Re: Men who like the KJV, but not the NKJV ...

[alexander284]

Re: Men who like the KJV, but not the NKJV ...

I've often heard that many men who like the KJV are averse to using the NKJV.

Does anyone here have an explanation for this?

I'm curious, and I know the men here can probably enlighten me as to why this is the case.

 

[37818]

I've often heard that many men who like the KJV are averse to using the NKJV.

Does anyone here have an explanation for this?

Well for me there are two issues.
Choices of translation in some passages. For example, they followed the NIV on Colossians 1:15, using "over" and worse yet didn't even put it in italics.
And modern English doesn't have the singular pronouns.

 

[Logos1560]

Men who like the KJV, but not the NKJV ...

I've often heard that many men who like the KJV are averse to using the NKJV.

Does anyone here have an explanation for this?

Likely one main explanation for this would be those who hold a form of KJV-only view or those who have been influenced by inconsistent KJV-only allegations against the NKJV.

To accept a post-1611 English Bible in present-day English even from the same underlying original-language texts as the KJV would result in their having to give up their non-scriptural, exclusive only claims for the KJV.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

modern English doesn't have the singular pronouns.

Do you have anything against the word you? It operates as a singular as well as a plural. It does so like the word they --operating as both a singular or plural.

 

[37818]

Do you have anything against the word you? It operates as a singular as well as a plural. It does so like the word they --operating as both a singular or plural.

By just looking at the word "you" can one know if it is to be understood to be in the plural or singular? Maybe by the context. But not always.

 

[Reynolds]

Re: Men who like the KJV, but not the NKJV ...

I've often heard that many men who like the KJV are averse to using the NKJV.

Does anyone here have an explanation for this?

I'm curious, and I know the men here can probably enlighten me as to why this is the case.

Because if a KJVO allows one little pin hole to be picked in their KJVO dogma, then the entire dam breaks.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

By just looking at the word "you" can one know if it is to be understood to be in the plural or singular? Maybe by the context. But not always.

William Hendriksen in his N.T. Bible commentary had a unique way of distinguishing between the singular and the plural form of the word. You indicated singular and Y o u meant plural.

 

[Conan]

Do you have anything against the word you? It operates as a singular as well as a plural. It does so like the word they --operating as both a singular or plural.

When is "they" singular? Thanks in advance.

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

I like both. I was saved when reading a NKJV that I bought at Walmart in college.

 

[37818]

William Hendriksen in his N.T. Bible commentary had a unique way of distinguishing between the singular and the plural form of the word. You indicated singular and Y o u meant plural.

The older JW NWT used YOU small caps to show plural. The MLV uses a ° or * symbol to show you° is in the plural.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

One example of an issue of singular pronouns is in acts 2, where Peter tells everyone to repent. and directs a command to be baptized to individuals.

In the old english, Ye was plural and You was singular

Hence in the origional KJV we see peter say repent YE (plural) and let every one of you (singular)

I personally use the NKJV, I grew up on KJV.

 

[Conan]

One example of an issue of singular pronouns is in acts 2, where Peter tells everyone to repent. and directs a command to be baptized to individuals.

In the old english, Ye was plural and You was singular

Hence in the origional KJV we see peter say repent YE (plural) and let every one of you (singular)

I personally use the NKJV, I grew up on KJV.

In Early modern English, both ye and you and your were plural.

King James English

 

[Eternally Grateful]

In Early modern English, both ye and you and your were plural.

King James English

that just shows how weak the english language is (at least to me) and how we should always take into account that we may need to look in the greek or hebrew to totally understand a passage.

In the Greek in my example. the phrase repent ye is 2nd person plural

The command let every one of you be baptized is 3rd person singular.

it changes the whole meaning if you actually study this

Another example I like to use is in John 21. where Jesus asked peter 3 times do you love me

Yet actually in the greek, 2 times Jesus asked him agape love. the third time he asked phileo love.

again, It changes the whole outlook and impact of the conversation.

 

[Logos1560]

In the old english, Ye was plural and You was singular

Hence in the origional KJV we see peter say repent YE (plural) and let every one of you (singular)

"Ye" and "you" were both second person plural pronouns in old English. The difference is that "ye" is used as a subject or subject complement while "you" was used as direct objects, indirect objects, or objects of a preposition. Thus, the verse you cited has "you" because it was after a preposition "of".

"Thou" was the second person singular pronoun in Old English with "thee" the singular second person objective case pronoun.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

"Ye" and "you" were both second person plural pronouns in old English. The difference is that "ye" is used as a subject or subject complement while "you" was used as direct objects, indirect objects, or objects of a preposition. Thus, the verse you cited has "you" because it was after a preposition "of".

"Thou" was the second person singular pronoun in Old English with "thee" the singular second person objective case pronoun.

In acts 2: 38 let everyone of you. It is 3rd person singular.

How should that be translated?

 

[HatedByAll]

Re: Men who like the KJV, but not the NKJV ...

I've often heard that many men who like the KJV are averse to using the NKJV.

Does anyone here have an explanation for this?

I'm curious, and I know the men here can probably enlighten me as to why this is the case.

Why not keep it simple. I like quoting Scripture verses in the KJV simply because of flow of the older English language. Many people prefer the KJV simply because that is how they remembered verses that they have memorized especially the Psalms. The KJV just sounds more poetic.

 

[alexander284]

One example of an issue of singular pronouns is in acts 2, where Peter tells everyone to repent. and directs a command to be baptized to individuals.

In the old english, Ye was plural and You was singular

Hence in the origional KJV we see peter say repent YE (plural) and let every one of you (singular)

I personally use the NKJV, I grew up on KJV.

I find the NKJV to be especially helpful with passages like 2 Corinthians 6:11-12

 

[Reformed1689]

The KJV just sounds more poetic.

Quite possibly the worst reason to prefer a translation.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I find the NKJV to be especially helpful with passages like 2 Corinthians 6:11-12

Yeah. You look at the KJV of that passage and wow. Try to understand that..

 

[JesusFan]

Re: Men who like the KJV, but not the NKJV ...

I've often heard that many men who like the KJV are averse to using the NKJV.

Does anyone here have an explanation for this?

I'm curious, and I know the men here can probably enlighten me as to why this is the case.

many of them claim that the Nkjv used the Critical Greek texts, but they only used them to consult with, and put the MT/CT alternative readings in the Margins , but used only the sames source texts as the Kjv team used for translation itself