NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
You have to look to find it here. In most Christian bookstores you have to order one.
-
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!
Are you not satisfied with .....?
- Thread starter Askjo
- Start date
- Status
You have to look to find it here. In most Christian bookstores you have to order one.
the same reason the KJV was revised. Language changes. Some words in 1611 don't mean the same as they do today.
good, I look forward to it.
Not true- sorry. The Elizabethan English (or whatever style you call the KJV English) is not spoken anywhere in the world, and is understood by only those who immerse themselves in a Webster's 1828 dictionary.
Oh, and some of us are multi-lingual and English is not the only language that we speak. I can converse in English, Spanish, ASL, and LSM (Mexican Sign Language). Should I limit myself to one version? I think not.
Last edited by a moderator:
NASB was revised a few times, but its title is SAME. Also other versions are revised, but their title is SAME.This is not entirely accurate. The NASB and NIV underwent revisions numerous times, as did the KJV. So did the ESV (multiple times), the HCSB has underwent a major overhaul in its young life, and the NLT has been significantly redone. Translations are revised. Debt celings get raised. It just happens. Sometimes it makes news, and sometimes it doesn't
My point is to produce a NEW version after not satisfied with old version. When we have New KJV, it is a new version from old KJV. WHY NOT a same title?
I would say that if the KJV had been carefully revised every 50 or 60 years, dealing with the changes in language and the increase in knowledge of the ancient languages, we might have been spared the plethora of different versions that we have today.
Absolutely! The NKJV is certainly not perfect, but it is a great improvement on the KJV in all sorts of ways. If you prefer he KJV, that's great! Read and be blessed! But please don't try to foist it on the rest of us.
Steve
Last edited by a moderator:
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
The KJV is not everywhere in the English speaking world. It is hard to find ithere. The Gideons here use the NKJV.
The NKJV is needed because most folks don't read 1611 English - it is really pretty simple.
The NKJV uses the same manuscript body as the KJV and the same method of translation - I just don't see the issue.
If you can show me where the NKJV deviates from the TR where the KJV does not you might give me something to think about.
If the KJV is old Elizabethan English, it is still here.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
So do you really believe God does not want people to have His word in a language they use everyday?
In Canada, many of the churches that once used the KJV only, have taken to the NIV.
I have made so many changes and corrections in my copy of the KJV, that I have overcome many of the problems that people face. Hence, I stick with my KJV for preaching and teaching. I drop the thee's and thou's as I read from it or pray. I also make note of the words that have changed meaning over the years.
Although I have lived in Canada for many years, I still drive a "motorcar", raise my "bonnet" and pack the "boot". I check my "tyres" and avoid "tail backs". I can understand people having difficulty with English; even modern English.
Cheers,
Jim
I have made so many changes and corrections in my copy of the KJV, that I have overcome many of the problems that people face. Hence, I stick with my KJV for preaching and teaching. I drop the thee's and thou's as I read from it or pray. I also make note of the words that have changed meaning over the years.
Although I have lived in Canada for many years, I still drive a "motorcar", raise my "bonnet" and pack the "boot". I check my "tyres" and avoid "tail backs". I can understand people having difficulty with English; even modern English.
Cheers,
Jim
Tom Butler
New Member
Jim, I understood everything but "tail backs." What are they?
Love it- LOL!
NIV still has the same title.
Even here in Appalachia, KJV English is long gone. A phrase or two? Sure.
Almost everywhere I know, the Gideons are now switching to NKJV. The camp in my area has not, but likely will because KJVOs have stopped giving to their cause here locally and are generally speaking not welcomed into their churches.
TR Luke 16:14
ηκουον δε ταυτα παντα και οι φαρισαιοι φιλαργυροι υπαρχοντες και εξεμυκτηριζον αυτον
Luke 16:14 KJV
And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.
Luke 16:14 NKJV
Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, also heard all these things, and they derided Him.
NKJV omitted “also.” NKJV left the TR.
TR John 10:6
ταυτην την παροιμιαν ειπεν αυτοις ο ιησους εκεινοι δε ουκ εγνωσαν τινα ην α ελαλει αυτοις
John 10:6 KJV
This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them
John 10:6 NKJV
Jesus used this illustration, but they did not understand the things which He spoke to them.
NKJV omitted it again – UNMATCHED! The NKJV left the TR.
Luke 16:14
KJV And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.
NKJV: Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, also heard all these things, and they derided Him.
So here the NKJV doesn't ignore the TR. The word in question is right there.
KJV And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.
NKJV: Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, also heard all these things, and they derided Him.
So here the NKJV doesn't ignore the TR. The word in question is right there.
No, the translators simply moved the also to a different location in the sentence.
You have mistaken a translational decision for "departing from the TR." The NKJV may be less literal, but it is not following a different textual basis.
Surely you can do better than this.
You did not read or look very carefully before you threw out your accusation. The NKJV does not omit the "also" at Luke 16:14. The NKJV put it in a different place in the sentence as is acceptable in standard English grammar.
In addition, there are places where either the 1560 Geneva Bible [one of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision and an English Bible that KJV-only authors accept as being based on the same original language texts as the KJV] or the KJV or both do not also translate "kai" or a smilar word [or the Hebrew equivalent for it] or include a word for it in their English rendering of a verse.
For one example, both the 1560 Geneva Bible and the NKJV have an English word at the beginning of the verse that is omitted in the KJV. Does a consistent application of your accusation say that the KJV left the TR at Mark 6:37?
Mark 6:37 But he (Geneva) He (KJV) But He (NKJV)
Last edited by a moderator:
John 10:6 KJV
This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them
John 10:6 NKJV
Jesus used this illustration, but they did not understand the things which He spoke to them.
Just a translational difference. The "unto them" is understood. There are no textual variants in the passage.
so, you are 0 for 2. where are the other 798?
This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them
John 10:6 NKJV
Jesus used this illustration, but they did not understand the things which He spoke to them.
Just a translational difference. The "unto them" is understood. There are no textual variants in the passage.
so, you are 0 for 2. where are the other 798?
- Status