NKJV question.

Pastor David F. Reagan quoted:

Click here: The Facts About the NKJV

 

Click here: The Facts About the NKJV </font>[/QUOTE] Is this a new form of "Reagonomics"? To say the NKJV denies Hell is somewhat stooopid. That rationale could be applied to the KJV which denies the Holy Spirit is a person, thus lining up with the "Jehovah's" Witnesses Theology in Romans 8:16 while calling Him an "it"! Of course the KJV does not teach this, but the point I'm trying to make is, you gotta dig beyond the receptor language and attempt to understand what the intentions of the original writer. At the same time, although the NKJV (IMHO) improves upon it's older counterpart, in some cases the translators probably shouldn't have transliterated Sheol and Hades, but translated, but alas, I don't know too much about Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. (and my English ain't too hot either )

 

Sorry, Askjo, Reagan's stuff is opinion, not backed by FACT.

Now, why did the NKJV translate hades as hades mosta the time? Because it's different from tartarus or gehenna. Gehenna, the lake of fire, IS hell. Just calling all of'em hell is not the best rendering, as , while none of'em are very pleasant places, all are DIFFERENT places.

 

Thou hittest the nail on that thar head.

 

Don't you know what "it" means? A dictionary defines "it" as a thing or an animal or a person.

 

Click here: Hell or Hades

 

Don't you know what "it" means? A dictionary defines "it" as a thing or an animal or a person. </font>[/QUOTE]Only INFORMALLY as 'an emphatic predicate pronoun referring to the person, thing, situation, etc. which is considered ultimate, final, or perfect [zero hour is here; this is it]' (Webster's New World Dictionary, 1984)

 

Will K. quoted:

Click here: The definition of "it"

 

And yet, if the KJV had "him self" and another had "it self", we'd hear no end of the claims of blasphemy and heresy from the KJVOs.

 

This thread is not off to a good start folks. Lets discuss the question in the OP without references to "hell denying" or "KJVOs".

We are also off topic already - the OP had nothing to do with the "he" or "it" for the Holy Spirit.

This thread is subject to immediate closure if these kind of comments continue.

 

Perhaps if the OP would give an example of one instance where he feels they should have used a different word, we could stay on topic better.

I dont think any translation, KJV/NIV/NASB or any other, translates the same word the same way 100% of the time. Perhaps Young's Literal, but I bet there are exceptions there too. It is simply because the 2 languages do not match up perfectly.

Remember this, you cannot even literally translate "I am sick" into spanish. If you translated it back, you would get "I have sick", which makes little sense.

Spanish and English are much closer than English and Greek/Hebrew

 

Back to the original question:

The only guess I can hazard is that this reflects the preferences of whatever committee member was translating a particular section of the Bible. Brother James, did you notice a trend for one book of the Bible to use one word and another book to use another word?

BTW, Askjo, of the three articles you linked in this thread, not a single one did I read. Each of the three articles, if posted here at BB, would have had the thread shut down already as they are merely attacks on any BV that is not the KJV. If you would post links to articles that are credible, then maybe people would take the time to read the articles. The three articles you referenced have little or nothing to do with the OP, or they handle the question in a very biased and pre-determined manner. All of the three articles are seriously lacking in credibility.

 

Brother James, your comments are encouraging! Keep reading your Bible, and may no one condemn you for your version selection!

 

Doc, I am an idiot, did not even look at the Greek, got hung up on English def's. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

If this turns into a KJV argument, I will close it so fast you will get whiplash.....

 

If you didn't read the articles,then how can you make the statement they are not credible??