What about the NKJV - part two

Amen, Brother BruceB -- Preach it! :thumbs:

 

Today I purchased, for $4.95 at a local used bookstore, the book entitled The New King James Version in the Great Tradition by Arthur L. Farstad. I was amazed to learn that some of the things I took for granted regarding the NKJV are not exactly as I thought. It does go into great detail about what role the Textus Receptus, the critical text (Nestle/Aland & UBS), and the Majority Text plays in the translation.

It was interesting to learn that "it was planned to use the majority text as the translation base for the NKJV New Testament. But deeper reflection led us to adhere to the traditional King James text and to reflect the majority text (M) in the notes along with the critical text (NU)." pg. 116

 

I appreciate your comments Pastor Bob. I don't have it with me (visiting grandkids ) but I have one of the original NKJVs and in their preface the translators make mention of that fact.

I am fully convinced in my own heart that the translation itself is based on the same basic textual body (as much as 350 years will allow) using the same philosophy of translation as the KJV.

Hence, I think we need to prayerfully consider not including this particular version when we discuss the "MVs".

Translator notes are not part of scripture. I think most Christian realise that and therefore the inclusion of the notes should not negate the value of the translation.

 

Amen, Roger.

I use the NKJV almost exclusively (unless I am studying), and have no doubts as to its authenticity. The foreword explains exactly how they went about translating the NKJV, and it also explains why the notes about other manuscripts are included. To me, they add an extra helping of integrity.

I hope you enjoy yor read, Pastor_Bob, and I hope you see what we already know. The Av and the NKJV ain't that different, except for the thee's and thou's.

 

Let us not forget that the old AV has many translator notes. While they're not Scripture, they often explain why the translators chose a particular rendering outta several available ones.

To the critix of the NKJV who holler "It doesn't follow the Masoretic text here or the TR there, I say, "So what?"

The NKJV has lately become my everyday version.

 

Even if a version is primarily based upon the same original language text and generally uses formal equivalency as its method of interpretation the results can very different. Notice the difference in Proverbs 19:18 --

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

Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying. (KJV)​

I think that some folks need to come to grips with the fact that the NKJV and KJV are NOT as close as the monikers might imply. The NKJV is not just modernizing "thee" and "thou"; its not merely updating punctuation and capitalization. They often offer competing interpretations of the text (occasionally different text) which will lead to the readers receiving different understandings, and consequently drawing different conclusions (or applications).

 

Many people don’t read the Foreword. They should!
It may be dry to some but one should certainly read the foreword of a translation before condemning the translators work. Lot’s of meat about translational philosophy in them.

I think you will find that recent English translations of quality usually use a quite a few textual notes to indicate major variants (although the NASB to its detriment doesn’t make many).

It’s curious to see where one translation made a note and compare it to where another version makes its notes.
I would agree with you Trotter; these notes increase the translations integrity rather than diminishing its value.

You’ll also find that there are departures from their chosen Greek text in each translation; yes, even in the KJV.

Rob

 

When the underlying original language word has two (or more) possible meanings that are justifiable within the context, the NKJV often takes the alternate meaning from that which is presented in the KJV. Look at 1 Thessalonians 5:22 for example --

Abstain from every form of evil. (NKJV)

Abstain from all appearance of evil. (KJV)​

The divergence occurs over the Greek word eidos (Strong's #1491) which is defined two ways by Thayer's: 1) the external or outward appearance, form figure, shape; or 2) form, kind. This word only appears four other times in the NT: the KJV renders it otherwise as "shape" twice, "fashion" and "sight" once each.

It seems the NKJV editors are aware of the first definition; observe Luke 9:29 in each version --

As He prayed, the appearance of His face was altered, and His robe became white and glistening. (NKJV)

And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment [was] white [and] glistering. (KJV)​

The word "appearance" is defined several ways but essentially it is the act of coming into sight or becoming visible to the eye, that is, semblance or apparent likeness (from Webster's 1828). The definition of "form" is the shape and structure of an object, that is, the mode in which a thing manifests itself, but also a particular type or example (from The American Heritage Dictionary). It does not seem that "appearance" has any archaic meaning of 'type' or 'kind'.

An alert reader should definately recognize the dissimilar meanings between this pair of renderings. I had always been taught that the KJV meant that Christians should shun anything that was tainted with the mere suggestion of impropriety. Is perception always the same as reality? Cannot a bad reputation be undeserved and be reclaimed? Meanwhile, the NKJV relates to me that we should be sure to categorically refrain from each and every identified wrongdoing. Is everything that is "evil" clearly labeled as such? And is it enough that we avoid those actions 'officially' sanctioned as off-limits while we are free to indulge in the rest?

Due to the brevity of the closing remarks of Paul in this letter, the immediate context seems to be just one preceding verse. In my opinion, it may lend some credence to the NKJV interpretation --

Test all things; hold fast what is good. (NKJV)

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (KJV)​

After the testing is complete we should have ascertained that which is good (distict from that which is bad). I think that "all appearance" seems unconfirmed, while "every form" of evil is more definite and makes a better contrast in connection with "what is" good.

But a reader might conclude that only one can reflect the author's original intended message... unless he intended both! Unfortunately, there is not an English equivalent to the Greek that could articulate such a dualistic thought. Assuming the author only had one meaning in mind, both versions could be considered rendered properly. I make no recommendation of one over the other here, my purpose is but to examine and make plain the disparity.

 

The NKJV is what's on the agenda for my '08 Bible-in-a-year plan. I have the Macarthur study Bible. I'm currently using the HCSB, my favorite so far.

 

(Item copied fromthe first topic with the same name.
But a few changes were made: pronoun agreement,
gender preservation, tense correction, spelling enhansement,
etc.)

From the first topic with the same name:

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 the first week in April)
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).

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:

 

The 1557 Whittingham's New Testament (one of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision) translated 1 Thessalonians 5:22 as follows: "Abstain from all kind of evil." Condit suggested that Whittingham’s rendering at this verse was superior to the KJV’s rendering (History, pp. 239-240). The 1602 Spanish Valera Bible as reprinted by the International Bible Association has the rendering "especie de mal" [species or kind of evil]. The 1543 Enzinas Spanish N. T. as reprinted by the Broken Arrow Baptist Church has the rendering "genero de mal" [kind or class of evil].

In his commentary on Thessalonians, Gordon Clark noted that the Greek noun [eidos] in this verse in theology "almost always means kind or species" (p. 69). Spiros Zodhiates wrote that this Greek noun in this verse referred to "the form of evil" (Complete Word Study Dictionary, p. 507). Concerning 1 Thessalonians 5:22, A. T. Robertson pointed out that "the papyri give several examples of eidos in the sense of class or kind and that idea suits best here" (Word Pictures, IV, p. 38). In his commentary on Thessalonians, William Hendriksen indicated that this verse means: "From every form (or kind, not appearance here) of evil hold off" (p. 140). Concerning "appearance," Marvin Vincent wrote: "As commonly explained, abstain from everything that even looks like evil. But the word signifies form or kind. Compare Luke 3:22; John 5:37. . . . It never has the sense of semblance. Moreover, it is impossible to abstain from everything that looks like evil" (Word Studies, IV, p. 51).

On the other hand, Marty Braemer, a KJV-only advocate, made the following claim concerning this verse in the NIV: "The NIV translators have needlessly redirected the reader's attention toward cold religion instead of warm relationships, toward creating lists of sins to avoid instead of cultivating a loving sensitivity for others, toward actions instead of attitudes, toward good words instead of good will, and toward self-righteousness instead of self-restraint" (This Little Light, p. 61). Ruckman contended: "If the Greek text implies, 'Abstain from every form of evil,' the A. V. 1611 narrows the meaning to the exact warning" (Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, p. 138). Concerning this verse in other translations, Stauffer claimed: "Their proclamations limit the warning only to those things that are evil or wicked in themselves, rather than including the things that have a simple appearance of evil" (One Book, p. 197).

 

The KJV and NKJV are just as close as the KJV and the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision.

 

NKJV part 2

Pastor Bob & Roger,
I mentioned your note & comments to a friend and he sent me here:

http://jesus-is-lord.com/nkjvdead.htm

raying:

 

I have seen that list before - it starts with this:

1. The text of the NKJV is copyrighted by Thomas Nelson Publishers, while there is no copyright today on the text of the KJV. If your KJV has maps or notes, then it may have a copyright, but the text itself does not.

The text of my Oxford KJV has a full copyright - I have posted it here several times.

The rest is a biased reckoning of the NKJV. I would heartily recommend a detailed study on your own from a variety of sources. Weigh out the evidence and see what happens.

 

Melton is about as believable on versions matters as Chairman Mao was to the people of Mongolia & Tibet. He believes the false "seven church ages" doctrine as well as KJVO. I hope ya do as Roger suggests & sort out fact from fiction YOURSELF, & take mosta the anti-NKJV literature with a grain of salt.

 

The whole of that list has been successfully
debated in this Forum in the past.
The most error prone, 'speaking as a fool', attack
is this:

It is a lie from the git-go.
It took them eight years to figure it out
(or eight years to get up the nerve)?

My reproduction of the KJV1611, 3rd Edition,
has on the cover page a picture of the Sun God:
Sol Invictus.

On truth there: Riplinger's tract on the nKJV
does have some of the same lies about the
symbol.

Bottom line is: the symbol is NOT a part
of the translation of the nKJV, it is a
symbol put on the book - no more dangerous
than having added the book of MAPS

A 1995 Edition of the nKJV that my Beloved Wife has
says:

So people who print the nKJV remind us of the
Blessed Holy Trinity. By contrast those who Bible Bash
the nKJV remind us of Pagans. This tell me a lot about
the forces at work here

 

First of all, thanks to BruceB for reopening his subject, and I am glad to see it is a more temperate discussion than the previous effort which at times was so far from the OP that I thought kicking it all off again would be a waste of time. I appreciate Pastor Bob's candour on the subject too.

OK. That said, I have one question, which might seem off topic, but it will have a great bearing on this area for me. Today, I heard a preacher say that the Septuagint was a dynamic equivelence translation. Is that so? Can anyone shed light on it?

 

Ulsterman: //Today, I heard a preacher say that the Septuagint
was a dynamic equivelence translation. Is that so?//

I don't know. I do know:
'Dynamic equivelence' is used by some Bible Bashers to
discredit any version/source they don't like. Some people
don't like the Septuagint because it provides a
second source for the Old Testament (OT). And it
doesn't always agree with the Hebrew sources

The nKJV is no more a 'dynamic equivelence' than
the KJV1611 Edition, Authorized KJV1762 Edition,
Authorized KJV1769 Edition, or KJV1873 Edition,
or the totally unauthorized 'Authorized'
Ameican Bible Society KJV1850 Edition.

The nKJV conatins the Written Word of God:
inerrant and preserved for this Generaion: Holy Bible.

 

Friend, may I suggest beginning a new thread for this topic. This question will most certainly take this thread far off course, and we all know how some members hate when that happens.

It also seems as if some are bent on fanning the flame and baiting the KJVO here on the board. This thread needs to remain a civil discussion on the NKJV, pro or con, without resorting to name-calling or attacks on a philosophy.