One changed doctrine please?

There is no doctrine that has been changed

 

There are none - full stop.

 

That depends on what you believe is doctrine I guess.

 

Is there one doctrine that in your view or anyone's elses view you believe or anyone else believes has been changed from the TR and/or the KJV and if so which one?

HankD

 

I believe that the KJV very specifically shows that hell and the lake of fire are two distinct places, and that there is little to no distinction between hades and gehenna. Gehenna = hell, and hades = hell and neither of these are the lake of fire. But you couldn't prove that from the NKJV without going through a lot of hoops, merely because they transliterate hades then translate gehenna as hell, and when you see in revelation hades is thrown into the lake of fire, automatically you assume that the lake of fire is hell. The KJV clearly shows that hell is cast into the lake of fire, and that gehenna and hades are both hell.

 

Since the Greek and Hebrew words underlying both tranlations are the same, it is soley a difference in interpretation and not a problem with the text. You interpret it one way and someone else interprets it a different way. That does not mean that the NKJV changed a doctrine.

 

This is a general problem that is greater in the KJV than the NKJV and overall the NKJV is much clearer.

It is not provable that hades and gehenna are the same place. The Spirit of God used two different words in the original koine for a reason. I prefer to see the differences wherever possible.

We all know that this is a KJV weakness where 1) the same original language word is translated into different English words (sheol and the grave, passover and easter) and/or 2) different original language words are translated into the same English word (hades, gehenna, tartaroo into hell).

The KJV goes a long way in undoing this unfortunate KJV weakness.

Sometimes these two methods of translation are necessary but there are many unexplained and apparently unwarranted examples of these methods in the KJV (such as Holy Ghost for Holy Spirit).

Your premise that hades is different that the lake of fire is just as supportable in the NKJV as the KJV.

KJV Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

NKJV Revelation 20:14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

HankD

 

Ah, but I am not interpretting anything, I am just reading what my bible says.

 

KJV Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

NKJV Revelation 20:14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Assumuing that your premise is true that the KJV says the lake of fire and hades are not the same place then how in this passage does the NKJV say that hades and the lake of fire are the same place?

HankD

 

We ahve had several threads on this topic in the last few weeks. Both sides know the other's views.

Lets us keep this for listing doctrines changed in the NKJV.

 

But that is exactly what is allegedly happening here.

I strongly disagree with James and will move on to another difference if he is willing.

HankD

 

KJVOs have argued that MVs remove hell from the Scriptures, while actually, by saying sheol, hades, tartaroo and gehenna, the MVs are being more exact. If that's a doctrinal change, it's for the BETTER.

 

Is does not depend on a relative definition of the word doctrine.

From the dictionary
Doctrine:
1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
3.a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

 

Doctrine is not based strictly on the words, but on the interpretation of those words. Two people can read the same words and still disagree on the doctrine they each get from it.

There are no doctrines changed between versions when rightly divided.

 

Absolutely! We have all seen false doctrine promoted out of any translation. Would any agree that a change in translation of a word or phrase may possibly weaken a doctrine in any of the translations?

 

I dunno, DB. I would have to say that it would be on a case-by-case basis. Just because a word or phrase is changed from one translation to another does not have to mean that a doctrine is weakened or strengthened.

But, then, if you are trying to say if a word is changed from what a certain 17th century version says, it has has weakened doctrine....well, we just don't want to go there, now do we?

In Christ,
Trotter

 

I guess it depends on how willing a guy is to stick his neck out.

For example, here is a translation that has bothered me.

Phil 2:6 "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped".

It reads as if our Lord Jesus Christ could not grasp that he was God in the flesh, God very God.