Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by JesusFan, Jun 3, 2011.
is it an update for the better?
yes in my opinion
The NKJV is considered to be better so long as the person comparing the two is not doctrinally tied to the old KJV (i.e. the KJV onlyist).
The NKJV (New King James) is based on exactly the same Greek texts as the AV1611 - as close as anyone can come to those texts; the actual blend of Greek manuscripts used by the 1611 scholars was lost. But recreated admirably by the NKJV men.
I enjoy it. Still retains the beauty and lilt of 1611 language, but with updating of words that have dramatically evolved in the 400 years since the first AV.
In that the confusion over words that have changed over time is eliminated, it IS more accurate for us today than a 1611. And vastly more readable and understandable.
Most claiming some sort of infallibility for the 1611 don't use one; they use a modified 1762 Cambridge or 1769 Oxford KJV - not the same with 5000 minor and 150 major changes. They will not like this thread :BangHead: for sure!!
If you are going to use a translation based on that Greek blend (not my choice) and enjoy older-style English prose, the New KJV would be the choice.
Ron Rhodes wrote: “The New King James Version (NKJV) is a revision of the King James Version (KJV) in modern English” (Complete Guide to Bible Translations, p. 113). Rhodes added: “The NKJV significantly updates the KJV, making it a much more accurate translation” (p. 114).
In a number of the places where the NKJV is considered better, clearer, or more accurate than the KJV, the NKJV's rendering may be the same or very close to that already found in the 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible.
While the KJV translators updated the more archaic language in the Bishops' Bible in a good number of places, there were other times that they kept it even when the 1560 Geneva Bible already had what would be considered more up-to-date renderings today.
No, it is not.
Let’s examine which version is more accurate.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.
The condemnation and the judgment are not same meaning because everyone will be judged, but the unbelievers will be condemned. Which version is more accurate?
And more….. That is ENOUGH!
Actually, only unbelievers will be judged. Christ was judged in place of believers. Judgment takes place at the Great White Throne and only unbelievers will stand there.
Only if one fails to study...
The very same Greek word is used 48 times in the KJV Greek text and it is translated:
Accusation, 2 times; condemnation, 2 times; damnation, 3 times; and judgment, 41 times.
So it appears that the NKJV is indeed just as accurate as the KJV. The difference lies in the eye of the beholder.
"tick", "tick", "tick", "tick", the time bomb is ticking, and will blow up within three to four pages!! LOL
Away we go!!
2 Corinthians 5:10: "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad."
Perhaps you are merely uninformed or misinformed about how the early English translators and even the KJV translators used the words. Are you aware of the variation and the ways that the early English translators and KJV translators used these words? Would not condemnation be the result of judgment so your reasoning may not hold up?
Bob Steward wrote: "In John 5:29 the NKJV translators changed the word 'damnation' to 'condemnation'" (Close Look at NKJV, p. 25). Haak’s 1657 English translation already has “condemnation” at John 5:29. KJV-only advocates imply that this is a change from a strong word to a weaker word. The 1895 Sunday School Teacher's Bible noted the following concerning "damnation, or condemnation" in its list of obsolete or ambiguous words in the KJV: "These words were used as equivalent terms when the A. V. was made." KJV-only author Jack Moorman wrote that “there is not a great deal of difference between ‘damnation’ and ‘condemnation.‘ As ‘damn’ comes from the Latin damnare, so ’condemn’ does also” (Conies, pp. 7-8). Concerning this word at 1 Timothy 5:12, Vincent commented: “It should be said for the translators of 1611 that they used damnation in this sense of judgment or condemnation, as is shown by the present participle having. In its earlier usage the word implied no allusion to a future punishment” (Word Studies, IV, p. 263). Several of the early English Bibles had "damnation" at Luke 23:40, John 5:24, Romans 5:16, Romans 8:1, and James 3:1 while the KJV changes it to "condemnation." Coverdale’s has “damnation” (2 Cor. 3:9) where the KJV has “condemnation.“ At James 5:9, the Geneva and KJV revised some of the early Bibles’ rendering “damned” to “condemned.“ Wycliffe’s Bible has “damned” (Matt. 12:37, Heb. 11:7) where the KJV has “condemned.” Wycliffe’s has “undamned” (Acts 16:37, 22:25) where the KJV has “uncondemned.“ Instead of “judgment,“ Whittingham’s and Geneva have “damnation” (Rev. 17:1). Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, and Great have “damnation” (Heb. 10:39) instead of “perdition.“ At Romans 9:22, Philippians 3:19, and 2 Peter 2:1, Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, and Great Bibles have “damnation” while the KJV has “destruction.“ Would KJV-only advocates claim that the KJV tones down or weakens the rendering of the pre-1611 English Bibles in any of these verses?
The judgment seat of Christ is not involving salvation. There is no condemnation there. Only believers will appear there to receive rewards.
The "bema" or place of rewards for victors, still stands in Corinth. I have stood on it (it is actually a ledge of marble in the front of a platform. The competition officials sat on the platform and the winners would stand on the "bema" and have temporal wreath of victory placed on head.
Amy is correct; there is NO "judgment" in that place parallels to the Great White Throne where the unregenerate stand and damnation proclaimed. The "bema" is for rewards, seeing if the competitor's effort was of value or worthless.
I am not excited about God's "bema", but I am not afraid either. I may not receive rewards, but have no fear of any judgment.
Remember what I said. The judgment and the condemnation differ each other on John 5:24.
Will Christians be condemned? Yes or no?
Will Christians be judged? Yes or no?
Stop making a fool of yourself.
The NKJV is just as accurate as the KJV here. Don't know about 'better' but there is no change.
Here are some examples where the NKJV is better or more accurate than the KJV. Is it interesting to see that the 1560 Geneva Bible already had these good renderings?
Acts 12:4 Passover (Geneva, NKJV) Easter (KJV)
Gal. 2:21 Christ died (Geneva, NKJV) Christ is dead (KJV)
Eph. 2:13 once were (Geneva, NKJV) sometimes were (KJV)
Eph. 5:8 were once darkness (Geneva, NKJV) were sometimes darkness (KJV)
Titus 1:8 one that loveth goodness (Geneva) lover of good men (KJV) lover of what is good (NKJV)
Heb. 10:23 hope (Geneva, NKJV) faith (KJV)
2 Peter 1:1 of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Geneva, NKJV) of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ (KJV)
Very. From these examples that you furnished I would say that the Geneva translation was/is clearly superior to the KJV. But then so was/is the Tyndale which started it all. (As far as English translations from the original languages.)