What's wrong with the NKJV?

It has NASV,ASV,and RSV verses and words inserted in the text..It is,in part,from the KJV(Galatians 5:9)..

 

Now I am not evading, here is a link. I can only type about 15 wpn, if you want to know here is some info.
http://jesus-is-lord.com/nkjvdead.htm

[ January 21, 2003, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: swordsman ]

 

2 Cor 5:17,Phil 2:8,James 5:16,Acts 4:27,1Thes 5:22,And 2Thes 2:7 are just a few examples.(Gal 5:9)

[ January 21, 2003, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: JYD ]

 

Neal how does it ignore truth?

[ January 21, 2003, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: swordsman ]

 

Maybe this would help and this is all I have..
http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/nkjv.htm

 

Read John 1:1 in the KJV:

Now in the modern versions:

Wow! Looks like the King James Bible has at least one verse from the "perversions."

(Ain't circular reasoning and guilt by association fun?)

 

I think you have it backwards...

 

Here is a snippet from the above link:

[begin snippet]
John 4:24 (KJV) God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

John 4:24 (NKJV) "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." (NASV, NIV, NRSV)

Hogwash, fit for the dung pile! All kinds of heresies can be taught from, "God is Spirit," instead of, "A Spirit." "A Spirit" is plainly a being, but "Spirit" is substance! A Sunday School teacher told me that God was not a being, that he was not a man, that he was "Spirit." The article is in the Greek, but omitted in the "new versions."

[end snippet]

My question is...what does he mean when he says
the "article is in the Greek" (last sentence)?

What article? The indefinate article "a"??
If so..I'd like to see the Greek Manuscript
where the indefinate article "a" is used in
John 4:24. I'm looking at my KJV Textus Receptus
and I don't see it in there.

-kman

 

The TR lacks a definite article before Pneuma in John 4:24. It reads "Pneuma o Theos", literally "Spirit the God" etc. I believe "o Theos" here specifically refers to God the Father, just as in John 1:1. And He is (a) Spirit, but He is not THE Holy Spirit, who is distinct from God the Father (and the Son) in the triune Godhead, cp. 1John 5:7, KJV & TR. I believe it is worthy of God the Father to capitalize spirit in this instance because a Divine Person is in view. The issue of adding or not adding the indefinite article "a" is one the translator has to make. I would not say the NKJV is wrong in leaving out the "a". The one who criticized the NKJV picked a bad example. A pure mistake IMO would have been to render "God (the Father) is the Spirit", because the article is absent. Also, such a rendering might lead foolish people to Oneness Pentecostal (Sabellian) notions. I think the inspiring Holy Spirit willed to distinguish God the Father from God the Spirit and God the Son by this wording, and at the same time stressing God's subsistence or existence as (a) Spirit, qualitatively chiefly, and not so much stressing His distinction as a specific being or person in distinction from other existing spirits. This is quite in line also as some able grammarians have understood the usage and non-usage of the definite article in the Greek.

Harald

 

Here's a list of JUST 200 of these changes. Why don't you go through this list and see how many have been changed in YOUR Bible? It might shock you!

I'm not concerned with how these differ from the KJV. I'm only concerned about how close to the original greek and hebrew the translation is. You cannot use another translation to determine that. There are probably not "changes", they're probably tralslation issues.

 

John! Stop thinking logically about this... it irritates Steve...
You should accept his sensationalism because he says so... and that's all the final authority you need young man!

 

By the way, if the "thee's" and "thou's" are ". . .no longer part of our language" - why aren't the NKJV translators rushing to make our hymnbooks "much clearer"? "How Great Thou Art" to "How Great You Are", or "Come Thou Fount" to "Come You Fount" Doesn't sound right, does it? Isn't it amazing that they wouldn't dare "correct" our hymns - and yet, without the slightest hesitation, they'll "correct" the word of God!

Hymnal theology makes for poor sermons. I'm surprised how many people WOULD have a problem with changing hymn lyrics, especially since most hymn lyrics aren't original to the tune. Although, at my Lutheran friend's church, they sang "Stand Up, Stand Up for Jesus as Soldiers of the Cross", in stead of "Ye Soldiers of the Cross", and no one noticed. We recently sang the Hymn "Praise to the Lord", in which the second and third line was "O My Soul Praise Him, for He is Your Health and Salvation; All Those Who Hear, Now to His Temple Draw Near" instead of "O My Soul Praise Him, for He is Thy Health and Salvation; All Ye Who Hear, Now to His Temple Draw Near". No one noticed those either.

 

To stick to the topic, the site which lists these "200 omissions" states that in the NKJV, there are only 2 out of those 200. But it does not say which 2. Please tell us which 2 are different, so that the rest of us can do research to see if your claim is genuine.

 

yet another blatantly false statement. The TR has not been changed since 1984 when Scrivener edited it to make it look like the KJV. The modern scholars have not changed the TR. YOu can assemble a number of the different TRs and compare them to the modern eclectic texts and see the difference.

FTR, the TR was changed a number of times long before the advent of "modern scholarship." Erasmus changed it give times before the KJV was ever translated from it. It was also changed by others. So you are right that the TR was changed. You are wrong that it was changed by modern scholarship.

[ January 23, 2003, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Your bucket has a hole in it and doesn't hold any water.

 

Apparently not one that you can demonstrate since you have not yet demonstrated it. I showed your statement to be false and I proved it. Are you going to offer something in reply besides an empty retort??