NKJV vs KJV accuracy

[Askjo]

You should. But do not attack the word of God in other translations.

Well, least 10,000 words in modern versions are not Words of God. Attack the God-speaking?

 

[Askjo]

You are confusing things here. You cite differences of 2000+ times. But that is not helpful since we do not know what the differences are. Some changes are neither better nor worse. Some might be for the better. Some might be for the worse. But until we examine each change we cannot know. So you have provided no basis whatsoever for your assertion that the KJV is superior to the NKJV.

Ask Dr. Waite, the author on the difference between the KJV and the NKJV. I saw his book at the annual conference some long years ago. He provided the informastion concerning this difference between them -- Add various things, Change various things, Non-masoretic text, Non-TR, and Omit various things.

 

[Askjo]

stilllearning
Hi C4K

You asked........



Here is a good one.......

Matthew 28:19 (KJV)
“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:”

Matthew 28:19 (NKJV)
“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”
--------------------------------------------------
Here the NKJV, makes no sense. A “disciple” is a “student”: (How can we “make” a student?”)
(I wish I could.)

But we can teach(if someone is willing to learn).

The word for "teach" is matheteuo which means:

1) to be a disciple of one

a) to follow his precepts and instructions

2) to make a disciple

a) to teach, instruct

So why is the NKJV wrong? It's one of the definitions of the word. As a matter of fact, "to make a disciple" is actually above "to teach". It's translated as "disciple" in Matt. 27:57, so "make disciples" is consistent with the meaning. There is a large difference between teaching and making disciples. One is giving information, the other carries a sense of discipling someone too.

How would we make disciples? No teach?

 

[Pastor Larry]

After posting my last response on this thread, I noticed that “Pastor Larry”, was a Moderator.

I have really enjoyed my time on this site, and would hope, that will be permitted to stay.

Nothing to worry about except your position on this matter.

 

[Askjo]

So, show me your standard. Is your standard Wescott & Hort or Nestle-Alland? Can you prove that their methods are Biblical? Is your standard the TR or the majority text? If yes then you are a large fellow! Now prove that version is correct from the Scriptures. .

Good question! :thumbs:

 

[Pastor Larry]

Please show me where I attacked any Bible translation.

I don't recall saying you did. I think some of your persuasion do. I was merely saying don't.

Your manner is the definition of pedantic.

If by that you mean precise and concerned with the facts however small they may be, then I plead guilty.

 

[Pastor Larry]

\Well, least 10,000 words in modern versions are not Words of God. Attack the God-speaking?

That's simply not true.

Ask Dr. Waite, the author on the difference between the KJV and the NKJV. I saw his book at the annual conference some long years ago. He provided the informastion concerning this difference between them -- Add various things, Change various things, Non-masoretic text, Non-TR, and Omit various things.

Waite has been shown to be inaccurate, and to the extent that he repeats these things after he has been shown to be inaccurate he is guilty of being dishonest by saying something he knows to be false.

Furthermore you say that it is a good question to ask if text critical methods are biblical. That is a nonsensical question. Scripture never addresses that issue.

 

[Askjo]

No, it’s not.
The methods of textual criticism are many and varied. Whether you choose the methods of Erasmus, Scrivener, Westcott and Hort, Nestle-Aland, modern KJVO proponents such as yourself, or someone else, everyone practices textual criticism. You cannot avoid it. However, the testimony of Scripture is that God did not use perfect preservation for his Word. And so those who recognize that we do not have a perfect translation are the ones who are biblical.

We have 2 sides of the method of textual criticism -- Consistenly Christian method or Naturalistic method.

 

[Ed Edwards]

...
I am not a scholar as anyone on this board I'm sure will gladly tell you, but I am not stupid either. What makes ANY version accurate is how closely it follows the underlying texts. The NKJV version follows the same texts as the KJV and it also follows the KJV translation, which makes it both a translation and a revision of the KJV.
I do not believe either version (yes, the KJV is a version) is more accurate than the other. They are both the word of the living God.

...

Amen, Sister Amy.G -- You are so RIGHT ON! :thumbs:

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Someone on the board mentioned there are about 2,000 differences between the KJV and the NKJV. That sounds about right to me. First there are about 800 words that need updating plus or minus a few, then all of the side-notes were removed in the 1786 revision which were more than a thousand. That is a lot of traps we could fall into.
The NKJV is revised and translated by mostly baptists .All of the translators are well trained in biblical languages. Even the textus receptus is more complete today then it was in 1611 or 1786. Through archaeological finds and research we know more about all of the biblical languages today then the re visors and translators of 1611 and 1786 did. The English language has changed in 400 years it is far more technical, what are the, over 500,000 English words now, words are far more precise now.

 

[Deacon]

We have 2 sides of the method of textual criticism -- Consistenly Christian method or Naturalistic method.

I'm really curious, Askjo!

Could you start a thread on "Consistently Christian Textual Criticism" and provide a methodology.

Rob

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

And being in page 20 we have reached our limit.