Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Plain Old Bill, Jul 16, 2008.
Just exactly what is the KJO beef with the NKJV translation of the Bible? Please be specific.
How about (for the "KJO" crowd) that it's not the 1611 KJV?
(Never mind that I personally have yet to meet the first "KJO" that actually uses the 1611 KJV!)
Regardless of how much they seem to extol the version!:BangHead:
In fact, the individual that I'm familiar with who somehow actually cites the 1611 KJV (as well as the Geneva) more than any other, namely the BB's own Ed Edwards, is not a "KJO", at all.
P.S. OK, "KJO"ers! Yore turn!
Yore is right.They ( KJVO'ers) think they harken back to the days of yore.
It is qiuite simple really.
Despite the name, the NKJV and the KJV are different versions. In other words, the NKJV is not a revision of the KJV because the NKJV is a new translation done from scratch.
However, the KJV 1769 is not a new version of the KJV 1611. It is a revision of the KJV 1611 because it changed spelling and made corrections but did not re-translate from the original languages.
KJVO folks are consistent in this sense. We follow the same version but (usually) accept different revisions of that version.
These are the correct definitions to apply in this context:
A version is defined as a distinct translation.
A revision is a correction or modification of a version.
Just in case I was not completely clear, the problem with the NKJV is that it ain't the King James Version.
So you're saying it's not one of the multiple revisions of the KJV family.You accept most of the revisions which are called KJV, but the NKJ just went too far for your taste and does not deserve the kind of affinity with the KJV as the other revisions do.
Why is that a problem?
What in your opinion is inaccurate about the NKJV?
Amy, can't you see? It's not the KJV. That's reason enough.:BangHead:
Sigh. Yeah, I see. Bummer. :laugh:
P.S. I love the NKJV. I use it everyday.
No, that is not at all what I am saying. The NKJV is an entirely new translation. It is simply not the same translation as the KJV.
The 1769 Benjamin Blayney edition is not the same translation as one of the earlier KJV's.The NKJ is an update of the KJV as was the 1769 edition.
Actually, for me it is a pretty good reason.
I have the word of those who taught me about Christ that the KJV is a good, reliable and accurate Bible.
For other Bibles I have the word of the book publishers and various scholars that those Bibles are good, reliable and accurate.
I personally know the folks in the first group. I know their testimonies. I trust them.
I do not personally know the folks in the second group. I have, however, found some problems with their reasoning and methods.
Hitting your head against the wall is a potential cause of cognitive and auditory problems. I recommend that you avoid the practice.
I am going to side with AF on this one. Sort of at least.
It is obvious to any fait minded reader that the NKJV is much more a change to the KJV translation family than anything previous. It is more than just an update or a new edition.
I believe that it is a new translation based on an old one. It uses the title it does because it used the same textual body and translation methods as the KJV did.
I think AF had put it eloquently. The problem with any translation for the KJVO crowd is that they "ain't the KJV."
The question of the thread, and one we must stick to however, is this; which is more accurate? Are there any real reasons other than "It ain't the KJV?"
I don't know about that Roger. The 1769 made a lot of changes. The books of Jer,.Lam.,Zech., and Psalms were entirely new translations for instance.
Even the 1762 Thomas Paris edition was a rather complete revision.
Well, it seems that we entirely disagree on the facts. See quote below.
New King James Version
Commissioned in 1975 by Thomas Nelson Publishers, 130 respected Bible scholars, church leaders, and lay Christians worked for seven years to create a completely new, modern translation of Scripture, yet one that would retain the purity and stylistic beauty of the original King James. With unyielding faithfulness to the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts, the translatiors applies the most recent research in archaelology, linguistics, and textual studies.
End of argument.
The problem is with the notion :"It just ain't the KJV." I don't think it calls for the definite article of the.There is no such animal as the KJV.When multiples abound I think a KJV is a better word choice. ( It's also more logical.)
Sorry Rippon, I have to disagree again. Your "multiple KJV" theory is misleading.
There are several revisions and many editions of the King James Version. If you want to talk about revisions that is ok by me.
I knew I got my notion someplace .
Thanks AF, and to my mind that does settle the question of whether or not the NKJV is a new translation. (I wish I had worded it as well as your quote did )
Okay then, is that the only beef with the NKJV? "It ain't the KJV?"
Please, lets not get off onto the "multiple KJV" concept. We have argued that to death elsewhere.
Interesting, I don't know what you mean by this.What singular KJV is the KJV?
I am afraid you are grasping at straws here Rip. AF has proven that the NKJV translators intended an entirely new translation, something no other revision, edition, or publication of the KJV has ever claimed.
We all know that there is "the KJV". A few early errors corrected along the way, spellings and grammar updated, but that translation is still the KJV.
Now, even if we disagree, lets stick to the topic of the KJV (body if you will) vs. the NKJV as to their accuracy. The "multiple KJV" concept is at best a red herring, IMHO.