Why I use the NKJV (Part 1)

[Rippon]

Here's the thing, though. These men are all strong supporters of the critical Greek text, so naturally they would defend the UBS/Nestle's reading in Luke 4:44.

So of course those men are going to defend the UBS reading in Luke 4:44. They have a vested interest in it being right.

That's just stinkin' thinkin. Those men are not beholden to the UBS. Don't you think they use some independent thought process?

Drs. Metzger and Wikren were outvoted on some decisions by the members on their team. They didn't move in lockstep and neither do Bible commentators who are not in the Byzantine camp.

But based upon your statements you simply can't envision going against any of the textual choices of Maurice Robinson.

 

[John of Japan]

Luke wrote his gospel in what, 62 AD. Luke saying that Gennesaret or even the sea of Galiliee was in Galiliee(I know, keep reading) may have caused people in 62 AD to question his knowledge of geography. In 61 AD Nero transferred the Sea of Galilee and all its boarding towns(which include Gennesaret to the Kingdom of Agrippa II. Who was the tetrarch and King of Chalcis. With the sea of Galiliee(and surrounding area) changing hands so frequently, and not even being part of the rest of Galiliee when Luke wrote "Luke", it would make since that he would use Judea " place of the Jews", when describing the area around the sea.

Nazareth was part of traditional Galilee still. Nazareth and Gennesaret/Sea of Galiliee were under different rule when Like wrote his gospel. It would make since he would refer to them differently.

Sorry, I'm not understanding your point here. ("It would make since..."??) These verses do not mention the Sea of Galilee. My point was obvious: here are a number of passages where Luke clearly distinguishes between Judea and Galilee, meaning that at the time of writing, Galilee was not part of Judea.

 

[Yeshua1]

So you would be then a NKJV preferred?

I would say that for serious studies in the Bible, would tend to use either Nas or the NKJV, as both of them have been translated on a more formal fashion than many modern versions...

 

[banana]

So you would be then a NKJV preferred?

I would say that for serious studies in the Bible, would tend to use either Nas or the NKJV, as both of them have been translated on a more formal fashion than many modern versions...

I think it would be the NASB and the WEB. NASB for critical text supporters and the WEB for majority text supporters. The NKJV's TR is different from the MT

 

[Van]

I think it would be the NASB and the WEB. NASB for critical text supporters and the WEB for majority text supporters. The NKJV's TR is different from the MT

Spot on!!!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I think it would be the NASB and the WEB. NASB for critical text supporters and the WEB for majority text supporters. The NKJV's TR is different from the MT

At the present time I'm perfectly happy with the NKJV. Its centre-column give all the variants of the C.T. and M.T. so one knows exactly where one is. What one chooses to do with that information is another matter.

Until I've looked very carefully at the W.E.B. I shan't be changing my preferred Bible.

 

[rsr]

And so you should. And it is refreshing to see "centre" and "shan't" in a text. We have far too few Brits posting.

 

[Rippon]

And so you should. And it is refreshing to see "centre" and "shan't" in a text. We have far too few Brits posting.

As far as I know there is no British version of the NKJV. However, there is an Anglicised edition of the NIV published by Hodder and Stoughton which happens to be my favourite translation. It has "centre" listed twenty times and eight forms of the word colour.

A Brit would be at home with this edition!

 

[Yeshua1]

At the present time I'm perfectly happy with the NKJV. Its centre-column give all the variants of the C.T. and M.T. so one knows exactly where one is. What one chooses to do with that information is another matter.

Until I've looked very carefully at the W.E.B. I shan't be changing my preferred Bible.

No need to do that, as yoiur version of choice is a good one!

We have Nivp/Kjvp/Nasp posting here, so why not Nkjvp also?

 

[heisrisen]

I only use KJV. Modern versions attack the deity of Christ and remove thousands of words and phrases.

 

[Rippon]

I only use KJV. Modern versions attack the deity of Christ and remove thousands of words and phrases.

And here we go!

 

[InTheLight]

And here we go!

Don't think I want to participate in this go around. <must resist...>

 

[Yeshua1]

I only use KJV. Modern versions attack the deity of Christ and remove thousands of words and phrases.

You have to assume that the TR though is the only true greek textual basis in order to say something like that though@

And there are several instances where both the nasb/Niv actually support Jesus being God even more so then the Kjv itself....

 

[robycop3]

Using a variety of Bible translations gives one a broader overview of Scripture than just using one version, given the fact that many Hebrew, Aramaic, & Koine Greek words/phrases have multiple English definitions. This gives the Holy Spirit more in our minds to work with as He teaches us.

 

[DMorgan]

Using a variety of Bible translations gives one a broader overview of Scripture than just using one version, given the fact that many Hebrew, Aramaic, & Koine Greek words/phrases have multiple English definitions. This gives the Holy Spirit more in our minds to work with as He teaches us.

I have both Nelson NKJV study Bible and ESV study bible from Crossway. Enjoy them both. I also use the online Holman study bible. I do find the NKJV to be more pleasant to use, having grown up with the KJV, and the ESV has very good study aids, but as long as a translation is literal and does not change the overall context, i have no problem with it.

 

[Yeshua1]

I have both Nelson NKJV study Bible and ESV study bible from Crossway. Enjoy them both. I also use the online Holman study bible. I do find the NKJV to be more pleasant to use, having grown up with the KJV, and the ESV has very good study aids, but as long as a translation is literal and does not change the overall context, i have no problem with it.

That would be prudent thing to do, as we should have for serious studying a formal translation choice, and for lighter over all reading versions such as a Niv/Hscb!

 

[Rippon]

That would be prudent thing to do, as we should have for serious studying a formal translation choice, and for lighter over all reading versions such as a Niv/Hscb!

Lighter over all reading versions! You should not characterize translations of the Word of God as "light reading." You're spouting irreverent nonsense.

 

[Yeshua1]

Lighter over all reading versions! You should not characterize translations of the Word of God as "light reading." You're spouting irreverent nonsense.

Just saying that a more formal/literal translations catches better the original intent of the bible overall...

 

[Rippon]

Just saying that a more formal/literal translations catches better the original intent of the bible overall...

You are entitiled to be wrong.

From How To Choose A Translation For All Its Worth by Fee and Strauss :
"Even translations that claim to be essentially literal constantly modify Hebew and Greek forms to express the meaning of the text." (p.28)

There is a lot more functional equivalence going on in the so-called "formal" and "literal" translations than the PR departments let on.