-
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!
Is the NKJV a good version of the bible?
- Thread starter parsonbob
- Start date
- Status
Askjo said:
The 1389 Wycliffe's Bible, 1535 Coverdale's Bible, and 1539 Taverner's Bible all have with the rendering "leviathan at Job 3:8.
The 1611 KJV has this note in the margin at Job 3:8--"Or, leviathan."
The KJV translators themselves also translated or transliterated this same Hebrew word found at Job 3:8 as "leviathan" at Job 41:2, Psalm 74:14, Psalm 104:26, and Isaiah 27:1. Are you suggesting that it is wrong to
render this Hebrew word as leviathan?
Faith alone
New Member
Askjo,Askjo said:
You need to be specific about the references. I can say that the Greek word translated sometimes as "condemnation" and other times as "judgment" has both meanings in its gloss. (KRISIS). I would also ask, "Does anyone know what "leviathan" means and use it in everyday speech? There is a lot of disagreement about what that term means as used in Job.
But pls be more specific so we can look at the terms.
franklinmonroe,
http://www.baptistboard.com/member.php?u=7312
Nice post.
FA
Also this whole argument that the NKJV changed the KJV is ridiculous. In order for them to change the words from the KJV, they would have had to use the KJV as their primary source. Which they did not do. The translators used the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts to translate the NKJV, just as the KJV translators did.
Bro Tony
Bro Tony
Faith alone
New Member
Thx Bro Tony,
And the NKJV used the same Greek text for the NT - the textus receptus, even when the translators were convinced that it was in error, as in 1 John 5:7 and Acts 8:37. So when I hear such nonsense I really wonder how someone could think that way when the NKJV preface is so clear. If anyone thinks that the NKJV did not follow the TR anywhere in the NT, please list chapter/verse, and we'll see if they followed the TR.
Thx,
FA
And the NKJV used the same Greek text for the NT - the textus receptus, even when the translators were convinced that it was in error, as in 1 John 5:7 and Acts 8:37. So when I hear such nonsense I really wonder how someone could think that way when the NKJV preface is so clear. If anyone thinks that the NKJV did not follow the TR anywhere in the NT, please list chapter/verse, and we'll see if they followed the TR.
Thx,
FA
Let's look at the KJV and NKJV:Faith alone said:
John 5:24 KJV
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life
John 5:24 NKJV
Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.
Which one do you prefer? Let's discuss about the difference between them on this passage.
Askjo you come in and try to turn all of these into anti-KJV threads so you can spout your KJVOnlyism.
You have not pointed out a single doctrine that I can see that is different.
In fact, in my opinion the NKJV ought to be a good translation for you because it was translated from what I believe was a superior Greek text (NT).
In fact, it follows the TR better than the KJV because if I am not mistaken the TR used by the NKJV is the reverse engineered that was written AFTER the KJV.
That still does not make it a bad background text.
I thought for sure you would be happy with a majority text English translation. Funny how you can accept 20 or 30 versions of the KJV, but can't accept one because it isn't written in 1769.
Just wait, my prediction is the KJVO's of tomorrow will worship the NKJV as soon as the current generation is gone. The KJV's were not accepted either when they first came out.
You have not pointed out a single doctrine that I can see that is different.
In fact, in my opinion the NKJV ought to be a good translation for you because it was translated from what I believe was a superior Greek text (NT).
In fact, it follows the TR better than the KJV because if I am not mistaken the TR used by the NKJV is the reverse engineered that was written AFTER the KJV.
That still does not make it a bad background text.
I thought for sure you would be happy with a majority text English translation. Funny how you can accept 20 or 30 versions of the KJV, but can't accept one because it isn't written in 1769.
Just wait, my prediction is the KJVO's of tomorrow will worship the NKJV as soon as the current generation is gone. The KJV's were not accepted either when they first came out.
Faith alone
New Member
Phillip,
Actually, the NKJV and the KJV both follow the Stephanus Greek text, which was a revision (so slight that people aren't really sure if there are more than just formatting changes) of the 3rd edition of Erasmus' TR. His 1st edition of the TR came out in 1516, and I believe the 3rd edition came out in 1523, while the KJV came out in 1611. The KJV NT is essentially the same as all NT of that time - the Tyndale NT - revised. Tyndale's NT came out in 1526.
But the NKJV and the KJV follow the same Greek text - essentially the textus receptus. I do hate when people come into a thread, though, in which someone is asking about the NKJV and what people think about the quality of the translation and turn it into a KJV-only thread. Happens all the time, on all boards. They seem to have "KJ" on the brain.
I hesitate to discuss his last post because I do not want to send this thread down the KJVO path.
FA
Actually, the NKJV and the KJV both follow the Stephanus Greek text, which was a revision (so slight that people aren't really sure if there are more than just formatting changes) of the 3rd edition of Erasmus' TR. His 1st edition of the TR came out in 1516, and I believe the 3rd edition came out in 1523, while the KJV came out in 1611. The KJV NT is essentially the same as all NT of that time - the Tyndale NT - revised. Tyndale's NT came out in 1526.
But the NKJV and the KJV follow the same Greek text - essentially the textus receptus. I do hate when people come into a thread, though, in which someone is asking about the NKJV and what people think about the quality of the translation and turn it into a KJV-only thread. Happens all the time, on all boards. They seem to have "KJ" on the brain.
I hesitate to discuss his last post because I do not want to send this thread down the KJVO path.
FA
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Phillip: //You have not pointed out a single doctrine that I can see that is different.//
I have now about a dozen KJV misreadings that cause doctrinal
errors. Caveat: this is NOT the fault of the KJV but of
people who misread the KJV.
I have no example of the nKJV misreadings (caveat: this is probably the
fact that all the great schisims of the 19th century (1801-1900)
used the KJV and the nKJV didn't exist yet.
The one i'm working on now is the idea:
'when time ends and eternity begins'.
That is non-sense, 'time' is a subset of 'eternity'.
Anyway, 'eternity' means that which does not begin
nor end. So 'eternity begins' is an oxymoron.
Strangely, the more I look in my KJVs, the more I don't
find that phrase Biblical either???
Maybe i'll check the nKJV?
I have now about a dozen KJV misreadings that cause doctrinal
errors. Caveat: this is NOT the fault of the KJV but of
people who misread the KJV.
I have no example of the nKJV misreadings (caveat: this is probably the
fact that all the great schisims of the 19th century (1801-1900)
used the KJV and the nKJV didn't exist yet.
The one i'm working on now is the idea:
'when time ends and eternity begins'.
That is non-sense, 'time' is a subset of 'eternity'.
Anyway, 'eternity' means that which does not begin
nor end. So 'eternity begins' is an oxymoron.
Strangely, the more I look in my KJVs, the more I don't
find that phrase Biblical either???
Maybe i'll check the nKJV?
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Bro Tony said:
I basically agree with you Bro Tony.:thumbs: So exactly, how closely did the KJV translators stick to a Greek TR?
Lets also remember that we don't really know to what extent the KJV translators followed any of the sources available to them, including Wycliffe, Geneva, The Great Bible & other English versions, and multiple Latin versions. My understanding is that the original KJV translators manuscripts are lost; and as Phillip has pointed out, the NT Greek underlying text has been determined only through later 'reverse' translation.
In addition, the KJV translators were instructed by royal decree (or heads roll!) not to unjustifiably depart from the current commonly accepted English text. This explains why Tyndale is about 75% the same as the KJV in the NT. (I cannot speak to the Hebrew in the OT).
Of course, the NKJV translators could have used the KJV as a source. But why would they follow it? Did the NKJV translators have any such regal directive? No. So in this sense, the NKJV translators had more freedom to follow the TR closely. Whether they took advantage of this freedom, is to be determined.
Makes one question the good reasoning of putting the words "King James" into any new translation title at all. I gotta think: purely marketing! And yet, it doesn't seem to work that well.
Last edited by a moderator:
Frank,
Interesting questions. And thought provoking comments. Thanks for your input. I always want to go to the source to get information. As I understand it the NKJV translators were not revising the KJV, that had been done already, but they were doing a whole new translation from the available manuscripts they chose. Gives a person a lot to think about.
Bro Tony
Interesting questions. And thought provoking comments. Thanks for your input. I always want to go to the source to get information. As I understand it the NKJV translators were not revising the KJV, that had been done already, but they were doing a whole new translation from the available manuscripts they chose. Gives a person a lot to think about.
Bro Tony
Yeah,.... I heard many phrases:Phillip said:
"No doctrines affected"
"No diffferences on doctrines affected"
"Any doctrines did not affect"
"I do not think doctrines are affected"
I read your NEW statement, and add here:
"You have not pointed out a single doctrine that I can see that is different."
Blah, blah, blah!!!
:wavey: :sleeping_2:Askjo, what do you want me to answer? I said the NKJV will be the put on a platform just like the 1769, but it won't happen during our generation.
It is my guess that the earlier versions were not accepted well either--by their generations, but I think there were far fewer KJVO's in that day and far more who understood that they read the Authorized at the order of the king.
It is my guess that the earlier versions were not accepted well either--by their generations, but I think there were far fewer KJVO's in that day and far more who understood that they read the Authorized at the order of the king.
Phillip said:
For the most part, there is evidence that some of the earlier English versions were not well-accepted at first. In one sense, an exception to this was the quick acceptance of Tyndale's by believers. Another exception was the very quick and wide-spread acceptance of the 1560 Geneva Bible even with the strong opposition it faced from some Church of England leaders. It is said to have taken the KJV until around the 1650's or 1660's before it became the widely accepted English Bible. The KJV faced no competition from any other English translation for a long period, especially from 1660 until some time in the 1700's. The elevation of the KJV as being a great translation or as virtually inspired is said to have developed after 1760 [a 150 years after the KJV was first printed].
David Daniell wrote: "By the end of the 1760's, another view was appearing, one that itself became a myth, supported by carefully manufactured other myths. This was the birth of 'Avolatry', the elevation of KJV to such heights of inspiration as to be virtually divine and untouchable" (THE BIBLE IN ENGLISH, p. 619).
Daniell wrote: "The birth of 'Avolatry', in which the King James's scholars became almost sanctified in their work, and their Bible near divine, coincided with a general acceptance of two modern versions [1762 Cambridge and 1769 Oxford] of that very work which were most strikingly changed from the original" (THE BIBLE IN ENGLISH, p. 620).
Faith alone
New Member
Guys,
Since I have started my new job, I have very little time for this. I'll try to pop in now and then. But I'm gonna be slowwwww.
Both translations are valid. Now only unbelievers will stand before the Great White throne judgment. I imagine you are thinking of the "judgment seat of Christ." Not the best wording there. The BEMA (βῆμα) seat is a place where awards and lost opportunities will be dealt with. Now since no believers will stand before the GWT judgment, no believers can be condemned. Most translations have chosen "judgment" as the best translation there, though I do not have a big problem with the KJV's "condemnation." It might be good to consider why the NKJV chose "judgment." Regardless, the idea behind "condemnation" is of judicial condemnation.
FA
Since I have started my new job, I have very little time for this. I'll try to pop in now and then. But I'm gonna be slowwwww.
Let's do so. KRISIS means " judgment, judging; condemnation, punishment; justice; perhaps court"Askjo said:
Both translations are valid. Now only unbelievers will stand before the Great White throne judgment. I imagine you are thinking of the "judgment seat of Christ." Not the best wording there. The BEMA (βῆμα) seat is a place where awards and lost opportunities will be dealt with. Now since no believers will stand before the GWT judgment, no believers can be condemned. Most translations have chosen "judgment" as the best translation there, though I do not have a big problem with the KJV's "condemnation." It might be good to consider why the NKJV chose "judgment." Regardless, the idea behind "condemnation" is of judicial condemnation.
FA
We understand the meaning of condemnation and of judgment. Condemnation and judgment do not mean the same thing. The sinner recognizes and understands that the law condemns the unsaved in his sin. Christ took upon Himself every sinner's condemnation. Everyone will be judged, but unbelievers will be condemned.Faith alone said:
Let's compare 2 verses in the NKJV
John 5:24
“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.
John 3:18
“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
These passages in the NKJV do not agree each other concerning their meanings. John 5:24 in the NKJV said that believers will not be judged. The Bible teaches that every believer will be judged by Jesus Christ -- the judgment Seat of Christ.
Let's look at the KJV
John 5:24
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
John 3:18
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Illustration:
1. When you are saved, you will not be judged, but you will be judged.
Or
2. When you are saved, you will not be condemned, but you will be judged.
Which one is more clearer?
Last edited by a moderator:
Askjo, as is usually the case, your arguments do not stand up against the Greek.
From Strong's:
krisis
1. a separating, sundering, separation
2. selection
3. judgment
4. the college of judges
5. right, justice
It should be quite apparent to anyone who will take the time to look at the Greek that the word judgment is a legitimate translation of the original krisis. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Yes, the NKJV is a good version of the Bible.
From Strong's:
krisis
1. a separating, sundering, separation
2. selection
3. judgment
4. the college of judges
5. right, justice
It should be quite apparent to anyone who will take the time to look at the Greek that the word judgment is a legitimate translation of the original krisis. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Yes, the NKJV is a good version of the Bible.
- Status