-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
A look at the NKJV.
- Thread starter Steven m.
- Start date
S
Steve K.
Guest
Among the first changes that greets the reader of the NKJV is the removal of the much maligned "thee, thou and ye". The Preface to the NKJV states, ". . .thee, thou, and ye are replaced by the simple you,. . .These pronouns are no longer part of our language." But "thee, thou and ye" were "NO LONGER part of the language" during 1611 either. (just read the intro to the 1611 King James, there are no "thee", "thou" and "ye"). In fact, Webster's Third New International Dictionary, says of ye: "used from the earliest of times to the late 13th century. . ." (p.2648) And yet the 1611 King James was published 400 years later in the 17th century!
So why are they there?
The Greek and Hebrew language contain a different word for the second person singular and the second person plural pronouns. Today we use the one-word "you" for both the singular and plural. But because the translators of the 1611 King James Bible desired an accurate, word-for-word translation of the Hebrew and Greek text - they could NOT use the one-word "you" throughout! If it begins with "t" (thou, thy, thine) it's SINGULAR, but if it begins with "y" (ye) it's PLURAL. Ads for the NKJV call it "the Accurate One", and yet the 1611 King James, by using "thee", "thou", "ye", is far more accurate!
By the way, if the "thee's" and "thou's" are ". . .no longer part of our language" - why aren't the NKJV translators rushing to make our hymnbooks "much clearer"? "How Great Thou Art" to "How Great You Are", or "Come Thou Fount" to "Come You Fount" Doesn't sound right, does it? Isn't it amazing that they wouldn't dare "correct" our hymns - and yet, without the slightest hesitation, they'll "correct" the word of God!
So why are they there?
The Greek and Hebrew language contain a different word for the second person singular and the second person plural pronouns. Today we use the one-word "you" for both the singular and plural. But because the translators of the 1611 King James Bible desired an accurate, word-for-word translation of the Hebrew and Greek text - they could NOT use the one-word "you" throughout! If it begins with "t" (thou, thy, thine) it's SINGULAR, but if it begins with "y" (ye) it's PLURAL. Ads for the NKJV call it "the Accurate One", and yet the 1611 King James, by using "thee", "thou", "ye", is far more accurate!
By the way, if the "thee's" and "thou's" are ". . .no longer part of our language" - why aren't the NKJV translators rushing to make our hymnbooks "much clearer"? "How Great Thou Art" to "How Great You Are", or "Come Thou Fount" to "Come You Fount" Doesn't sound right, does it? Isn't it amazing that they wouldn't dare "correct" our hymns - and yet, without the slightest hesitation, they'll "correct" the word of God!
Follow the following link. I think we need to ban the use of the cross, then.
http://www.apologetix.com/aboutthesymbol.html
http://www.apologetix.com/aboutthesymbol.html
By the way, if the "thee's" and "thou's" are ". . .no longer part of our language" - why aren't the NKJV translators rushing to make our hymnbooks "much clearer"? "How Great Thou Art" to "How Great You Are", or "Come Thou Fount" to "Come You Fount" Doesn't sound right, does it?
Hmmm, maybe it has something to do with the hymn being in the original language, and the bible not being so?
As for me, I have problem with changing word texts. Musicians have been doing ot for a thousand years. Why stop now?
I just love a KJVO'er stooping to hymnal theology to make a point.
Hmmm, maybe it has something to do with the hymn being in the original language, and the bible not being so?
As for me, I have problem with changing word texts. Musicians have been doing ot for a thousand years. Why stop now?
I just love a KJVO'er stooping to hymnal theology to make a point.
S
Steve K.
Guest
Seek the truth and you shall find;
biblebelievers.com
biblebelievers.com
KING JAMES AV 1611 said:
New Agers freely admit it represents three inter-woven "6"s or "666".
New Agers are ignoramuses.
How can a symbol represent three 6s, when it comes from a time before the numeral "6" even existed?
And why can't KJV-onlyists explain this apparent failure of reality to conform to their theology?
You gotta laugh.
Constance Cumbey
nutcase
New Agers freely admit it represents three inter-woven "6"s or "666".
New Agers are ignoramuses.
How can a symbol represent three 6s, when it comes from a time before the numeral "6" even existed?
And why can't KJV-onlyists explain this apparent failure of reality to conform to their theology?
You gotta laugh.
Constance Cumbey
nutcase
S
Steve K.
Guest
ARF ARF down boys down! My the truth still hurts huh guys?
I think it's time we took a look at this so-called King James Bible.
Note, for example, that "King James Bible" has 14 letters.
14 = 7 * 2.
But 7 + 2 = 3 + 6.
3 and 6: 666.
Hmmm.
Furthermore, the King James Bible was published in 1611.
1 + 6 + 1 + 1 = 9 = 3 + 6. Again, 3 and 6: 666.
Hmmm.
Moreover, if you multiply each of the digits in "1611" by 6, you get, in no particular order:
6 6 6 36.
The three sixes are self-evident.
As for the remaining 36, however, that is 6 * 6, or, put another way:
6 + 6 + 6 +
6 + 6 + 6.
Hmmm.
Furthermore, there is one 6 in "1611" and two more in "66," the number of books in the modern KJV canon. 3 6s = 666.
Hmmm.
I don't think we need any of that in our churces, now, do we?
Note, for example, that "King James Bible" has 14 letters.
14 = 7 * 2.
But 7 + 2 = 3 + 6.
3 and 6: 666.
Hmmm.
Furthermore, the King James Bible was published in 1611.
1 + 6 + 1 + 1 = 9 = 3 + 6. Again, 3 and 6: 666.
Hmmm.
Moreover, if you multiply each of the digits in "1611" by 6, you get, in no particular order:
6 6 6 36.
The three sixes are self-evident.
As for the remaining 36, however, that is 6 * 6, or, put another way:
6 + 6 + 6 +
6 + 6 + 6.
Hmmm.
Furthermore, there is one 6 in "1611" and two more in "66," the number of books in the modern KJV canon. 3 6s = 666.
Hmmm.
I don't think we need any of that in our churces, now, do we?
S
Steve K.
Guest
Proof positive that Satan will imitate God.Thanks that's good stuff for proof that the KJV is the true word of God.
S
Steve K.
Guest
No you gotta laugh because the truth you cling to is a JOKE!
It's not a good argument when we try to refer back to the idiom of the language in which the original writings were given.
Why didn't God preserve or cause the following grammatical idiom of the koine which are foreign to English and make the translation so much more difficult from Greek to English?
Three classes of subjunctive in Greek.
Double negatives allowed in Greek for emphasis.
Third person imperative in Greek, (impossible in English).
Or in Hebrew :
Dual as well as plural number.
Lack of vowels.
Hebrew written from right to left.
No present tense in Hebrew.
Inseparable prepositions.
The list can go on and on, your argument for this isolated grammatcal equality of 2nd person number in koine-english is at best a weak one.
RE: "Majestic" language of the KJV.
Why did God change His mind and now wants His Word to be "majestic"?
It is "powerful", but He chose neither vulgar or majestic but the "common-koine" Greek tongue for the original dissemination His New Covenant gospel.
These are just a few grammatical difficulties that any koine-English translator must wrestle with to do justice to the the preserved copies of the ORIGINALS.
God gave His inspired Word in Hebrew and Greek.
Preservation is applicable to the copies not the translations of the Word.
Jesus didn't upbraid the scribes (who did the copying) for their work but their misunderstanding and misapplication of the Word of God.
HankD
Why didn't God preserve or cause the following grammatical idiom of the koine which are foreign to English and make the translation so much more difficult from Greek to English?
Three classes of subjunctive in Greek.
Double negatives allowed in Greek for emphasis.
Third person imperative in Greek, (impossible in English).
Or in Hebrew :
Dual as well as plural number.
Lack of vowels.
Hebrew written from right to left.
No present tense in Hebrew.
Inseparable prepositions.
The list can go on and on, your argument for this isolated grammatcal equality of 2nd person number in koine-english is at best a weak one.
RE: "Majestic" language of the KJV.
Why did God change His mind and now wants His Word to be "majestic"?
It is "powerful", but He chose neither vulgar or majestic but the "common-koine" Greek tongue for the original dissemination His New Covenant gospel.
These are just a few grammatical difficulties that any koine-English translator must wrestle with to do justice to the the preserved copies of the ORIGINALS.
God gave His inspired Word in Hebrew and Greek.
Preservation is applicable to the copies not the translations of the Word.
Jesus didn't upbraid the scribes (who did the copying) for their work but their misunderstanding and misapplication of the Word of God.
HankD
S
Steve K.
Guest
The word of God is quick,powerful and sharper than any two edged sword.The KJV is the word of GOD!
S
Steve K.
Guest
The choir needs the truth just like everyone else.