Bible Versions Questions and discussion about the Bible version issue.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 02-08-2008, 09:26 PM
againstheresies
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Response

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerry View Post
Maybe I should have said Received Texts. Either way, the NKJV is not based solely on the Received Texts, it also incorporates Critical Text readings.
Jerry you are wrong on both points.

As I have previously stated and documented the NKJV is based on the same text as the KJV.

The “received text” is a phrase that refers to the NT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus

The NKJV does not incorporate Critical Text readings.
One of the reasons many modern scholars object to the NKJV is because it does not follow the "Critical Text."

Again I would like to hear of a legitimate reason why you object to the NKJV other than the plural pronoun argument. I have already agreed that this is a legitimate argument, just not very persuasive as far as I am concerned.
The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software
  #12  
Old 02-08-2008, 09:38 PM
jerry
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Why not argue based on knowledge? Check out the Preface - quote the exact words for us. In it, the publisher clearly states that they used the Septuagint in their OT - so you are arguing against their own words. If you do not have a NKJV handy, then I will try to find mine in the box it is kept in and type up that portion. Don't quote Wickedpedia's made up entry - it is not like they have a clue about Bible versions - their entries are based only on what people have added to it. That certainly doesn't tell us what is in the Preface to the NKJV - which I would take over any Wickedpedia entry telling me otherwise.

If you want to read the NKJV, go to it - but don't try to tell us it is an updated KJV or based completely on the same texts when it is not. THAT is why we reject it. If it is not based on the same texts or contains differences in meaning, has passages added or subtracted, we don't want it.
  #13  
Old 02-08-2008, 10:26 PM
againstheresies
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jerry:
I am not disputing that the NKJV considered the Septuagint as did the KJV as did the some of the Apostles in their quotations found in the New Testament. I just disagree with you that the NKJV uses a different text tradition than the KJV. You will not find any legitimate scholars who would agree with you on that position.

My goal is not to convince you to use the NKJV, but rather to find out your reasons for objecting to using it. Thus far it is my opinion that you have stated illegitimate arguments for rejecting its use.
  #14  
Old 02-08-2008, 10:30 PM
Diligent's Avatar
Diligent Diligent is offline
Forum Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oklahoma, USA.
Posts: 641
Default

The NKJV is just a marketing ploy to sell new versions to people who don't have any interest in new versions.



There are plenty of examples where the NKJV sides with critical text versions against the received Bible (KJV). Here are a few examples:
Job 17:1 (KJV) My breath is corrupt,
Job 17:1 (NKJV) "My spirit is broken,
Job 17:1 (NIV) My spirit is broken,
2Co 2:17 (KJV) For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God:
2Co 2:17 (NKJV) For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God;
2Co 2:17 (NIV) Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit.
1Th 5:22 (KJV) Abstain from all appearance of evil.
1Th 5:22 (NKJV) Abstain from every form of evil.
1Th 5:22 (NIV) Avoid every kind of evil.
2Ti 2:15 (KJV) Study to shew thyself approved unto God,
2Ti 2:15 (NKJV) Be diligent to present yourself approved to God,
2Ti 2:15 (NASB) Be diligent to present yourself approved to God
And if the NKJV is supposed to be easier to understand, what does it side against the KJV with modern versions introducing a less-used word like this?
Ezr 8:36 (KJV) And they delivered the king's commissions unto the king's lieutenants,
Ezr 8:36 (NKJV) And they delivered the king's orders to the king's satraps
Ezr 8:36 (NIV) They also delivered the king's orders to the royal satraps
  #15  
Old 02-08-2008, 10:34 PM
Diligent's Avatar
Diligent Diligent is offline
Forum Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oklahoma, USA.
Posts: 641
Default

Just to directly answer your questions:

I reject the NKJV because:
  • It is falsely marketed as a minimal language update to the KJV,
  • It introduces readings that are against the KJV and that agree with other modern versions I have already rejected,
  • It drops the distinction between singular and plural pronouns; distinctions God inspired in his word and therefor must be retained in the Bible.
  • I don't need an update to my KJV anyway.
  #16  
Old 02-08-2008, 11:39 PM
fundy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why reject the NKJV

Why reject the NKJV?? Why not, it seems your esteemed modern scholars already have...this is obvious as we now have the 21st Century King James version. What does that make the New King James Version now?..archaic?

What was the problem with the NKJV that had to be corrected by the 21st Century version??

I cant wait for the "Rap Talk Version", or the "Hillbilly Version"...dont laugh, over here we already have "the Aussie Bible" ...an NT version that replaces scripture with Australian slang and language idioms.

2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

.
  #17  
Old 02-08-2008, 11:45 PM
againstheresies
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Response

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diligent View Post
The NKJV is just a marketing ploy to sell new versions to people who don't have any interest in new versions.



There are plenty of examples where the NKJV sides with critical text versions against the received Bible (KJV). Here are a few examples:
Job 17:1 (KJV) My breath is corrupt,
Job 17:1 (NKJV) "My spirit is broken,
Job 17:1 (NIV) My spirit is broken,
2Co 2:17 (KJV) For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God:
2Co 2:17 (NKJV) For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God;
2Co 2:17 (NIV) Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit.
1Th 5:22 (KJV) Abstain from all appearance of evil.
1Th 5:22 (NKJV) Abstain from every form of evil.
1Th 5:22 (NIV) Avoid every kind of evil.
2Ti 2:15 (KJV) Study to shew thyself approved unto God,
2Ti 2:15 (NKJV) Be diligent to present yourself approved to God,
2Ti 2:15 (NASB) Be diligent to present yourself approved to God
And if the NKJV is supposed to be easier to understand, what does it side against the KJV with modern versions introducing a less-used word like this?
Ezr 8:36 (KJV) And they delivered the king's commissions unto the king's lieutenants,
Ezr 8:36 (NKJV) And they delivered the king's orders to the king's satraps
Ezr 8:36 (NIV) They also delivered the king's orders to the royal satraps
In all five of your examples you mentioned there are no variant readings. There is no difference in the Greek Text for the NT and no difference in the reading of the Hebrew text. For example, in the case of Job 17:1 the Hebrew word “ruwach” can mean “breath” or “spirit.” Usage determines meaning. The context is Job praying for relief. His spirit is broken. There is no textual variant here. “My spirit broken” clearly better conveys the meaning of “ruwach chabal” better than “My breath is corrupt.” The other examples you cited are the same. There is no textual variant or alternate reading in these verses.

The English readings are similar because they are modern renditions of the same texts. The KJV is more archaic in its rendering. This is not due to textual variants.

As to Ezra 8:36 “lieutenants” is not a good translation for the Persian word “achashdarpan.” This is a specific title for a Persian governor. It is a term for an ancient office holder much like Pharaoh. A satrap is an ancient Persian official that functions like a governor. Lieutenant does not convey that meaning at all thus I like the NKJV rendering. There are occasions where using a less familiar word makes more sense.
  #18  
Old 02-09-2008, 12:57 AM
Graceismine
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

A subsidiary (Nelson Bibles) of Thomas Nelson is now publishing the NKJV. They have removed the triquetra that once was on the Bible.

At least they listened to the christian feedback that took exception to it.

Grace
  #19  
Old 02-09-2008, 06:56 AM
jerry
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by againstheresies View Post
Jerry:
I am not disputing that the NKJV considered the Septuagint as did the KJV as did the some of the Apostles in their quotations found in the New Testament.
Actually, there is no proof that the apostles quoted from the Septuagint - and historically, there is proof that the Septuagint only contained the Pentateuch before the time of Christ.

It is not that they "considered" the Septuagint - it is that they used it for some of their OT passages. It is a corrupt manuscript and part of the Critical Text.

Quote:
My goal is not to convince you to use the NKJV, but rather to find out your reasons for objecting to using it. Thus far it is my opinion that you have stated illegitimate arguments for rejecting its use.
Using corrupt manuscripts for its text is a pretty legitimate reason to reject it - with my other reasons already given, I choose to stay far away from it.
  #20  
Old 02-09-2008, 07:54 AM
Pink Frog
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

[QUOTE=againstheresies;315]In all five of your examples you mentioned there are no variant readings. There is no difference in the Greek Text for the NT and no difference in the reading of the Hebrew text. For example, in the case of Job 17:1 the Hebrew word “ruwach” can mean “breath” or “spirit.” Usage determines meaning. The context is Job praying for relief. His spirit is broken. There is no textual variant here. “My spirit broken” clearly better conveys the meaning of “ruwach chabal” better than “My breath is corrupt.” The other examples you cited are the same. There is no textual variant or alternate reading in these verses.

First of all, I'm a simple person and I talk in simple terms. Quite frankly, I think we can get too choked down on "textual this and that" worrying about what the context of the original word was. My belief in the superiority of the KJV does not come from textual analysis (as interesting as it is), but from experience. We can't truly explain the depth of salvation to someone who has never experienced it. They are going to have to experience it for themselves. God's word is the same way, we can't just read the Bible, we must experience it. I choose to stay with the KJV because God has fittly framed it together, each specific word in it's place for a reason. Unless you have truly experienced this for yourself, this answer will seem less than satisfactory. Please read my posting on Hebrews 10:25 in the Bible Studies forum which basically points out God's hand in using specific words.

Am I saying that God cannot reveal spiritual things to you through scripture in modern versions? No. . . Can you eat a bologna sandwich? Of course. . . but why would you want to when there's steak on the table?

Last edited by Pink Frog; 02-09-2008 at 07:56 AM. Reason: omittion of word
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:44 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®, Copyright vBulletin Solutions Inc.

Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.

Software for Believing Bible Study

 
Contact Us AV1611.Com