What About NKJV?

When the Greek said, "HE" why did the NKJV CHANGE from "he" in Greek to "God" in italics? This is dynamic equivalency.

Go ahead to get the article from D.A. Waite on "God forbid."

 

Rufus_1611: //The lie of the KJVs promoted slavery?

Rufus_1611: // Are you calling God a liar
or are you saying the KJVs are not the word of God?

That is a loaded question.
Neither.
God is never a liar.
The KJVs are individually
and collectively the Written Word of God.
But the Greek 'douloo' is in 1611,
1769, and 2007 best translated 'slave'

Rufus_1611: //Perhaps you are becoming a NKJVo?//
I see no reason to be an onlyist.
My preferred KJV1611 Edition isn't
onlyist, neither am I.

 

2 sides of schools disagree each other concerning manuscript evidences, modern versions, etc,. What about 2 Timothy 2:2 (KJV)?

And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

 

No, its not enough to classify the whole NKJV, the book, the passage, the chapter, or even the verse as 'dynamically' translated. I recently, wrote in another thread on a verse where the KJV does the same thing.

In Mark 2:15 the KJV revisors used a non-literal rendering by placing the proper name of "Jesus" into the English text where the Textus Receptus actually has the Greek masculine pronoun auton (a form of autos Strong's #846 meaning "he") which is the correspondant of the first of two English occurrences of the name "Jesus" in the verse. The second occurrence of "Jesus" in this verse is actually supported by the Greek word Iesous (Strong's#2424) which is transliterated into English as "Jesus".

 

Askjo: //When the Greek said, "HE" why did
the NKJV CHANGE from "he" in Greek to "God"
in italics? This is dynamic equivalency.//

No, it is pronoun resolution.

In Daniel 9:27 the resolution of the
first 'he' and second 'he' and third 'he'
determines one's eschatological bent.

Dan 9:27 (KJV1611 Edition):
And hee shall confirme the couenant with many
for one weeke:
and in the midst of the weeke
he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,
and for the ouerspreading of abominations
hee shall make it desolate,
euen vntill the consummation,
& that determined,
shalbe powred vpon the desolate.

If the 'he's refer to 'Messiah the Prince'
you have to be a-mill (spiritual
Millennial Messanic Kingdom);
if the 'he's refer to 'the prince who shall come'
then you have to be pre-millinnial
(physical Millennial Messanic Kingdom).

Pronoun resolution is a significant part
of translating the Bible.

In 1611 the translators use 'He' at
the beginning of a sentence and 'he'
in other than the begining of a sentence.
In the 1980s it became common for
Bible translators to use 'He' to designate
the pronouns referring to God or
His three personalities:
God the Father, God the Son,
or God the Holy Spirit.

Daniel 9:27 (nKJV):
Then he shall confirm a covenant
with many for one week;
But in the middle of the week
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations
shall be one who makes desolate,
Even until the consummation,
which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate.

 

No, it is just being honest the way the translators of the KJV were not honest in their translation. I like the KJV but I also like the NKJV as well and both are simply translations. The only difference is that we are 200+ years removed from the same arguments about the KJV in its current form.

 

What about the notes the KJV translators added?

 

They also at times casted doubt on the text. Thank God the vast majority of the printings of the KJB today don't have the notes to distract the reader from the inspired, infallible and preserved word of God.

Also, does anyone here disagree with the contention that at least some of the differences in the NKJV were made simply to secure a copyright?

 

As to part one I have a hard time believing that those who swear by the KJV1611 are glad that modern editions of it have purged it from the notes of the translators.

Part two - I don't know if that was their motivation.

This is my problem with criticism of the NKJV. We have to dig mighty deep to find any flaws, yet we won't go to those same depths to find flaws with the KJV.

Those who hold to a strong KJV view really don't have much to stand on when it comes to being critical of the NKJV.

 

I disagree that one has to dig mighty deep to find flaws with the NKJV. When I was once challenged on this very issue, I happened to be staying in a hotel that had a NKJV. I prayed to the Lord and after opening the book, I found several very significant differences by simply comparing one page. I no longer have the response, but one of the examples was as follows:

Proverbs 19:18
Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying.

In the NKJV
Chasten your son while there is hope, And do not set your heart on his destruction.

The bible instructs us and repeats several times in Proverbs how it is necessary to chasten our children by way of beating them with the rod. The natural inclination is to spare the rod when the child cries. The bible foresees this, and directly addresses it in this verse. It warns us to chasten our sons while there is still hope, because if you don't raise them properly at an early age, they can get to a point where it is too late and their character is already badly formed.

But in the NKJV, the prescient admonition is missing. "Do not set your heart on his destruction?" God's not warning us not to destroy our children. He already said "If thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die." The reading in the NKJV is absurd when compared to the KJB. And this can be discerned by a common man with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and without any knowledge of dead languages, scraps of paper, or sinful men's disputings over such things.

 

So which is more important - an accurate translation of texts or matching up to a translation?

I agree - the disputings are wicked, no matter which side they come from. That is why we haves the special rules on this board when discussing versions.

 

Mike Berzins: //The bible instructs us and repeats several times
in Proverbs how it is necessary to chasten our children
by way of beating them with the rod.//

Actually the Bible doesn't do that, mean people
beat their children unmercyless.

Psalm 23:4 (KJV1611):
Yea though I walke through the valley
of the shadowe of death,
I will feare no euill:
for thou art with me,
thy rod and thy staffe, they comfort me.

Hello! the rod and the staff are used by
the Shepherd to protect, comfort, and show
grace to the sheep. Only mean Shepherds
beat their sheep with the rod or choke their
sheep with the staff.

C4K: //As to part one I have a hard time believing
that those who swear by the KJV1611 are glad that
modern editions of it have purged it from
the notes of the translators.//

Amen, Brother C4K -- Preach it!
Of course, you know that some folk who swear by
the KJV1611 actually use the KJV1769 and don't know
the difference.

C4K: //What about the notes the KJV translators added?//

Mike Berzins: //They also at times casted doubt on the text.//

I'm sorry you are offended by the truth.
In my Sunday School lesson last week was a verse:

1 Peter 2:21 (KJV1611 Edition):
For euen hereunto were ye called:
because Christ also suffered for ||vs,
leauing vs an example,
that yee should follow his steps

Margin note:
Some reade, for you.

This indicates that the translators of the KJV
had two different sources which read different
at this point. This is a truth that aught to be told.
People who can't handle that truth need to learn
some more about God the Father, God the Son (Messiah Jesus),
and God the Holy Spirit.

So to me it seems the main reason people dis the
New King James Version (nKJV) is because of ignorance
(not knowing). But I've found a cult within the Baptist
groups that distain learning, success, and anything unlike
themselves to the point it is practically a new set of
fundamentals

 

These notes were primarily information from earlier English translations that the translators used as reference. As you know, these translations were also based upon the received text which these translators trusted and considered to be the Word of God. I do not believe that they included variants from the critical text as the critical text had not been created yet.

 

I'll tend to disagree with that, for I have seen no evidence presented, or cited of such, save from that allegation being made. However, I also suspect that one would have to really ask that of Dr. Arthur L. Farstad, the Editor-in-Chief of the version. But since Dr. Farstad went home with the Lord in 1998, one could no more ask him, than could ask a similar question or questions of, say, any of the KJV, RV, or ASV translators, or Messers Tyndale, Coverdale, Beza, Luthur, Moffatt, Goodspeed, Beck, Darby, Williams, Verkyul, Young, Taylor, et. al., to name some more famous 'individuals' who either did or headed translations and/or versions. It is simply not possible to do so, and I personally detest 'hearsay'.

But it obviously is very possible to impugn motives, of any and/or all, from any perspective, when they cannot be possibly be questioned, hunh??

BTW and FTR, since none of the above I named are around to defend himself, I personally prefer to let them all rest in peace. If the Lord has reason to question such, I'd say He is more than able to do that, and I'll leave that to Him.

Ed

 

Should that not read "some current forms"? EdEdwards, for an example, normally quotes from two versions, one, a 1611 reproduction edition of the AV, (Which one publisher of, BTW, has a © on the very site where one can order a copy of this supposedly "not copywrited" Bible - :laugh: :laugh and the HCSB ©1999, 2000, 2002, 2003. Several have mentioned that there are some differences in spellings between 'English" editions, and especially 'Americanized' editions, that were originally 'boot-legged' in the printings, with deliberate intent, no doubt, primarily with the intent to avoid giving any credence to the English 'crown', originally. And unless I am greatly mistaken, there have been some 'variants' even into the late 1800s, to around the time of the publication of the RV in 1881. So this 'debate' (or sour-grapes, call it which one will ) has been ongoing for nearly four centuries.

Ed

 

I do not wish to be contentious on this point, but I think if we look a little deeper we will come to recognition of a significant difference.

As the referenced post above indicated, those that are superstitious are "addicted to superstition, and full of idle fancies and scruples in regard to religion." What is superstition exactly? An abbreviated definition from Webster's 1828 includes "...unnecessary scruples in the observance of religious rites not commanded,... the doing of things not required by God, or abstaining from things not forbidden; or the belief of what is absurd, or belief without evidence." The second definition given is simply "False religion; false worship." It is my opinion that when the AV was published in 1611 that the thought was that men at Athens were practicing false beliefs.

The NKJV substituted simply with the word religious. Briefly, religion is "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers... institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship... a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader... pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion" (from the American Heritage Dictionary). It seems the contemporary understanding of religious in the NKJV carries no meaning of falseness; this is the significant difference.

In Acts 17:22 the Greek word in question here in the English is deisidaimonesteros (Strong's #1174), the occurrence of this word in the NT. It is a compound word comprised of deilos (meaning timid, fearful) daimon (literally an inferior deity, but always an evil spirit in the NT). It is defined two ways in Thayer's: 1) in a 'good' sense as reverencing god or the gods, pious, religious; or 2) in a 'bad' sense, that is, superstitious.

Notice the context--

Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry. (Acts 17:16)

For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. (Acts 17:23)​

The Athenians were so fearful that they worshipped every god, including a potentially undiscovered god, just to avoid insulting it. Most, if not all, of this idolatry could trace its roots to demonic worship. Paul calls them "ignorant" (possibly to the point of being wrong or sinning through mistake); certainly not a benign or pleasant recognition of their practices.

I have attempted to show that superstitious carried a negative connotation of occultish worship then and now, that the current meaning of religious does not have. I agree that today, superstitious has shifted meaning somewhat to include the concept of a fearful state of mind resulting from ignorance or irrationality (as from 'magic' or chance).

 

Here is the funniest of the KJVs misunderstandings:
(not dynamic equivalence but pronoun resolution)

2 Kings 19:35 (KJV1769):
And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out,
and smote in the camp of the Assyrians
an hundred fourscore and five thousand:
and when they1 arose early in the morning,
behold, they2 were all dead corpses.

Of course, it is only funny if you
resolve the first "they1" as "the Assyrians"
and the second "they2" as "the Assyrians"
so it reads:

2 Kings 19:35 (KJV1769):
And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out,
and smote in the camp of the Assyrians
an hundred fourscore and five thousand:
and when the Assyrians arose early in the morning,
behold, the Assyrians were all dead corpses.

Compare to the clarity of the HCSB = The Holman Christian Standard Bible
The New King James Version
2 Kings 19 Read This Chapter

19:35
And it came to pass on a certain night that the angel F35
of the Lord went out, and killed in the camp of the Assyrians
one hundred and eighty-five thousand;
and when people arose early in the morning,
there were the corpses--all dead.

FOOTNOTES:
F35: Or Angel

(neatly, the nKJV shows that it could be "Angel of the Lord"
/Jesus/ - at least the Greek supports that understanding)

(note also that the KJVs don't even agree among
themselves about the Angel/angel:

2 Ki 19:35 (KJV1611 Edition):
And the same night the Angell of the Lord went out
and smote in the campe of Asshur
an hundreth foure score and fiue thousande:
so when they rose earely in the morning,
behold, they were all dead corpses.

 

Just to set the record, I am nNKJVO. That is "normally, NKJV Only", for that is the only version I usually use, and is the one I carry.

One of these days I'm considering acquiring a copy of the NT from 26 translations, to pack around as well as use it as my primarily NT source.

I 'figger' then I can claim to be KJV/RV/RSV/Berk/ASV/MoF/Beck/Darby/Tyn.....O. :laugh: :laugh:

I'd roughly estimate that should take about 150 charachters to get it all in.

And that would not even begin to include the NKJV/HCSB/ESV.../KJII/KJ21.... !

Ed

 

Pastor_Bob: //These notes were primarily information
from earlier English translations that the translators used
as reference. As you know, these translations were also
based upon the received text which these translators
trusted and considered to be the Word of God.
I do not believe that they included variants from
the critical text as the critical text had not been created yet.//

The nKJV Translators and the KJV Tranlsators did the same thing:
they took the source Language texts they had and
prayerfully determined which was the most likely true source
(documenting the variations). The nKJV followed the KJV
frequently but some damn the nKJV for even daring to mention
the critical text??? Sorry, I get upset when the nKJV is damned,
for me (55 years a Christian next week)
the development of the nKJV was news not history.

The KJVPs (King James Version Prefered, there weren't but a
handful of KJVOs back then) said it would be alright to make
a new translation if you used the Received Texts (yes,
plural Received Texts). Further it would be improved if
non-baby baptizers did the translation.
The Translators filled the bill of the KJVPs and did the
job of translation the nKJV according to the specifications of
the KJVPs. But today's KJVOs (sort of radical KJVPs) damn
the very nKJV which thier spiritual fathers specified.

I personally used the nKJV for 10 years, up to about 6 years
ago when I splattered coffee when teaching from 1st Corinthians
chapter 13 and ruined my book from the Love Chapter clear
to the end of MAPS. That nKJV even had the Scofield notes.
My first wife, God rest her soul, that I married had a
Scofield KJV. (Back then /1963/ everybody in the country
Southern Baptist church
had the same Scofield KJV1769 and the preacher would say things
like: Look at the second note on page 1245 )

Anyway, after the demise of the nKJV, I bought a
Tim LaHaye PROPHECY STUDY BIBLE based on the
KJV1769. When the HCSB Bible came out in Jan 2004,
I had a copy on order - it is better than the nKJV IMHO.

Here is how my 55 years went with main Bibles:

1952-1981 - 30 years - KJV1769
1982-1993 - 10 years - NIV
1993-2002 - 10 years - nKJV
2002-2003 - 02 years - KJV1769
2004-2007 - 03 years - HCSB

So over my lifetime I must say I'm KJVs preferred KJVP.

But the nKJV is still the inerrant Holy Bible preserved for
the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s: God's Written Word.
But it AIN'T the only one. :thumbs:

 

There are plenty of us who are fundamentalists, Rufus. But there are many fundamentalists who do not agree with KJVO thought. One can be fundamentalist and either accept or reject the KJVO thought. Being a KJVO adherant is not a prerequisite for being a fundamentalist, and vice versa.