One changed doctrine please?

The question raised is, are there any doctrinal differences between the KJV and the NKJV. If my KJV says that gehenna and hades are the same place, and you read an NKJV and say they are not, then we have a doctrinal difference. If I abide by the text in my bible, I cannot say there is a difference between hades and gehenna, I do not even know there are two underlying words in the greek. You say this is a problem, yet you cannot show from anywhere but subjective emotion that these two places are not the same. If the KJV translators believed that both the names referred to the same place, who am I to argue with that? They were only 400 years closer to the time when these words might have meant something to anyone who spoke these languages natively. I have never seen a reasonable argument to split these places so distinctly other than they are 2 different names. One happens to be a greek name, and the other comes from hebrew. Perhaps the jews had their own term for the same place the greeks referred to as hades?

Regardless of which is the case, if you get the opposite of what the KJV plainly states from reading the NKJV, then clearly your doctrine on hell differs from that of the KJV translators.

 

Huh?

It reads as if our Lord Jesus didn't tenaciously hold onto his status as God--the rights and prerogatives that come from godness--and refuse to lower himself by taking on the form of a man.

 

Philippians 2
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

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

They don't say the same thing. The KJV rendering basically says that Jesus did not have any issues with calling Himself equal with God. He was not robbing God of any position by giving Himself the same position.

The NKJV? says that He didn't esteem equality with God as something worth having?? or something to that effect.

 

Uh, like equating God with the wicked in Job 24, perchance?

Correct me, and God, if I'm wrong, but does the LORD actually leave any man without "being sure of life"?

Would this not fall under heretical and FALSE doctrine when the Lord is equated as having the same attributes as the "wicked" as described in Job 24? Uh-hum!

Something's DEFINITELY amiss in the rendering of the nkjv, but then some declare, "It all depends on which Rabbinic teaching one follows" Yep, sure does, like following the One that is after the order of Melchisedec, for instance?

 

I have to agree with Trotter here, we have weaknesses and strengths in ALL translations.

But, "weakness" is such a subjective subject. A "word" may be "weak" for one person and "stronger" for another person, depending on many variables, including their own English style and reading level, their background (doctrinal study, etc.) and many other factors.

On the other hand:

I could say that the NIV is "weak" in the area of "literal translation" while "strong" on "readability".

The ESV is stronger on literal translation and weaker on readability that is the NIV.

Whereas the King James Version is very weak on readability and fair to strong on being literal.

Notice; however, that my last statement regarding the KJV is weak simply because MY reading skills are not as strong in Jacobean English as they are in modern "okie".

All three translations are still the "Word-of-God", one may be better than the other for a particular reason. For example, witnessing to a ten year old boy, I might want to use the NIV. (This does not; however, mean that the NIV is not good for the 50 year old scholar.)

But, the KJV would be my least favorite to witness to that same ten year old.

 

Sorry, that last post was not exactly on-track, but I wanted to further expound on the statement that Trotter was answering regarding translational weakness--which does NOT necessarily mean "doctrinal weakness".

 

James said "They don't say the same thing."

They do say the same thing if rightly divided.

James said "The NKJV? says that He didn't esteem equality with God as something worth having??"

No, that's not what it says. It says he didn't consider his equality with God as something to be seized (forcefully grasped, robbed, stolen, pridefully clung to). Same thing as the KJV says. Instead (the next verse), he "made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men".

 

Makes sense with verse 7, but I still don't like the translation the way it is phrased and doesn't say the same thing as "...thought it not robbery to be equal with God." Well, to me anyway.

 

The differences between the two Koine Greek words is not the result of subjective emotion but the choices of the Spirit of God.


HankD

 

The problem with the KJV in PHil 2 is that it makes it look like Christ gave up his equality with God by saying he did not think it robbery to be equal, but emptied himself.

Christ did not give up his equality with God. He gave up the independent use of his divine attributes. The modern versions are much clearer as to the doctrine being taught when they say that Christ did not regard his equality with God as something to be grasped, meaning held on to; but he emptied himself.

 

The differences between the two Koine Greek words is not the result of subjective emotion but the choices of the Spirit of God.


HankD </font>[/QUOTE]I don't have a problem with the two different words, but show me how these words can not be referring to the same place, and be perfectly encompassed by using hell to translate them both.

 

No where does it say "he emptied himself".

"he humbled himself".

Oh, great. Now we are all highter critics.

 

Actually, you can make the argument that they are referring to the same place... the problem is that the KJV negates that argument when the original does not. The original uses different words and regardless of the reason for this the most honest approach is to preserve the differences.

 

Almost all of my doctrine differs radically with that held by Anglicans/Catholics. It always will.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Actually, you can make the argument that they are referring to the same place... the problem is that the KJV negates that argument when the original does not. The original uses different words and regardless of the reason for this the most honest approach is to preserve the differences. </font>[/QUOTE]So why was gehenna translated hell, if the honest approach would be to preserve the differences as they were? They have changed the differences. One difference in the greek was hades and gehenna. Now it is hades and hell??

 

I really don't know. However, they came one step closer to accuracy than the KJV translators.

I actually should have used the word 'accurate' rather than 'honest'. That was more the meaning I had in mind. I don't think the KJV translators were operating on some kind of deceptive agenda when they did this... they were probably just following tradition.

Maybe. But they preserved the fact that there was a difference in the original text. Again, one step better than the KJV even if all of the words in every instance refer to the same place.

 

Come on folks - if this is just going to be another hell/hades thread I am going to close it. We have had PLENTY of those.

 

I don't have a problem with the two different words, but show me how these words can not be referring to the same place, and be perfectly encompassed by using hell to translate them both. [/QB][/QUOTE]

If one looks at the origin of those words and what they meant they have different meanings in their origin.

 

Why are you continually picking on me for going off topic?

Seriously, I am sorry... again.

 

So do you suppose that Jesus was literally warning me that I might be cast into a dump outside of Jerusalem if I sinned? Or perhaps the rich man had to cross the river Styx in a canoe to get to the fiery torment he was in?

And I really didn't intend to debate this subject in this thread C4, sorry, but I take offense to the notion that there is no doctrinal differences between the bible versions. It's a rediculous statement. If they all said the same thing, we wouldn't have so many of them.