Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Yeshua1, Oct 19, 2012.
In best representing the original texts?
If I'm not mistaken your preferred Bible version is the NASB. Apologies in advance if I'm incorrect about that.
What is your point in this series of threads that continue to question the KJB? From your posts, you appear to be very aware of the issues in this controversy. What do you hope to accomplish?
If you prefer the NASB, that's fine with me. It's your freedom of choice. Therefore, shouldn't it be OK with you that I prefer the KJB? Should I be continually trying to put you on the defensive about your preference? Or, perhaps better stated, continually trying to cast doubt on your preference?
It is a legitimate question- the NKJV is not the KJV, so why bring the KJV up here? No one is dissing your choice of the KJV here.
It would help to examine the preface of the versions.
Generally, for those deeply committed to the KJV, the "New King James Version" fulfills their need.
And for those concerned with "assessibility" (understanding in today's language), the New International Version is available.
Both represent scripture as it was delivered to us.
Mexdeaf, couldn't help but smile at this one.
"The NKJV is not the KJV". You are so right about that! :thumbsup:
However, for many who most strongly oppose the KJB, the NKJV and the KJB are one and the same, based on the stated source materials used by the translation teams.
If I understand Yeshua1's viewpoint, he is a strong advocate of modern versions, based on NAn and UBSn translations. He has many posts that serve to question ie cast doubt on the validity of the KJB. Which would in turn cast similar doubts on an "updated" version, if he following through with his opinion.
If I'm incorrect, please feel free to offer corrections. Wouldn't be the first time I'm stumped my toe and put my foot in my mouth.
NOT against KJV as a translation, just oppossed to KJVO position about it!
And was asking of the those translation, which reflects the best understanding/rendering of the grek/hebrew texts to us in english!
Funny how KJVO's place the KJV with the NKJV when it suits their purpose.
For the love of mike, who has ever opposed the KJV here? Please show us one post in opposition to the KJV. I've seen plenty in opposition to the KJVO position that "this is the only Bible, all others are of the Devil", but never seen one stating that the KJV was "corrupted", "of the Devil", or any such.
I do not believe that Yeshua (or anyone else who posts here) intends to cast doubt on the KJV like the KJVO's tend to cast doubt on the MV's.
problem is that IF you are against the KJVO position, they take it as being against the KJV itself!
I have found that to be true in a lot of cases, and it is unfortunate. On the other hand, some try to link all KJVO with Ruckman, and that is not right either. I know several KJVO that do not agree with Ruckman, or Riplinger, for that matter. They base their belief on the longevity of the KJV, but fail to give mss' that some of the newer versions use that are older the same respect. There never seems to be rhyme or reason with extreme positions, no matter what side you are on.
I have not studied the text of the NIV 2011, but I just ordered one for my library and may comment on it at a later date. It is a large print indexed study bible that weights over 5 pounds, so I don't think I will be lugging it to church without a wheelbarrow.
I like the NKJV text, but I have heard the NIV 2011 is very accurate as well. The major negative I hear is the polically correct charge conderning gender. I will save my judgement until I get the bible in hand and have time to study.
I've always felt that Curly was the most accurate of the three, more so that "Moe" or Larry. :type:
Mexdeaf, isn't there an old saying, that if you don't like the message, shoot the messenger?
This controversy, at its core, is the underlying source documents used for English Bibles that culminated with the KJB and those used by MV that began in the 1880's. At least that's my understanding, at this point in time.
Generally, here (there's no way I'd have time to search all these posts), most posters acknowledge the KJB is a "good" translation.
Yet, if anyone states the KJB is best, in their opinion, many will shoot the messenger. In doing so, part of the ammunition used, is to cast as much doubt as possible on the validity of the KJB. The implication, while not directly stated, is clear.
In my opinion, that is not the core of the issue.
Many KJV-only accusations or attacks on modern translations involve translational issues, not textual.
The NKJV and some other present English Bibles are based on the same underlying original language texts as the KJV and the 1560 Geneva Bible.
Baptists and other believers made a revision of the KJV that was printed in 1842.
I disagree. Believers who disagree with the KJV-only view are not shooting the messenger.
The unproven opinion that the KJV is the best overall English translation is not the opinion to which there are strong objections.
I am open to the possibility of the KJV being the best overall English translation, but I have not yet seen proper objective evidence that demonstrates that it actually is. I have seen proper evidence from a comparison to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages that indicates that another English translation such as the 1560 Geneva Bible or the NKJV is more accurate than the KJV in at least some places.
It is the making of incorrect exclusive only claims for the KJV such as claiming that the KJV is perfect, inerrant, or inspired and broad-sweeping KJV-only attacks on all modern translations that would receive proper objections.
Haha, good one, John! Gotta watch those misspellings especially when they appear in the titles of the posts!
If the KJV were the best, it should be easier to read for most Americans aged 20 and younger. I, at 36, have no problem with it, but I was brought up with it and memorized verses from it from an early age. But my 9 year old daughter, who's an avid reader, can't read it very well. She reads the NIVr pretty efficiently though, even more easily than the NLT-SE, which often throws in bigger words for no apparent reason.
Big difference between one position being that the KJV underlining text better reflected the originals, so a superior version than saying that it ONLY was a valid one, as modern versions based upon corrupted/satanic inspired Text!
The NKJV is more accurate. In fact, sometimes it is more accurate than the NASB.
NKJV is a FE translation, while the NIV is a mediating translation. Unfortunately, the 2011 NIV is less accurate than the NIV 1984, due to the introduction of gender inclusive language and changing singulars to plurals in order to accomodate women.
IMHO, the NIV2011 is NOT as accurate as the 1984 and it is because of what you stated=the introduction of gender inclusive language, as well as changing singulars to plurals to accomodate women. I purchased a huge 2011 NIV Study Bible in Large Print, read some, said 'Blaaaaaaaah!!'; I unfortunately lost the cashier's ticket, so it is under the bed gathering dust:thumbs:
NIV 2011 is by far more accurate