yomotalking Posted August 17, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 154 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,838 Content Per Day: 0.40 Reputation: 19 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/18/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/29/1991 Share Posted August 17, 2005 WHAT??? What have I missed??? Oh boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Posted August 17, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 115 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 8,281 Content Per Day: 1.12 Reputation: 249 Days Won: 3 Joined: 03/03/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/30/1955 Share Posted August 17, 2005 While NKJV is pretty good, it does not fulfill it's promise of keeping every word and verse of the KJV original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hopper Posted August 17, 2005 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 23 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 424 Content Per Day: 0.06 Reputation: 57 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/09/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted August 17, 2005 (edited) Edited April 17, 2008 by hopper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halifaxchristian Posted August 17, 2005 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 722 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/01/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted August 17, 2005 I would agree. The NKJV is a very good translation as far as the actual translation goes. It mostly agrees with the Byzantine/Textus Receptus roots. However, the purpose of the NewKJV was to bring strong KJV-only believers a little bit to the left/right. It was a tactic meant to sway these fundamentalists. The thinking is simple: get KJV readers to read the NewKJV and they will subconciously, if nothing else, accept and/or be more sympathetic to the other modern versions and their manuscripts. If you read the NewKJV and have a moderately, if not excellent, translation...but are attacked by nagging and doubting footnotes and marginal references which question this verse and second-guess that word, etc...what can be the outcome but a compromise??? And that is the NewKJV's reason for being...watering down the hardliners until there are none left. They've done a good job. After all...if you'll read the NewKJV...why not the NIV??? Where does one draw the line...??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halifaxchristian Posted August 17, 2005 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 722 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/01/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted August 17, 2005 I think I missed that promise. Even the KJV doesn't do that. The KJV that most people use today as the KJV, is actually a 4th or 5th major revision of the original KJV, and even it isn't completely standardized. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great in many ways, but some seem not to realize that at the time the KJV came out, even most English speaking Christians were not pleased with it, with not a few calling it the work of the devil. Some also maintained, why change our Bible (the Latin Vulgate)? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> To say that "most" english people were not pleased is nothing but ignorant. There were a collection of Bible translation prior to the KJV and this was merely an answer to these fore-runners...Coverdale, Matthew, Bishops, Tydales, Wycliffs, Geneva Bibles...etc. The Catholic Church didn't even let ANYONE but the heirarchy read the Bible until very recently. The Church itself did cry out against the Textus Receptus/KJV, etc...but that is only because they didn't want anyone reading the Word of God and because the KJV/TR were not faithful to the Latin Vulgate, but instead followed the Byzantine lineage of Scripture. The KJV Bible that we have today has no major changes outside of typographical modifications in spelling, etc. We have copys that date back to in and around 1611 and can confidently say that the old KJV and the present KJV are essentially the same. God bless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yomotalking Posted August 17, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 154 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,838 Content Per Day: 0.40 Reputation: 19 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/18/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/29/1991 Author Share Posted August 17, 2005 I have found mistakes in the NIV. I like the NKJV. It's just like the KJV, except that it's in our up-to-date language. But apparently, there have been found in the NIV, 300 mistakes. I can agree. I've used the NIV for most of my life. I have only used NKJV for a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halifaxchristian Posted August 17, 2005 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 722 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/01/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted August 17, 2005 300 mistakes in the NIV...yeah right!!! There are a lot more than that my friend. The New King James Version is fairly accurate and faithful to the Textus Receptus, as I said. However...the NewKJV footnotes are nothing but faithful and sympathetic to the Alexandrian manuscripts and intended to lead fundamentalists/Protestants away from the definitive, unchangings Truths of God's Word. God bless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zayit Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 This site ( if you haven't been there already yomo) shows the differences in the translations, side by side examples of how TNP changed the wording and thus changed the meaning. http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/scriptur...mes-version.htm Here are two examples, one example from the OT and one from the new testement : KJV:Proverbs 11:16 A gracious woman retaineth honour: and strong men retain riches. NewKJV: Proverbs 11:16 A gracious woman retains honor, but ruthless men retain riches. KJV: Hebrews 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. New KJV:Â Hebrews 2:16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. As you can see clearly by these two examples the meaning is completly changed. Some things I don't like are ( and I started a post on this ) 2Timothy 2:15 in the NEW KJV says to "Be diligent to present yourself approved to G-d, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. The KJV says: Study to show thyself approved untio G-d , a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. To me, being diligent can mean many things, on the other hand study is self apparent. I have not made the comparisson myself but it has been stated that the word L-rD and G-d have been removed from the NewKJV over 100 times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serotta Posted August 17, 2005 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 496 Content Per Day: 0.07 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/18/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/20/1959 Share Posted August 17, 2005 This site ( if you haven't been there already yomo) shows the differences in the translations, side by side examples of how TNP changed the wording and thus changed the meaning. http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/scriptur...mes-version.htm Here are two examples, one example from the OT and one from the new testement : KJV:Proverbs 11:16 A gracious woman retaineth honour: and strong men retain riches. NewKJV: Proverbs 11:16 A gracious woman retains honor, but ruthless men retain riches. KJV: Hebrews 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. New KJV: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trust & Obey Posted August 17, 2005 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 16 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,091 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 14 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/23/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted August 17, 2005 The NKJV is a terrific translation of the Bible and is much improved over the KJV. The differences" in the NKJV vs. the KJV are merited by the original languages and improve the understanding of the text. There is no validity to the "the NKJV is of the devil" accusation. I've gone through this at length with halifaxchristian in another thread located here: http://www.worthyboards.com/forums/index.p...pic=25946&st=10 The discussion of the KJV vs. the NKJV starts at the bottom of that page and goes throughout the rest of the thread, albeit off-topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts