Featured NKJV allowed at Fellowship Baptist College

You can carry the water for the hybrid all you want to, all one has to do is look at a side-by-side with the KJV, NKJV, and NIV to see the truth. Or one could read the NKJV translator's book, with their eyes open.

 

http://brandplucked.webs.com/nkjvsameaskjb.htm

if the NKJV is translated from the TR. it is certainly a poor translation.

the KJV scholars>NKJV scholars.

 

You are the one who has not read Arthur Farstad's book The New King James Version In the Great Tradition with eyes open or without KJV-only blinders on.

Arthur Farstad wrote: "First, the NKJV is an update of an historic version translated from a specific type of text. We felt it was unwise to change the base from which it was made" (p. 110). Clearly Farstad is asserting that the NKJV translators made the NKJV from the same base text as the KJV.

Farstad wrote: "In order to encourage adherence to the KJV text as much as possible, the very first draft was actually made on enlarged, giant-print pages of the King James Bible" (p. 36).

Under the guidelines for making the NKJV, Farstad noted: "The traditional texts of the Greek and Hebrew will be used" (p. 34).

 

It is a fact that the NKJV's NT is translated from the Textus Receptus in the same way that the KJV is.

It is not a fact that the NKJV is a "poor" translation. That is your incorrect opinion likely based on use of unjust measures and blind trust in an unreliable, biased, KJV-only source.

 

Don't hold your breath. I've been waiting for years and am still waiting.

 

Me three...

 

Now if those same scholars could have only translated a fresh version of the MT itself!

 

the Kjv translators were holding to many of the false church of england doctrines, so they were NOT superior to translators for Niv/esv/Nasb/Nkjv etc

Would say superior in English fel and naking it read with poetry and prose, not superior in overall though!

 

Which false Anglican doctrines did the translators incorporate, in your opinion, into the AV?

Which of those did later translations correct?

 

How about them using baptism?

 

"Baptism", because it doesn't mean "immersion"?
If there was a reference to baby-sprinkling I'd agree.
As it stands, I think that "Baptism" has a broader interpretation to us than it did to them.
The literal translation still stands as the deep water immersion of John the Baptist, who was blessed to have baptized our Lord.

 

Think that though was when their preference for the mode of it crept in, as they would not take immersion!

 

Concerning Mark 1:8, Thomas Patience or Patient in 1654 maintained that the rendering with water “suits with sprinkling“ (Doctrine of Baptism, p. 9).

Charles Stovel wrote: “The expression, ‘I baptized you in water,‘ implies that John moved the persons when he baptized them; but the expression, ‘I baptized you with water,‘ as plainly implies that in the act of baptism the water was moved” (Christian Discipleship, p. 492). Stovel added: “thereby the way is prepared for affirming that we may baptize with water, by sprinkling” (Ibid.). Does the translation of this preposition as “with” open the door to claiming that sprinkling is an acceptable mode of baptism? Patience wrote: “It may be as well rendered, I baptize you in water, and he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit.” Patience wrote: “It may as well be rendered, I baptize you, or dip you into water, as it is rendered, they were casting a net into the sea, Mark 1:16, for which the words are affirmed to be the same, and it would be too improper a speech to say, John did baptize with the wilderness [1:4], and they were casting a net with the sea [1:16]” (Doctrine, p. 9).

In his commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, Peter Ruckman cited Bruce Lackey as claiming that Mark 1:8 should be translated “‘baptized IN’ rather than ‘with’” (p. 412). Concerning Mark 1:9-11, John Christian contended that “This passage says in the original that he was baptized into the Jordan” (Immersion, p. 56). He maintained that the best thing “to do is to take this passage as it reads, Jesus was immersed into the river of Jordan” (p. 59). Stovel asserted that there is “a distinct difference in the meaning of the three words, in, with, and into, which our [KJV] translators have concealed by changing the one for the other, in order to make the English version fit the borrowed word baptize” (Christian Discipleship, p. 503).

S. E. Anderson observed: "The KJV of Matthew 3:11 reads, "I baptize you with water," but the Greek has it, "I immerse you in water" (Biblical Baptist Beliefs, p. 17). Henry Burrage also noted: "In those passages in our English version [KJV] where we find the words 'with water,' as in Matt. 3:11, 'I indeed baptize you with water,' the Greek has 'in water'" (Jenkens, Baptist Doctrines, p. 153). Concerning this verse in his commentary on Matthew, John Broadus has this comment: “With--rather, in water is the proper rendering of the preposition and case here employed” (p. 48). Concerning this verse in the KJV, John Christian noted: “You must remember this is the Episcopalian translation of King James. The original Greek has, they shall be baptized ‘in water’” (Immersion, p. 51). He concluded: “The literal meaning of the passage is in water and not with water” (p. 52). John R. Rice pointed out that "the word translated with in the above verse is usually translated in" (Bible Baptism, p. 41). Richard Pengilly asserted: “’IN water’; not with water,‘ as it is rendered in the English authorized version” (Scripture Guide, p. 14). Pengilly asked: “Would it not be absurd to render the passage [Matt. 3:6] ‘John baptized with the Jordan‘”? (p. 15). Augustus Strong maintained that at texts such as Matthew 3:11 the “en is to be taken, not instrumentally, but as indicating the element in which the immersion takes place” (Systematic Theology, p. 935). Thomas J. Conant contended that those texts [Matt. 3:11, Mark 1:8, John 1:26, 31, 33] with the preposition in denote “locality, or the element in or within which the act is performed” (Meaning, p. 100). Hugh Jones claimed that “the ambiguity in the authorized translation of the Bible sometimes confuses the reader in regard to the acts of baptism” (Act, pp. 1-2). He asserted that “John baptized not ‘with’ but ‘in’ water (p. 30). Concerning this verse in his commentary on Matthew, Charles Spurgeon wrote: “John could plunge the penitent into water; but a greater than he must baptize men into the Holy Ghost and into fire” (Gospel of the Kingdom, p. 12). Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's Duoglott, Great, and Bishops' Bibles have "in water" at Matthew 3:11. Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's Duoglott, Great, and Whittingham's have "in water" at John 1:33.

 

I see no problem in the KJV concerning proper baptism.

 

The KJV translators were not all Episcopalian, this is deceptive, some of the translators were puritans as well.

In regards to Matthew 3:11


(ESV) "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

(Geneva) In deede I baptize you with water to amendement of life, but he that commeth after me, is mightier then I, whose shoes I am not worthie to beare: hee will baptize you with the holy Ghost, and with fire.

(ISV) I am baptizing you with water as a token of repentance, but the one who is coming after me is stronger than I am, and I am not worthy to carry his sandals. It is he who will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

(RV) I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

 

They were NOT better scholars than those that did the Nasb/Nkjv though is the main point, and many of them did carry over a certain Anglican viewpoits, and a desire to have King James approval as he hated versions that went against Kingly authority and had calvinistic notes like geneva had!

 

The truth is not deceptive. You are misinformed.

It is a fact that all the makers of the KJV were members of the Church of England. The Puritans in that day were part of the Puritan party within the Church of England. The Puritans wanted to purify the Church of England of some of the Roman Catholic doctrines and practices that remained in their church.

Those few Puritan or Puritan-leaning men among the makers of the KJV had been forced to conform to official Church of England positions and to keep silent about their Puritan views by the 1604 canons of Archbishop Richard Bancroft.

Gustavus Paine observed that by 1606 "all the Puritan translators had conformed enough to escape being banished or direly punished in other ways" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 97). For example, Thomas Sparke, a KJV translator who had earlier been one of the four Puritan representatives at the Hampton Court Conference, conformed. Milward noted that in 1607 Sparke published a book or pamphlet “to encourage the Puritan ministers to follow his example and to justify himself against this ’hard censure of many for conforming myself as I have to the orders of our Church” (Religious Controversies, p. 15). Tyacke suggested that Sparke “claimed to have conformed even before the [Hampton Court] conference” (Anti-Calvinists, p. 13).

Hunt noted that King James I had approved canons in 1604 that "required subscription to the entire Book of Common Prayer and the endorsement of all Thirty-nine Articles" (Puritan Moment, p. 108). Lee wrote: "The canons of 1604 demanded that every benefice-holder subscribe to a statement that the Prayer Book and the Thirty-nine Articles were entirely agreeable to the word of God" (Great Britain's Solomon, p. 172). Fisher observed that Bancroft “procured from Convocation, with the King’s approval, the passage of a series of canons which forbade, under penalty of excommunication, the least deviation from the Prayer Book, or any disparagement of the established system of government and worship in the Church” (History, p. 398). Gardiner pointed out that after the 1604 canons “conformity--thorough and unhesitating conformity--was to the unbending rule of the English Church” (History, IV, p. 148).