1769 MV KJV History?

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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