New KJV

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Askjo, Oct 7, 2004.

  1. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr. Bruce Cummons wrote his essay, "A Critique of the New KJV." He rejected the NKJV
    I noticed what he wrote:
    Any thoughts?
     
  2. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    Most of what I have read on the NKJV agrees with a portion of the quote "The NKJV is not a literal updating of the AV, or KJV of 1611" .
    Dr. David H. Sorenson states on pg 240 of his book, "Touch Not the Unclean Thing: The Bible Translation Controversy and the Principle of Separation"
    "The New King James Version (NKJV)is significantly different from most modern language versions of the Bible. To it credit, the New Testament portion thereof is translated from the Textus Receptus. Moreover, its translators rejected the system of dynamic equivalence in translation."

    It's still a viable, usable translation.
     
  3. Phillip

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think anybody claimed that it is a "literal update" of the KJV1611. Its claim is that it uses the Textus Receptus as the basis for the NT as did the KJV. However, this might be stretching the truth somewhat since the KJV was not just the TR, it pulled forward verses directly from the Geneva and Bishop's Bible as well as comparison from the Vulgate. Otherwise, it did use the TR for the NT.

    I still predict that the NKJV will be accepted as the NEW KJV as soon as one generation passes.

    Just watch.

    That is what happened every time a revision was made to the KJV, rejected by the status quo, accepted by the next generation.
     
  4. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I have that book. [​IMG]
     
  5. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    The NKJV has been around for a few decades now. The fact that the NKJV did not exclusively use the TR is no new news. I'm curious as to when Dr.Cummons's essay was written. Not that it makes a difference on the subject matter, I'm just curious.

    What I'm more curious about is whether anyone has critiqued the MKJV, which, unlike the NKJV, is a literal updating of the KJV.
     
  6. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    I'm not sure, John. David Cloud seemed to contradict himself over it. I haven't read Dr. Cummon's essay. Is it online? If so, is there a link?
     
  7. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    JohnV, it was in Revival Fire newspaper in 1992. I do not like Revival Fire newspaper because of overly strict.
     
  8. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, it was in Revival Fire newspaper in 1992. I had to throw them out of my house because I can't keep too many newspapers like Sword of the Lord, Target, Revival Fire and others.
     
  9. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    Yes, askjo, but it's also on David Clouds website and in his eletters. I get them on a regular basis.
     
  10. williemakeit

    williemakeit
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is it just me, or does anyone else think the NKJV is just not good reading? I'm not talking about the translation, but just from a general reading standpoint. I bought a copy, and I didn't think it read that well.
     
  11. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    I guess I overlooked it, sorry!
     
  12. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't have a problem with it, but it's not my translation of choice.
     
  13. Phillip

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Askjo: I am not a Greek scholar, but I do have an interlinear TR. With that and the help of some of the scholars on the board, why don't you provide a list of variations from the TR. (Not from the KJV---From the TR)

    I am willing to agree with you and look at this if you can give me examples.
     
  14. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    I like reading the NKJV, it is my version of choice. I also like reading the KJV. I really don't care reading the NIV, don't care for the way it reads. Just my preference.

    Bro Tony
     
  15. Phillip

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the translation is a little more literal to the Greek text, rather than on a thought-for-thought basis. This may make it a little more difficult to read--not necessarily better, but just the style of translation.

    I tend to like it, but I know that I can read an NIV much easier, but the NIV is not my favorite MV.

    The ESV fits somewhere between, I tend to like it the most. Just my opinion.
     
  16. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    The ESV is not a popular version and I doubt that it will be available many more years.
     
  17. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Is it really a crime for the NKJV to not follow the TR exclusively? Remember, sports fans, Dean Burgon did NOT think highly of the TR, assuming he was reading the last of the umpteen revisions made of it.

    The TR is NOT the be-all and the end-all Greek text. I've NEVER heard any Greek expert say WHICH REVISION was the "official" one. Nor have I heard anything but EXCUSES about the differences between the TR & The Traditional Text.
     
  18. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    The MKJV is not a literal updating of the KJV. The translators freely claim that the KJV translators made some poor choices.

     
  19. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm at a total loss to figure the objections
    of KJVOs to the NKJV.
    The specification of the NKJV was written in
    the late 1970s by KJVOs.
    The "includes Baptists" translators used the
    specifications written by the KJVOs.
    The KJVOs within two years of the release
    of the release of the NKJV approved of the
    NKJV. Only later did the KJVOs decide they
    made a mistake writing specifications for
    a product other than the KJV.

    It is a real shame when the worse thing
    that the anti-NKJVs can thing of is the
    NON-TRANSLATION symbol shown on the title
    page: the tristriskelion, ancient symbol
    of the Blessed Trininty.
     
  20. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    This is odd. My NKJV says it DOES follow the Majority Text/TR as had the KJV (when not following the Vulgate).

    Did the NKJV translators lie in their own preface?

    I have studied it (it is my version of choice for preaching) and not found any place where it did NOT follow the MT/TR. Could we get a few passages to evaluate before we call them liars.
     

Share This Page

Loading...