J
Japheth
Guest
NO, the NKJV has verses from the NASV,RSV inserted in it's readings.It is far from perfect.
-
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!
J
Japheth
Guest
Look at 1st Thessalonians5:22,Matt 20:20,2nd Thessalonians 2:7 no mention of the Man of Sin,Acts 4:27,Rom 1:18, Rom 1:25,and 1st Tim 6:20 in the NKJV and compare to the RSV ect.. They all read just like the RSV&NASV.
J
Japheth
Guest
Why bother? We already have a perfect Bible;the KJV.The "hard to understand" thing does not hold water....
[ October 01, 2002, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: Japheth ]
Pastor_Bob
Well-Known Member
The NKJV is a deception in my opinion. It is deceiving on two main points:
1. That it's a King James Bible (which it is not), and
2. That it's based on the Textus Receptus (which is only a partial truth).
The text of the NKJV, first published in 1979, is copyrighted by Thomas Nelson Publishers, while there is no copyright today on the text of the KJV. If your KJV has maps or notes, then it may have a copyright, but the text itself does not.
It is estimated that the NKJV makes over 100,000 translation changes, which comes to over eighty changes per page and about three changes per verse. A great number of these changes bring the NKJV in line with the readings of the NIV and the RSV. Where changes are not made in the text, subtle footnotes often give credibility to the
Westcott/Hort Greek Text. While passing off as being true to the TR, the NKJV ignores the TR over 1,200 times.
The NKJV is also very inconsistent in its attempt to update the language of the KJV. The preface to the NKJV states that previous "revisions" of the KJV have "sought to keep abreast of changes in English speech", and also that they too are taking a "further step toward this objective". When you take a close look at the language of the NKJV, you’ll find that oftentimes they are stepping backwards! Here are a few examples of how well the NKJV has "kept abreast of the changes in the English language":
Ezra 31:4
KJV = little rivers
NKJV = rivulets
Isaiah 28:1
KJV = fat
NKJV = verdant
Matthew 26:7
KJV = box
NKJV = flask
Luke 8:31
KJV = the deep
NKJV = the abyss
John 19:9
KJV = Judgment hall
NKJV = Praetorium
Acts 18:12
KJV = deputy
NKJV = proconsul
Just in case you bring the argument, "These are the literal translations of these words. The NKJV has them correct." My answer would be, "Then the KJV has already done in 1611 what the NKJV attempted to do in 1979. They have given us an easy to understand version of God's Word that has kept abreast of the English language."
1. That it's a King James Bible (which it is not), and
2. That it's based on the Textus Receptus (which is only a partial truth).
The text of the NKJV, first published in 1979, is copyrighted by Thomas Nelson Publishers, while there is no copyright today on the text of the KJV. If your KJV has maps or notes, then it may have a copyright, but the text itself does not.
It is estimated that the NKJV makes over 100,000 translation changes, which comes to over eighty changes per page and about three changes per verse. A great number of these changes bring the NKJV in line with the readings of the NIV and the RSV. Where changes are not made in the text, subtle footnotes often give credibility to the
Westcott/Hort Greek Text. While passing off as being true to the TR, the NKJV ignores the TR over 1,200 times.
The NKJV is also very inconsistent in its attempt to update the language of the KJV. The preface to the NKJV states that previous "revisions" of the KJV have "sought to keep abreast of changes in English speech", and also that they too are taking a "further step toward this objective". When you take a close look at the language of the NKJV, you’ll find that oftentimes they are stepping backwards! Here are a few examples of how well the NKJV has "kept abreast of the changes in the English language":
Ezra 31:4
KJV = little rivers
NKJV = rivulets
Isaiah 28:1
KJV = fat
NKJV = verdant
Matthew 26:7
KJV = box
NKJV = flask
Luke 8:31
KJV = the deep
NKJV = the abyss
John 19:9
KJV = Judgment hall
NKJV = Praetorium
Acts 18:12
KJV = deputy
NKJV = proconsul
Just in case you bring the argument, "These are the literal translations of these words. The NKJV has them correct." My answer would be, "Then the KJV has already done in 1611 what the NKJV attempted to do in 1979. They have given us an easy to understand version of God's Word that has kept abreast of the English language."
DocCas
New Member
Can you give me examples of where the NKJV departs from the NT TR? Thanks.
The text of the KJV is copyrighted in England as well as all the Commonwealth countries. The copyright, called a Crown Patent in Pertetuity, was issed in the name of the Crown (Royal Family) and will remain in force until 50 years after the demise of the English Crown.
Can you give me examples of where the NKJV agrees with the NIV/RSV against the TR? Thanks.
Can you give me some examples. Thank you.
And, by the way, I agree with your assessment that some of the "improvements" of the NKJV are, in fact, retrograde.
ChristianCynic
<img src=/cc2.jpg>
Q: if someone made an accurate translation of the TR into modern English, would that be an acceptable translation to you?
A: Why bother? We already have a perfect Bible;the KJV.
Then the TR (whichever one(s) the translators used) was not perfect? nor were any previous translations thereof? For if they were the slightest change corrupted them.
{I say this graaaaciously, of course.}
The "hard to understand" thing does not hold water....
No, it's not a bucket, but a true concept. What turned me off the KJV years ago was when I was sharing the gospel with a deaf friend. The only Bible I had with me at that time was a pocket New Testament + Psalms (KJV). When I pointed out passages he could not understand what words such as "ye," "thou," and "thee" meant, as well as the archaic endings, "-eth" and "-est." So the whole thing became a game and discussion (to the extent we could do it) of how the English language had gone through changes and any dialect except the one we use is "funny." The KJV was a deterrant to the gospel, and we ourselves can be enough of a deterrant without the scriptures becoming one.
The text of the NKJV, first published in 1979, is copyrighted by Thomas Nelson Publishers, while there is no copyright today on the text of the KJV.
This is a lie. The KJV has a permanent Crown Copyright.
Grace
A: Why bother? We already have a perfect Bible;the KJV.
Then the TR (whichever one(s) the translators used) was not perfect? nor were any previous translations thereof? For if they were the slightest change corrupted them.
{I say this graaaaciously, of course.}
The "hard to understand" thing does not hold water....
No, it's not a bucket, but a true concept. What turned me off the KJV years ago was when I was sharing the gospel with a deaf friend. The only Bible I had with me at that time was a pocket New Testament + Psalms (KJV). When I pointed out passages he could not understand what words such as "ye," "thou," and "thee" meant, as well as the archaic endings, "-eth" and "-est." So the whole thing became a game and discussion (to the extent we could do it) of how the English language had gone through changes and any dialect except the one we use is "funny." The KJV was a deterrant to the gospel, and we ourselves can be enough of a deterrant without the scriptures becoming one.
The text of the NKJV, first published in 1979, is copyrighted by Thomas Nelson Publishers, while there is no copyright today on the text of the KJV.
This is a lie. The KJV has a permanent Crown Copyright.
Grace
Pastor_Bob
Well-Known Member
1John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. (KJV)
1John 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,
3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. (NKJV)
NKJV changes the tense. It agrees with the NIV and NASB.
2John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. (KJV)
2John 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. (NKJV)
Again, the NKJV changes the tense and agrees with the NIV and NASB.
Heb 3:3 For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house. (KJV)
Heb 3:3 For this One has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as He who built the house has more honor than the house. (NKJV)
Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. (KJV)
Heb 2:16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. (NKJV)
The NKJV clouds the meaning of the incarnation and agrees with the NIV and NASB
Ac 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. (KJV)
Ac 1:11 who also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven." (NKJV)
The NKJV places the word “same” in italics to indicate that it was not in the originals when in fact it was. houtos
Regarding the copyright, I have several KJV Bibles in my office, not one of them have a copyright in them. I have the liberty to copy or reproduce any or all of the KJV Bible at my will. I do not have the liberty to do the same with the NKJV, NIV, or NASB.
Incidentally, it also agrees now with the Greek, which is a perf active participle. "Is come" is not even good English, at least in the modern times.
Once again, it now agrees with the Greek, translating a present tense participle as a present tense participle and conforming the standard use of English. "Is come" is simply not good English.
This is a place where the KJV has translated the pronoun houtos as a personal pronoun. There is no substantive difference. The Greek does not use the word "man." It says "houtos," meaning "this one." It is incidentally the same word you later argue means "This same" (Acts 1:11). Why do you argue it means one thing here and another thing there?
This verse is one that shows the weakness of the KJV. The verse is not about the incarnation but rather about who needs help as offered by the Son. The next verse talks of the incarnation. V. 17 begins with "hothen" meaning therefore which makes clear that the KJV translation does not make sense. The KJV would read something like, "He took not the nature of angels but the nature of Abraham. Therefore he had to become flesh and blood." In the KJV both verses would be saying the same thing, a tautology, and would make no sense. In the MVs, the point is more clearly made. "Christ did not come to give help to angels, but rather to Abraham's descendants. Therefore (for this reason or 'in order to help Abraham's descendants') he took flesh and blood. Here you have pointed out a weakness in teh KJV that deserves more study. I had not previously known about this one.
"houtos" is not "same" but "this." "houtos ho iesus" means This Jesus.
It is interesting to listen to someone who has admitted no knowledge of the original languages talk about the original languages. Again, I don't say that to put you down in anyway. Please understand. I am simply suggesting that perhaps you are discussing things at a level you are not familiar with. In all of these cases, the Greek texts are identical. The NKJV has not departed from the TR. In all of these cases, the MVs give what is clearly a better rendering in keeping with modern English.
Earlier, you mentioned that the marginal readings of the NKJV give weight to the W/H text. They actually reference the eclectic text, not the W/H text which no one uses anymore. The KJV also did this very thing, referencing other translational possibilities or other textual readings. In order to be consistent with this argument, will you also suggest that the KJV undermined itself by including these marginal readings?
[ October 01, 2002, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
Pastor_Bob
Well-Known Member
In I John 4:2,3 the perfect participle is used in the KJV. This means that the Word not only has been made flesh, but is still flesh. He came in flesh, is now in flesh, though glorified, and will forever be in flesh. His incarnation will have no end. The same would apply to II John 1:7.
Regarding Hebrews 3:3, I admit that I was mistaken. The word "man" is in italics in the KJV. The word houtos would allow the translation to be "this man" however.
I am standing by my assertion of Hebrews 2:16. The Greek word epilambanomai, supports the KJV rendering.
Regarding Acts 1:11, I feel my usage of houtos was accurate.
Houtos = the he (she or it), i.e. this or that (often with article repeated):--he (it was that), hereof, it, she, such as, the same , these, they, this (man, same , woman), which, who.
Knowledge is far more than what you learned in seminary. If I had to rely on my college training alone, I would have thrown up my hands in despair and quit long ago. There are many things about the ministry that cannot be learned in a classroom.
Regarding Hebrews 3:3, I admit that I was mistaken. The word "man" is in italics in the KJV. The word houtos would allow the translation to be "this man" however.
I am standing by my assertion of Hebrews 2:16. The Greek word epilambanomai, supports the KJV rendering.
Regarding Acts 1:11, I feel my usage of houtos was accurate.
Houtos = the he (she or it), i.e. this or that (often with article repeated):--he (it was that), hereof, it, she, such as, the same , these, they, this (man, same , woman), which, who.
That is why I rely on James Strong, S.T.D., LL.D and others who have a great knowledge of the original languages. I also rely heavily on the very translators of the KJV who, IMO, are unriveled in their knowledge of the ancient languages.
Knowledge is far more than what you learned in seminary. If I had to rely on my college training alone, I would have thrown up my hands in despair and quit long ago. There are many things about the ministry that cannot be learned in a classroom.
The perfect participle is used in the modern versions, which is why I say it is a translational issue, not a textual one. The point stands that "is come" is not good English now, though I cannot speak for then. "Has come" teaches the same thing in modern English that "is come" apparently taught in 1611. No teacher would allow a child to get away with such language today and we should not accept it in God's word.
Actually, James Strong (whom you cite ... more on this in a minute) agrees with me here. The first definition he gives is "to seize (for help, injury, attainment, or any other purpose)." In the words of James Strong, Christ did not come to "seize for help" the angels but the descendants of Abraham. Therefore he partook of flesh and blood." The word "therefore" does not make much sense in teh KJV's rendering. Much of semantics is a work of context. IN the context, the KJV does not make as much sense as the MVs do. The context leads us very strongly to the MVs rendering.
But it is interesting again that as you quote, you skip the first definitions to get to a later one. I have no problem with "this same Jesus." But to argue that the MVs got it wrong is simply incorrect. The MVs are right, just as the KJV is. "Houtos" is this, or this same, or this one. The key idea is "this," the near demonstrative pronoun.
Strong is very much dated. More recent resources would prove to be of much greater help. Additionally, STrong is limited in the amount of information that he can give. He simply cannot give as much as is needed. I would recommend getting something like Colin Brown's "New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis" which is much more up to date and complete. It is about 5 volumes and is well worth it. I can't stand it because it only lists by Enlgish words instead of Greek but is a very good work.
But this is a matter of great subjectivity. There has been much progress made in linguistics in the past 400 years. To suggest that we should not avail ourselves of it is to suggest that we keep our heads in the sand.
This is well said. I agree totally with it. But we cannot underestimate the need for continued learning.
DocCas
New Member
The Greek is a second perfect, active, participle. The perfect tense in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated.
Either "is come" or "has come" gives us the proper understanding of the perfect participle.
This is similar to the verb form found in 1 Corinthians 1:18 where the KJV translates the perfect participle as "are saved" vice "are being saved" in the NKJV. We can't criticize the NKJV for doing exactly the same thing the KJV does with the perfect participle in 1 Cor 1:18.
In this case, the NKJV is following the Greek verb form as found in the TR. This is a case of translational difference not a case of the NKJV not following the TR.
Actually, in this case, both mean the same thing. "Is come" and "as coming" are present, active participles. In English it is most common to indicate a participle by adding either "ed" or "ing" to the word stem. Again this is a case of slightly different wording of the translation, not of the NKJV not following the TR.
The word "man" does not appear in any Greek manuscript, including any text of the TR. This is a case of one version supplying one word to help us understand the verse, and the other version supplying another, very similar word, to help us understand the verse. This is not a case of the NKJV departing from the TR.
Note the words in question in the KJV "the nature of" are in italics in the KJV indicating they are not in the TR. The Greek verb "epilambanomai" used in the second clause in the verse, which the first clause refers to, means "to grasp" or "to grab" or "to take hold of" in the sense of grabing onto the hand of a drownding man in order to save him. This is a matter of translational interpretation, not a case of not following the TR.
Well, actually, "same" does not appear in the Greek. The word "houtos" means "this" and is so translated in both versions. In this case, the NKJV corrected the oversight.
The KJV is, and always has been, under copyright in the United Kingdom. As the US is not part of the United Kingdom, you can print the KJV without permission of the licence holders in England, the University Presses of the Cambridge and Oxford. But, the fact remains, the KJV is and always has been under copyright in its country of origin.
Pastor_Bob
Well-Known Member
I will check into this work. I attempted to purchase a Greek textbook when I took my son to college this year. It was a little out of my price range. It is my desire to become more familiar with at least the Greek and then possibly the Hebrew. Any suggestions would be accepted.
Eric,
Thanks for the kind words. It is always interesting to see if the face comes anywhere close to what our mental image was before we saw the picture.
God Bless You
DocCas
New Member
I would suggest, first, that you stop using Strong's and switch to Young's Analytical Concordance." It is far superior to Strong's. Secondly, if you want to try to learn Greek on your own I would recommend you start with Ray Summer's book, "Essentials of New Testament Greek." It is published by Broadman & Holman in Nashville and should be available from any good Christian bookstore, or at Amazon.com.
Pastor_Bob
Well-Known Member
Thanks Doc.
Could you share in what way Young's is superior to Strong's. Almost every Bible program I have used is linked to Strong's. Are they the same with the exception that Young gives more information?
Could you share in what way Young's is superior to Strong's. Almost every Bible program I have used is linked to Strong's. Are they the same with the exception that Young gives more information?
DocCas
New Member
Young's will give an English word, then, under that word list every Hebrew and Greek word that is so translated in the bible, all listed in a subcatagory under the English listing (all with chapter and verse citations). This allows you to see not only how different Hebrew and Greek words are translated into the same English word, but also how the same Hebrew and Greek words are translated into different English words. I really helps to deepen our understanding of the translational philosophy of the KJV translators.