1769 MV KJV History?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Phillip, Apr 6, 2004.

  1. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does anybody have any actual evidence of a fuss among KJV fans when the KJV was modified in the past?

    Was there a group that said the 1769 release was evil and wrong? Is there any REAL historical evidence of this occuring.

    I am noticing that the NKJV is now taking hold where the KJV was once used. The marketing method used by the NKJV publishers is apparently working in many areas. A lot of KJV fans (not KJVo -- just fans) are now accepting the NKJV. For example, it is stated that the Gideons are now providing a NKJV. Our pastor uses it because it does not ruffle feathers of KJV users. Will the NKJV become the next KJV that will be hailed by KJVo groups 100 years from now?
     
  2. LarryN

    LarryN
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    For awhile the Gideons also distributed the NIV in many areas (in addition to the KJV), but they switched from the NIV to the NKJV because of the backlash they got from many KJVO contributors. (Apparently the NKJV is more acceptable.) I found out this fact first-hand, when I've attended meetings of the local Gideon Chapter.
     
  3. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,147
    Likes Received:
    322
    I hope so since it is TR based. Also I am hoping that they will follow after the tradition of the First Edition AV 1611 with several revisions and editions.
    However if they drop 1 John 5:7 I will be very disappointed.

    HankD
     
  4. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    I hope so since it is TR based. Also I am hoping that they will follow after the tradition of the First Edition AV 1611 with several revisions and editions.
    However if they drop 1 John 5:7 I will be very disappointed.

    HankD
    </font>[/QUOTE]I'm in agreement as a Traditional Text Preferred man. I wish the NKJV would become the standard BV, but my view is that the ESV will replace the NIV, as it's name says, English Standard Version within the next few years. However, I'll still use the NKJV to preach/teach.
     
  5. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I hope so since it is TR based. Also I am hoping that they will follow after the tradition of the First Edition AV 1611 with several revisions and editions.
    However if they drop 1 John 5:7 I will be very disappointed.

    HankD
    </font>[/QUOTE]I'm in agreement as a Traditional Text Preferred man. I wish the NKJV would become the standard BV, but my view is that the ESV will replace the NIV, as it's name says, English Standard Version within the next few years. However, I'll still use the NKJV to preach/teach.
    </font>[/QUOTE]I keep hearing that the KJVo group is against the NKJV because they claim it actually uses the Alexandrian manuscripts. Is this true or is this just sour grapes because there is competition with their old KJV?

    The only thing I see is up-dated marginal notes.

    Many of which are now showing up in later printings of the older KJV. I never had a problem with marginal notes explaining which manuscripts contained this and which didn't. It is just reference material.
     
  6. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,147
    Likes Received:
    322
    I've heard that also, but as of yet have not seen a verse cited and challenged.

    Any takers, does anyone have a verse from the NKJV that follows Aleph/B to prove this claim?

    HankD
     
  7. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    Possibly I Cor. 1:18

    1 Cor 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. (KJV)

    1 Cor 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (NKJV)

    I do not believe the NKJV follows the Critical Text, but I believe that there are poor translational choices made in certain areas. Another verse is Rev. 19:8.

    In many places, the NKJV refers back to the Critical Text. The implication is that the Critical Text is an acceptable alternative to the Traditional Text.
     
  8. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    Pastor Bob:

    The word for "saved" is a present passive participle. Being that the time is the same as the leading verb how else would you translate it other than "being saved"?

    I think it is in fitting with 1 Peter 1:3-5, "Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

    The word for reserved in verse 4 is a pefect passive participle. With the idea being that salvation is being reserved. Being reserved is extending from past tense into the present tense with emphasis on the existing result. Its time precedes the leading verb. It is the idea of it was reserved and it is being reserved with the emphasis on being reserved.
     
  9. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,147
    Likes Received:
    322
    My NKJV electronic version has no references to any text not even concerning 1 Timothy 3:16 (and it follows the TR), a disputed passage of great notoriety.

    HankD
     
  10. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    The translation of the NKJV is technically correct, but it causes a lot of problems with the biblical doctrine of soteriology. We know that salvation is not a process, but something which takes place in an instant. We also know that the tenses of Greek participles are timeless and generally indicate what we might call a "state of being" verb. In other words, the NKJV would be correct in saying "but to us who are (in a state of (being)) saved it is the power of God." But they way it is translated it tends to give the impression that salvation is a process. The KJV translators got around that perception by simply translating it "are saved."

    I hope the first substantial revision of the NKJV corrects that oversight. [​IMG]
     
  11. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,147
    Likes Received:
    322
    I agree with Skan on this one, participles relate to a state of being. Which is what the NKJV translators probably intended. "but to us who are being saved": that is: the preaching of the cross is to the group of those who have been and are being saved (instantly) it is the power of God. "are saved" or "have been saved" is better.

    HankD
     

Share This Page

Loading...