is getting long enough as it is.

Here is the Strong's Greek word associated with the KJV texts:

G3304
μενοῦνγε
menounge
men-oon'-geh
From G3303 and G3767 and G1065; so then at least: - nay but, yea doubtless (rather, verily).


In the only copy of the TR I have at hand (based on Stephen's - 1550) the editor of that interlinear also renders it as "rather". I'd be interested in your explanation of why the translators of the NKJV (based on TR) and HCSB (based on Nestle's 27th) felt it necessary to render the word in this way and thus add an implication to the meaning of the text which I believe is wrong.

What say you?

JordanW
May 2nd 2008, 07:04 PM
What's the difference between the KJV and the NKJV really?

JordanW
May 2nd 2008, 07:09 PM
I just looked in both the KJV and the NKJV and they both say that word "Satan". Check out Revelation 20:7.

Clifton
May 2nd 2008, 11:12 PM
Since it appears that you have access to various Greek texts and are a student of the original, perhaps you would like to comment on a problem I see in the NKJV. It pertains to the rendering of a Greek word in Luke 11:27-28. Here are some of the the translations in English:

As you can see, with the exception of the New King James Version and the Holman Christian Standard Bible, every other major English translation in use has Jesus taking exception to what the woman said. In those two versions, however, the text leaves the reader with the impression that Jesus is in agreement with what the woman said and is simply adding to that by what follows. This is incorrect theology IMO, and leaves the passages open to charges that they are being made "catholic friendly" when compared to the other translations.
I would not worry about what Romanist divisions think, since the RC as an example, seem to think they have authority over the scripture (or something like that), while others claim “divine revelation(s)”, which does not equate to the contexts of scriptures. ;) Those of the Watchtower seem to find great favoritisms with NIV. Not sure, but I thought RC might have some favoritism with NSRV. I do have that in one of my Bible Software programs – NIV as well.


Nowhere in the NT does it teach that a physical connection with Jesus "blesses" anyone.
I’m not sure I follow you here – The Greek word here, makaria <3107> also means “happy”, “happier”. There are 7 Greek words used in the AV / KJV for the English “bless*” words. ;)


“Now it happened, while He was saying these things, a certain woman from the crowd having raised her voice, said to Him, "Happy is the womb, the one having carried You, and the breasts from which You nursed!"” (Luke 11:27 ALT)
It is a Spiritual connection with Jesus as the Word which can Bless, and even then only if it is obeyed or followed after It's hearing. And as far as the ramifications concerning Mary go, this post is getting long enough as it is.
Well, no doubt Mary was happy and outright blessed to bear the Son Of God from her womb. What Christ expressed according to Luke, is, “yea”, “but now” “happy [are] the ones hearing the word of God and keeping {figurately, “obeying”} [it]”. So it is so that Mary is happy, but Christ puts an emphasis on "the ones hearing the word of God and obeying Him.”, something far greater.

As for the variance in the texts you quote (e.g. translations, etc.), I’ll try to provide a mild breakdown:


Here is the Strong's Greek word associated with the KJV texts:

G3304
μενουνγε
menounge
men-oon'-geh
From G3303 and G3767 and G1065; so then at least: - nay but, yea doubtless (rather, verily).

In the only copy of the TR I have at hand (based on Stephen's - 1550) the editor of that interlinear also renders it as "rather". I'd be interested in your explanation of why the translators of the NKJV (based on TR) and HCSB (based on Nestle's 27th) felt it necessary to render the word in this way and thus add an implication to the meaning of the text which I believe is wrong.

What say you?
For Luke 11:28, there are variants. The TR & MT archetypes show the word you refer to: G3304, μενοῦνγε, which is a compound of G3303 + G3767 + G1065. For the CT archetype, it just has μενουν, (compound of G3303 + G3767). KJV (or where they got the phrase from) used two words for G3303, "Yea” and “rather". Here is an outline of how they translated that word everywhere in that Bible.

Total KJV Occurrences: 6
doubtless, 1
Phi_3:8

nay, 1
Rom_9:20

yes, 1
Rom_10:18

verily, 1
Rom_10:18

yea, 1
Luk_11:28

rather, 1
Luk_11:28

But <1161> he <846> said <2036> (5627), Yea rather <3304>, blessed <3107> are they that hear <191> (5723) the word <3056> of God <2316>, and <2532> keep <5442> (5723) it <846>. KJV

So the response is that of a composition one:
"yea (indeed, truly)" + "rather (but now, verily)" + ge (particle of emphasis or qualification).

In the WDNT Greek Dictionary for Strong’s 3304, it states that the word is a `compound particle of affirmation or concession, from “men” (3303), indeed, and “oun” (3767), but now, verily, therefore, and “ge” (1065), an emphatic. Yes indeed, yes verily, found in composition (Luke 11:28; Rom. 9:20, 10:18; Phil. 3:8).’

So KJV, NKJV and HCSB appear fine for the Greek word μενοῦνγε, and all three of them are using more than one English word, which is fine, considering μενουνγε itself is a compound of 3 Greek words. Nonetheless, there appear to differing thoughts of people on how The Greek word μενουνγε should be expressed in English (e.g. nay or yea, etc.)

You mention that HCSB is based on Nestle's 27th. After scanning some passages in it, it looks like they may have made some use of it, but OTOH, made some use of a Textus Receptus text form and / or one or more of the MT archetypes. Perhaps they decided to use some variants “here and there” over Nestle's "preferred readings". Example:

And he was preaching in the synagogues of Judea. Luke 4:44 ESV

Since it says "Judea" then that's a CT archetype, like Nestles. Note that the parallel in Mark 1:39 is Galilee, in the very same Bible.

And he preached in the synagogues of Galilee. Luke 4:44 KJV

And He was preaching in the synagogues of Galilee. Luke 4:44 HCSB

After seeing this and checking John 7:8, I was beginning to think they were not translating from the Nestles, but then I checked John 3:13 and Matthew 5:22 and the HCSB lacks phrases that CT-Based Bibles usually lack. I have the HCSB in e-Sword, but no website mentioned in the information section. Do you have a Website for this HCSB Bible? I’m just “curious”, and since I am not a cat, it won’t kill me :P

Blessings.

TrustGzus
May 3rd 2008, 03:32 AM
Hi Lisa,
Joe,

Below is a link to a chart of some KJV texts compared with the John Darby translation.

http://libertytothecaptives.net/grb_compared_darby.html

Here is the link to the chart's table of contents that quickly gets to the nitty gritty:
http://libertytothecaptives.net/grb_darby_kjv_chart_headings.html

I consider this chart to evidence New Age markings in Darby's text. I have not carefully checked other Bibles for New Age teaching but I know others have and there are charts available too.

Some would look at this chart and say they don't see anything amiss regarding Darby's renderings. I do. I think it is a matter of personal discernment and I'm leaving these links for informational purposes.A couple observations:

1) This is comparing the KJV with Darby's. But the thread is about NKJV. So, what does bringing in Darby prove?

2) Do you really find these arguments convincing? Demons replaces devils is supposedly new age?

I don't find these links compelling.

Grace & peace,

Joe

Clifton
May 3rd 2008, 04:39 AM
What's the difference between the KJV and the NKJV really?

NKJV is just a "modern update" of the beloved 1769 Dr. Blayney's Revision of KJV that is used in the U.S.A. I think Blayney's revision was of the 1683 revision of KJV - not sure anymore. Most of those revisions were just word spelling variations. There was an 1850 update of KJV (KJV 1850) that was not well accepted, so apparently KJV become a "more accepted" translation by then.

Noah Webster did an 1833 amendment update, which I think is pretty good and better than the 1769 KJV. Yes, the same Webster that started the English Dictionary outfit. In Bible Software, like 1769/1850 KJV versions, and NKJV, Webster's update of KJV has Dr. Strong's embedded within the text (you can turn this on and off).

There are other various "updates" of the "KJV" besides NKJV.... There are MKJV, KJII, KJ3, AKJV, UKJV, KJ2000, KJV Clarified, and so on.

Blessings.

Clifton
May 3rd 2008, 04:48 AM
I just looked in both the KJV and the NKJV and they both say that word "Satan". Check out Revelation 20:7.

I do not understand this - The Greek "satanas" ("satan") is in all the Greek New Testaments I can see, and thus, yes, they are in KJV and NKJV - did someone say otherwise?:hmm: Be cautious about KJV-Only Books, articles, web sites, etc. - sadly, it is a stock trade for those to always be overwhelming deceptive (it is a rule of the thumb when adhering to spirits of error.), but this does imply anything wrong against one who chooses the KJV - it is a vital translation in textual studies due to Strong's encodings.

Blessings.

MrAnteater
May 3rd 2008, 05:05 AM
NKJV, NIV, ESV, YLT are the versions I read. It's interesting to compare the translations but I don't get caught up in the semantics arguments. There isn't some hidden secret in one version compared to another version. I sometimes get the most insight going to the YLT to see most directly how the Hebrew reads in English.

I respect the KJV but it's difficult for me to read at length do to the English of the 1600's. It sounds like nice poetry to me!

Lisa Ruby
May 3rd 2008, 05:13 AM
Hi Lisa,A couple observations:

1) This is comparing the KJV with Darby's. But the thread is about NKJV. So, what does bringing in Darby prove?

2) Do you really find these arguments convincing? Demons replaces devils is supposedly new age?

I don't find these links compelling.

Grace & peace,

Joe

The thread is about the NKJV but your question (as I recall) was about New Age teaching in the new versions...so I cited some in one version.

Demon has a different meaning from devil--especially in the mind of pagans. Pagans think that demons are deities. Devil--there is no mistaking that for something that is evil. Evil is even part of the word, devil.

Check out the Webster's 1913 definition here:
http://hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=demon

What should matter to Christians is that John Darby and Thomas Newberry (Newberry authored the English words in the George Ricker Berry Greek to English Interlinear) both said in their translations that The Lord Jesus Christ is the only ruler. They also said the ruler of this world is judged. It is obvious to me what they did in this instance with their so-called literal translations.

Another example--BOTH men stated in their supposed literal translations that Jesus Christ was only-begotten with a father rather than the TRUTH: Jesus Christ was the only begotten of the Father.

Plenty more examples here:

http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/grb_compared_darby.html#a%20father

TrustGzus
May 3rd 2008, 08:57 PM
Hey Lisa,

I personally see no reason to worry about this for a few reasons:

1) People don't use Darby's translation. Oh they may look at a verse here or there. But no one that I know uses Darby's as a version to sit down and read.

2) Even if someone did use Darby as a regular version, theology isn't formed by single verses. Theology is formed by studying the whole Bible. No one will become a New Ager by using Darby's translation or any other.

3) Who uses Webster's 1913? That's 95 years ago! I've never met a person who doesn't see demons as evil spirits. Even if some New Ager did, reading the context of any passage where the word demon is used would clearly indicate that they are evil.

Lisa, that's one of the keys to these sights that try to scare you and me about Bible versions. All of them pull out single verses from contexts. But no one reads the Bible that way. We read paragraphs and/or chapters. The context always clarifies these things.

Any version can be abused by taking verses out of context, KJV included. Don't let these guys freak you out by partial information, single verses from context, and using dictionaries that are a century old.

JordanW
May 4th 2008, 07:23 AM
So who here actually uses the NKJV? I am really wanting to use mine more, but have become a bit skeptical according to some of these threads.

Clifton
May 4th 2008, 01:52 PM
So who here actually uses the NKJV? I am really wanting to use mine more, but have become a bit skeptical according to some of these threads.

Why? The Bible is a book of books, thus, the best way to read it is contextually, i.e. "Book to Book" and "Chapter to Chapter" within each of those books. ;)

Keep in mind that before Centuries ago, they did not have "chapter" and "verse" divisions.

Blessings.

9Marksfan
May 4th 2008, 02:47 PM
So who here actually uses the NKJV? I am really wanting to use mine more, but have become a bit skeptical according to some of these threads.

I've used it daily for study for about 13 years and still love it to bits - I regularly preach and lead bible studies with it in a church where the KJV and NIV are also used - I hope people from both "camps" can see the benefit of the NKJV - the NIV folk to question why their bibles are missing so many verses and the KJV folk to see how muh more understandable the NKJV is, while sticking very closely to the TR. I accept it's not perfect (it's 30 years old, after all and eg the ESV has some improvements on it) but, on the whole, I think it is the best all-round translation available today.

Lisa Ruby
May 5th 2008, 04:08 AM
Hey Lisa,

I personally see no reason to worry about this for a few reasons:

1) People don't use Darby's translation. Oh they may look at a verse here or there. But no one that I know uses Darby's as a version to sit down and read.

2) Even if someone did use Darby as a regular version, theology isn't formed by single verses. Theology is formed by studying the whole Bible. No one will become a New Ager by using Darby's translation or any other.

3) Who uses Webster's 1913? That's 95 years ago! I've never met a person who doesn't see demons as evil spirits. Even if some New Ager did, reading the context of any passage where the word demon is used would clearly indicate that they are evil.

Lisa, that's one of the keys to these sights that try to scare you and me about Bible versions. All of them pull out single verses from contexts. But no one reads the Bible that way. We read paragraphs and/or chapters. The context always clarifies these things.

Any version can be abused by taking verses out of context, KJV included. Don't let these guys freak you out by partial information, single verses from context, and using dictionaries that are a century old.

My links are simply for information. I do not debate but I try to share information that I have gathered. The way I see it, the Holy Spirit doesn't argue with people so neither will I--even if I think I'm correct about a particular matter.

I know most people don't read the Darby translation. I simply wanted to find out if both Plymouth Brethren leaders (Darby and Newberry) collaborated on their "versions." It appears that they did. Furthermore, I produced the charts because I think that some might be interested in learning what theological changes John Darby (the Father of Dispensationalism) accomplished with his "version" of the Bible.

Ignore the demon/devil thing if you wish. There are far more serious changes to scripture that John Darby did with his version.

JordanW
May 5th 2008, 04:12 AM
I've used it daily for study for about 13 years and still love it to bits - I regularly preach and lead bible studies with it in a church where the KJV and NIV are also used - I hope people from both "camps" can see the benefit of the NKJV - the NIV folk to question why their bibles are missing so many verses and the KJV folk to see how muh more understandable the NKJV is, while sticking very closely to the TR. I accept it's not perfect (it's 30 years old, after all and eg the ESV has some improvements on it) but, on the whole, I think it is the best all-round translation available today.
I grew up reading the NKJV, but the last Church that I attended the Pastor preached out of the KJV and so I bought a KJV...I'd really like to get a love for the NKJV again, that's what my Dad uses.

Lisa Ruby
May 5th 2008, 04:27 AM
My links are simply for information. I do not debate but I try to share information that I have gathered. The way I see it, the Holy Spirit doesn't argue with people so neither will I--even if I think I'm correct about a particular matter.

I know most people don't read the Darby translation. I simply wanted to find out if both Plymouth Brethren leaders (Darby and Newberry) collaborated on their "versions." It appears that they did. Furthermore, I produced the charts because I think that some might be interested in learning what theological changes John Darby (the Father of Dispensationalism) accomplished with his "version" of the Bible.

Ignore the demon/devil thing if you wish. There are far more serious changes to scripture that John Darby did with his version.

I just found another chart that I have just now published to the internet. The Darby Translation: Doctrinal Changes to the Bible http://libertytothecaptives.net/darby_doctrinal_changes.html

Darby actually used the word God in place of the KJV's rendering of "gods."
He did indicate in his note that God could mean "gods"!

There is a huge difference between God (God of the Bible) and gods (devils). It appears that Darby thought that the words, God and god can be interchanged--in this instance at least.


KJV

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. Gen 3:5

John Darby

but God knows that in the day ye eat of it, your eyes will be opened, and ye will be as God, knowing good and evil Gen 3:5
Darby's note: Or 'as gods.'


How does the Darby Translation renderings relate to the NKJV question? Well,someone said the NKJV followed the Textus Receptus more closely than the KJV. This caused me to investigate and I discovered that a Plymouth Brethren leader (Thomas Newberry) wrote the English Definitions for the George Ricker Berry Greek to English interlinear she was using. That made me wonder so I decided to find out if his liberal renderings in some verses matched those of John Darby, also a Plymouth Brethren leader. They largely match. I realized that the men who were there when the new versions started coming out marked their versions for their master. Some may think they marked it for Jesus Christ. Some may think differently. I do.

JordanW
May 5th 2008, 06:14 AM
Is it a sin to like the NKJV better than any other translation?:confused

Ashley274
May 5th 2008, 06:39 AM
Is it a sin to like the NKJV better than any other translation?:confused


No it is not. In fact IMO it is better to read a bibe you understand than to read one you do not. I like the NKJV and KJV best then the NIV ...I do not like the others they to me, seem toooo watered down

JordanW
May 5th 2008, 06:41 AM
Yeah I guess it would be kind of stupid to read the KJV and not even understand it, as it wouldn't soak in...:B

Ashley274
May 5th 2008, 06:48 AM
;) I dunno about the stupid part but I think people will read the Bible more and not give up like many do if they understand it and can read along easily. Many to most people are turned off and stop reading the Bible just because they can't understand it..they say its too hard. I use to not like the KJV I like it now....esp the psalms but I can't see me reading the Bible 3 to 5 times a year as I do now if I had to stumble on every other word and ..some can be hard. :hug:

One can always read many versions like I read or they can simply ask God to guide them to what He wants them to read :pray: Pray on it?

JordanW
May 5th 2008, 07:40 AM
Yeah that's definitely true. I just used the NKJV in my online study lesson that I just completed and it worked out good. :D

TrustGzus
May 5th 2008, 06:52 PM
Yeah that's definitely true. I just used the NKJV in my online study lesson that I just completed and it worked out good. :DThat's great Jordan. In regard to your post where you stated you were skeptical because of some threads, what particularly bothers you? I'd be glad to help.

I don't use the NKJV as my primary Bible, but I still regard it as a great translation. The main reason I don't use it is that I think the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Society's Greek texts are more accurate. So I use TNIV and NASB primarily. I do use the NIV a bit because it's my church's pew Bible. If not for my church, I'd probably have retired it completely for the TNIV.

Grace & peace,

Joe

Gentile
May 5th 2008, 07:44 PM
So who here actually uses the NKJV? I am really wanting to use mine more, but have become a bit skeptical according to some of these threads.


I do now! Actually I find it flows much easier for me.

JordanW
May 5th 2008, 08:16 PM
That's great Jordan. In regard to your post where you stated you were skeptical because of some threads, what particularly bothers you? I'd be glad to help.

I don't use the NKJV as my primary Bible, but I still regard it as a great translation. The main reason I don't use it is that I think the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Society's Greek texts are more accurate. So I use TNIV and NASB primarily. I do use the NIV a bit because it's my church's pew Bible. If not for my church, I'd probably have retired it completely for the TNIV.

Grace & peace,

JoeIt just bothers me how people say it's blasphemy and not the inspired Word of God. If that was true then all translations are bad and we should read it in Hebrew and Greek!:lol:

St Shy
May 5th 2008, 09:18 PM
My opinion?

I actually have it opened on my lap right now. It's the version I read most because of the nice and large text on my copy. However, I prefer the English Standard Version when reading online or on e-sword.

To me, a Bible is a Bible is a Bible. Sure, I don't care much for certain versions (like the Contemporary English Version, but that is out of personal taste, really), but I'm not picky by any means...anymore, that is.

And yes, I once believed KJVO...heh.

JordanW
May 5th 2008, 09:21 PM
Well it's good that you have seen the light are not a KJVO anymore. :D

IBWatching
May 6th 2008, 04:36 PM
...You mention that HCSB is based on Nestle's 27th. After scanning some passages in it, it looks like they may have made some use of it, but OTOH, made some use of a Textus Receptus text form and / or one or more of the MT archetypes. Perhaps they decided to use some variants “here and there” over Nestle's "preferred readings"...

Do you have a Website for this HCSB Bible? I’m just “curious”, and since I am not a cat, it won’t kill me :P

Blessings.

First of all, thanks for responding, Clifton. I appreciate your insight. :)

In regards to what you said about the HCSB, it would not surprise me to see that they "mixed" texts within a translation. The original NASB is primarily alexandrian based, but you can find evidence of the TR also.

Here is the website I got the Nestle's 27th from:

HCSB (http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?action=getVersionInfo&vid=77)

After reading a couple of other sites, it became clear that the HCSB is not Nestle's exclusive, as you suspicioned:


The Introduction (http://www.bible-researcher.com/csb-intro.html) states that the Greek text used by the CSB translators was the Nestle-Aland (http://www.bible-researcher.com/bib-a.html#alandetal1979) text, but advises the reader that "in a few places in the NT, large square brackets indicate texts that the translation team and most biblical scholars today believe were not part of the original text. However, these texts have been retained in brackets in the Holman CSB because of their undeniable antiquity and their value for tradition and the history of NT interpretation in the church."Here is the link to that quote:

HCSB-2 (http://www.bible-researcher.com/csb.html)

Again, thanks for your input. it is valued.

JordanW
May 6th 2008, 04:53 PM
Here is something about the word "Satan" in the translation.

54 times it is said in the NKJV - http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/index.php?search=satan&searchtype=all&version1=50&spanbegin=1&spanend=73&startnumber=51&startnumber=1

49 times it is said in the KJV - http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/index.php?search=satan&searchtype=all&version1=9&spanbegin=1&spanend=73