What's wrong with the NKJV?

I will give you 10 billion dollars if you can show me the Original Hebrew.

 

Psalm 12:6-7 (nKJV):

The words of the Lord are pure words,
Like silver tried in a furnace of earth,
Purified seven times.
7 You shall keep them, O Lord,
You shall preserve them
from this generation forever.

Does anybody ever wonder if "preserve them from"
means the same as "preserve them for"?

Psalm XII:7 (KJV1611):

Thou shalt keepe them, (O
LORD,) thou shalt preserue +them,
from this generation for euer.

Sidenote + Heb, him. i. euery one of them.

Psalm XII:7 (alternate reading KJV1611):

Thou shalt keepe them, (O
LORD,) thou shalt preserue him, euery
one of them.

Note how the KJV1611 puts God Himself
into parens -- parens? isn't that demoting
God? Shouldn't we not relegate God
to parens????
Fortunately the nKJV doesn't stick
God inside some parens

 

Post edited by webmaster for personal attacks.

[ January 23, 2003, 09:34 PM: Message edited by: webmaster ]

 

Steve K, check your PM

 

1Cor. 1:18 from Scrivener's edition of the Textus Receptus, underlying the KJV/AV 1611:

o logos gar o tou staurou tois men apollumenois môria estin tois de sôzomenois êmin dunamis theou estin

Literal translation, Greek word order:

The word for the of the cross to those on one hand perishing foolishness is to those on the other hand being saved to us power of God is

Now, both main verbs, apollumenois ("perishing") & sôzomenois ("being saved") are present participles, not present indicatives as in "ARE being saved", the former verb not active in voice but either middle or passive, the latter passive voice. The former could thus also translate as "being caused to perish" (pass.) or "causing themselves to perish" (mid.) or "destroying/ruining themselves".

It is foolishness to argue that the KJV ("are saved") in this instance is rendering more "orthodoxly" than NKJV ("are being saved"). The KJV translators apparently knew how to accurately render present participles, yet they were quite inconsistent in their rendering, often translating them as simple present verbs (-eth suffix in 3rd p. singular). Only a fool would say the NKJV in its rendering "are being saved" is teaching heresy, likewise only a fool would say the KJV in its rendering "are saved" is teaching heresy. If any would attack the NKJV as a translation they must seek another example than this verse.

The KJV is an Anglican version basically, therefore it says in a certain place "I baptize WITH water", John 1:26. Now, there you KJV Only wiseguys have your FINAL AUTHORITY, this would mean baptism by sprinkling or pouring is valid baptism. And remember, according to your dogma you may not recourse to the original Greek Textus Receptus, but must take the words of the KJV as final authority in all instances.

Harald

[ January 23, 2003, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: Harald ]

 

Ps 12:6-7
Ps 119:140
Ps 119:160
John 17:17
Prov 22:21
Prov 30:5
Isa 40:8
Matt 24:35
Matt 5:18
1 Peter 1:23-25

 

In other words, you don't.

 

Ps 12:6-7
Ps 119:140
Ps 119:160
John 17:17
Prov 22:21
Prov 30:5
Isa 40:8
Matt 24:35
Matt 5:18
1 Peter 1:23-25</font>[/QUOTE]Amen. More verses that were complete and utter lies until 1611. Praise God I'm not one of those poor saps who lived in the past and could not have the word of God!

 

OK, General Custer... just you be careful also. Psalms 12 (KJV) read in context is talking about the preservation of the godly man, not the KJV. I believe that God preserved His Word but the words are another matter. If this verse means what you interpret it to mean then you in fact are calling God a liar since you say the perfect Word did not exist until 1611. Moreover, you say that even after 1611 God had to try seven more times to purify His Word. This completely denies the preservation you say Psalms 12 promises.

Thank God your misinterpretation does not limit nor obligate God nor His Word.

 

But none of the verses says anything about the KJV. How do you know that the KJV has the Words of the Lord right according to what He originally inspired?

Neal</font>[/QUOTE]Because it feels real good... and soothes those itching ears.

 

This is an original post by ed.

Neal4christ: "My main reason
for this topic is to try to understand
why the NKJV is not recognized
as an updating of the KJV."

I pray that God will give you that understanding.
I further pray that God's best
blessing might fall unto Brother
Neal4christ, his family, and his ministry. Amen.

I may have a bit of insight about the nKJV.

About 1996 I bought an edition of
thee NKJV that had the Schofield notes in it.
I used my NKJV until 2001.
At the same time I bought the
NKJV with the Schofield notes,
I also for a mere $8 bought
a no-note edition of the NKJV.
I still use that plain NKJV at work
where i don't have access to an electronic
Bible.

It seems to me that the KJVOs of
the 1970s didn't like MVs because of:

1) inappropriate word changes
2) TR = Textus Receptus not used as source

So the NKJV translators set about deliberately to
avoid these problems. They did this by
careful scholarship to avoid inappropraite
word changes and use the TR as the primary source.

For example, in 1 Thes 4:15 the KJV term
PREVENT was used. At the time PREVENT meant
to PRECEEDE. Now PREVENT means "to stop".
The NKJV uses PRECEEDE in 1 Thes 4:15.

Well, as it was, the KJVOs have an unspoken
agenda. Well, maybe sometimes it gets spoken
Anything that is NOT the KJV is not acceptable.
Even though steps were taken by the NKJV
translators to accomodate the spoken concerns
of the KJVOs, their work released in 1982
soon felt the scorn of the KJVOs.

For example, Thomas Nelson, Inc has
a copyright on the NKJV. So KJVOs now say
that the Bible should not be copyrighted.

For example, the Nelson edition of
the NKJV has a triquetra symbol
on the title page. The KJVOs started running
amok about this also. Later editions of
the NKJV have an explanation of the triquetra.
The triquetra is not the devil's pawprint.
The triquetra is not three interlocking sixes
"666". The triquetra is no more part
of the translation work of the NKJV than
the Apocrypha is part of the KJV1611 edition.

 

The KJV may be talking about God's words. Not having access to the minds of the translators, I don't know. What I do know is that the Psalm is talking about the preservation of the godly man and therefore the translations should talk about the godly man.

The key here is proper methods of Bible study--read the text and let the text say what it does. What is under consideraton in the Psalm? The perishing of the godly man. What is promised preservation? The only thing that is perishing -- the godly man.

Will you get out your Hebrew text and parse the words in that verse for us. Maybe that will clear it up.

 

Boy, you must have a LOT of 'education.' Only very 'educated' people can be so stupid. There is quite a difference linguistically between the simple, present progressive, and present perfect verb tenses.

 

Brain T said

The word unicorn is EXACTLY what God wanted them to use. Comparing scripture with scripture, line upon line (Isa 28) this may refer to a one-horned goat. These animals exist--just becuase mythology uses the term "unicorn" to refer to a one-horned horse does not mean that is what the Bible definition of the word is. The same thing is true in Acts 12:4. Easter here is not the Roman Catholic invention they claim celebrates the resurrection of Christ--it is an ancient pagan holiday.

"When a man messes with that Book (1611 KJV) God messes with his mind." -Dr. Peter S. Ruckman.

you fellas sure prove that statement to be true.

 

Here is the scriptures describing a "unicorn." Which is a one-horned animal...

Daniel 8:
5 And as I was considering, behold, an he goat came from the west on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground: and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes.
6 And he came to the ram that had two horns, which I had seen standing before the river, and ran unto him in the fury of his power.
7 And I saw him come close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler against him, and smote the ram, and brake his two horns: and there was no power in the ram to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him: and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand.
8 Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.

 

"Yea, hath God said?"!!! First someone said it was a rhinoceros, now you said it's a goat! Are you the final authority??? Stop casting doubt on the word of God! The KJV translators knew what both a "rhinoceros" and a "goat" were, yet ***they didn't use those words***.

Again casting doubt! Again you hiss "yea, hath God said"! The ancient pagan holiday was not called "Easter", it was a celebration of Ishtar! Are you saying the KJV translators were too dumb to know the difference? Are you saying the Holy Spirit got them mixed up?

Then why is it *you* that keeps causing doubt, saying a "unicorn" is a "goat" (ha!) and "Easter" is "Ishtar"? Don't correct the word of God!

 

So? Does a "cow" become a "horse" because they both have 4 feet? Does a "spider" become an "octopus" because they both have 8 legs? Stop casting doubt on the word of God! A "unicorn" is not a "goat" just because you found a mention of a horn! Heck, my closet has a horn (a trombone), so maybe it's a unicorn too, eh?

 

I nearly got run over by a unicorn the other day. I know it only had one horn, because the guy driving it blew it at me.