Almost as bad as using the kjv due to it sounding :majestic"
-
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!
Re: Men who like the KJV, but not the NKJV ...
- Thread starter alexander284
- Start date
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
This video will show you differences between the KJV and NKJV where the NKJV will often lean towards the Egyptian readings as do all other modern translations. That is why I don't read the NJKV and stick with the KJV:
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
The two verses I quoted privately to a preacher on Sunday in reference to my boldness in pointing out something to him in love.
Seemed pretty clear to both of us.
But yeah, God forbid that we should make a little effort to understand it as it is written in the KJB.
Let's write English translation #1061.
Eternally Grateful
Active Member
Yeah, As I said, there really is no way to properly interpret the word into the english and make everyone happy.
So lets just study to shew ourself approved and study the words to see what is being said.
to be honest. Unless your a pastor leading a message or really trying to dig deep into the word. just Read the word. If you see something that does not make sense, Look deeper (original languages) or maybe use other versions to see if it makes more sense..
The New King James Version was translated from the Textus Receptus, same as the KJV. Of course sometimes the KJV left the Textus Receptus for another text. Maybe that is your confusion?
the Nkjv corrected it
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
That's why I said that it often does "lean" towards the Egyptian.
P.S. there are Syrian readings that are not necessarily TR.
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
It is not an error so it doesn't need correction.
If anything, it's the NKJV that messes it up.
that holy thing refers not so much to the person of Christ as to his flesh.
If anything the KJB reading draws another defensive line against Mary being called "the mother of God".
And it's not only KJVOs that argue that:
Gill: "The human nature of Christ is here called a "thing"; for it was not a person; it never subsisted of itself, but was taken at once into union with the person of the Son of God, otherwise there would be two persons in Christ, whereas he is God, and man, in one person; and it is said to be "holy", being free from that original pollution and sin, in which all that descend from Adam, by ordinary generation, are conceived, and brought forth; and is, moreover, said to be born of a virgin, "of thee", or "out of thee". Christ's flesh was formed out of the Virgin's; he took flesh of her; his body did not descend from heaven, or pass through her, as water through a pipe, as some heretics of old said: nor did his human nature, either as to soul or body, pre-exist his incarnation; but in the fulness of time he was made of a woman, and took a true body of her, and a reasonable soul, into union with his divine person"
Clarke: "We may plainly perceive here, that the angel does not give the appellation of Son of God to the Divine nature of Christ; but to that holy person or thing, το ἁγιον, which was to be born of the virgin, by the energy of the Holy Spirit. The Divine nature could not be born of the virgin; the human nature was born of her. The Divine nature had no beginning; it was God manifested in the flesh, 1Ti_3:16; it was that Word which being in the beginning (from eternity) with God, Joh_1:2, was afterwards made flesh, (became manifest in human nature), and tabernacled among us, Joh_1:14. Of this Divine nature the angel does not particularly speak here, but of the tabernacle or shrine which God was now preparing for it, viz. the holy thing that was to be born of the virgin."
Preacher's Homiletical: "We may notice in this phrase an implied distinction between this child and all others. From the first moment of His earthly existence He is holy in Himself."
The NKJV is your typical youthful recent graduate amateur who conceitedly fetches a hand in correcting an older master yet unwittingly distorts the harmony.
Robert Sanderson (19 September 1587 – 29 January 1663) was an English theologian and the head of English casuists and Bishop of Lincoln. In her introduction to the 1985 facsimile edition E. J. Ashworth writes that "The young Isaac Newton studied Sanderson's logic at Cambridge, and as late as 1704." Thomas Heywood of St. John's College, Ashworth adds, recommended Newton "Sanderson or Aristotle himself".
Dr. Robert Sanderson developed a dear friendship with Dr. Richard Kilbie (Kilby, Kilbye), an older English scholar and priest, rector of Lincoln College and Regius Professor of Hebrew, who served in the "First Oxford Company" charged by James I of England with translating the latter part of the Old Testament for the King James Version of the Bible.
The following incident is recorded by Isaak Walton in his “Life of Dr. Robert Sanderson”:
- “I must here stop my Reader, and tell him that this Dr. Kilbie was a man of so great learning and wisdom and was so excellent a critic in the Hebrew Tongue, that he was made Professor of it in this university; and was also so perfect a Grecian, that he was by King James appointed to be one of the Translators of the Bible; and that this Doctor and Mr. Sanderson had frequent discourses, and loved as father and son. The Doctor was to ride a journey into Derbyshire, and took Mr. Sanderson to bear him company: and they going together on a Sunday with the Doctor's friend to that Parish Church where they then were, found the young Preacher to have no more discretion, than to waste a great part of the hour allotted for his Sermon in exceptions against the late Translation [the King James Bible] of several words, – not expecting such a hearer as Dr. Kilbie, – and shewed three reasons why a particular word should have been otherwise translated. When Evening Prayer was ended, the Preacher was invited to the Doctor's friend's house; where after some other conference the Doctor told him, "He might have preached more useful doctrine, and not have filled his auditors' ears with needless exceptions against the late Translation: and for that word, for which he offered to that poor congregation three reasons why it ought to have been translated as he said; he and others had considered all them, and found thirteen more considerable reasons why it was translated as now printed;[1]”
Let the NKJV sit back down in the pew and learn a thing or two more.
[1] Emphasis and brackets mine
Last edited:
37818
Well-Known Member
How? In what way?
So the NEW KING JAMES went with the Greek of the Textus Receptus but the KJV went with the Latin in Beza's TR?
Isn't the Greek text the right one to be using?
37818
Well-Known Member
That might be. I do not know. My MySword TR which has εκ σου is from the Scrivener TR 1894.
I just downloaded the MySword Beza 1598 Greek text. It has that reading as used in the KJV Luke 1:35. εκ σου
The text comment,
This is the 1598 version of Beza's Greek New Testament which is also said to be the version most used by the KJV Translators.
Last edited:
I believe by going to the Greek verses the Latin.
Sorry I couldn't get to the Textus Receptus Bibles site now for some reason. There is show Stephanus TR as supporting NKJV. So did the Older TR Bibles with a possible Geneva Bible exception. I believe Beza got the Reading from the Latin.
Mikey
Active Member
Just use Yous for plural. it's used commonly already in speech in Scotland
37818
Well-Known Member
The Geneva Bible of 1560 has "of thee."
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
Give me some examples of this nonstandard English. I guess it works like some regional American speech patterns such as youse, y'all, and all y'all.
Mikey
Active Member
yous going out? yous want a lift? did yous watch the footie last night? etc when talking to group and when talking to those within the group.