1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Does the NKJV Follow the TR Texts?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Dr. Bob, Aug 25, 2004.

Top Posters
Page 3 of 7
  1. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    It's a Hebrew word transliterated into English.

    The English singular word is cherub, they should nave used cherubs if they wanted it to be correct english and cherubim not cherubims if they wanted it to be correct Hebrew.

    One entry found for cherub at Merriam-Webster Online, found in the public domain at :
    http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=cherubim

    Main Entry: cher·ub
    Function: noun
    Inflected Form(s): plural usually cher·u·bim
    Etymology: Latin, from Greek cheroub, from Hebrew kerubh
    1 plural : an order of angels -- see CELESTIAL HIERARCHY
    2 plural usually cherubs a : a usually winged child in painting and sculpture b : an innocent-looking usually chubby and rosy person
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Do you honestly think the 47 scholarly translators would have translated cherubims with the "s" if it was incorrect? Please Hank. This was obviously a printing error that was corrected. You think you are as smart and knowledgable as the KJB translators? Give me a break.

    Cherubim can be used as singular and plural in our language as you so wonderfully proved above.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
    #41 michelle, Aug 25, 2004
  2. David J

    David J New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    So far the only people that have provided any proof are non-KJVOist.

    I would like to see the evidence in the TR that proves the NKJV is not a real TR bible etc...No spin, no hear say, etc... just post the facts so that I can research it for myself.

    Thank you.
     
    #42 David J, Aug 25, 2004
  3. Orvie

    Orvie New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    I gotta little chuckle here where you said how smart and knowledgeable the AV translators were (which, despite their theology, I agree)however, when it comes to their preface, then they aren't so smart since they acknowledged their use of the Original, and that they also proved they were not KJVO by saying "a variety of translations are profitable for understanding the sense of the Scriptures"- Michelle, don't you see the double standard? we know you love God's Word, but most of us believe your zeal is misinformed, or misguided.
    God bless!
     
    #43 Orvie, Aug 25, 2004
  4. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not to mention that, by Michelle's own line of thinking, the KJV translators were committing blasphemy when they referred to the occurrence of "lucifer" as "day starre".
     
    #44 Johnv, Aug 25, 2004
  5. Marcia

    Marcia Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    1
    [​IMG] [​IMG] Thanks for my laugh for the day!
     
    #45 Marcia, Aug 25, 2004
  6. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, The KJV was not based on the 1550 Stephanos. It was based on 1598 Beza's.
     
    #46 Askjo, Aug 25, 2004
  7. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The Stephens 1550 and Beza's 1588-89 differ very little. Both of these texts are but a slight modification of Erasmus' Greek text. The translators undoubtedly considered this agreement very weighty in their translation decisions.
     
    #47 Pastor_Bob, Aug 25, 2004
  8. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exactly, and there is little dispute that Stephen's 1550 is legitamately called the TR.

    Bro Tony
     
    #48 Bro Tony, Aug 25, 2004
  9. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    The NKJV excluded the TR - 40%!!!!
     
    #49 Askjo, Aug 25, 2004
  10. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Old Timer, you have excellent examples of many verses that the NKJV messed up. [​IMG]
     
    #50 Askjo, Aug 25, 2004
  11. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Correct.
     
    #51 Askjo, Aug 25, 2004
  12. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    Apparently not in the case of Mark 13:6 & Luke 21:8. OT tried to make the case that the NKJV is wrong because it leaves out Christ while the KJV adds Christ (in italics). The TR does not have the word Christ in these two verses. Tell me how did the NKJV mess up?

    Bro Tony
     
    #52 Bro Tony, Aug 25, 2004
  13. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Where did the NKJV get its 40% non-TR words?
     
    #53 Askjo, Aug 25, 2004
  14. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    What is your source for that statement?
    Again, what is your source for that statement?

    While we're at it, the MKJV uses the same source texts as the KJV1611 and its two major revisions. Since the MKJV uses the same source texts 100%, then what is the problem you have with the MKJV, if your beef is source text authority?
     
    #54 Johnv, Aug 25, 2004
  15. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Where did the NKJV get its 40% non-TR words? </font>[/QUOTE]I have not heard this assertion before. Could you provide a link or a source so that I might check it out myself?
     
    #55 Pastor_Bob, Aug 25, 2004
  16. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can I get an answer?

    Bro Tony
     
    #56 Bro Tony, Aug 25, 2004
  17. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Click here: Itself or Himself
     
    #57 Askjo, Aug 25, 2004
  18. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because the Gospels were writing by 4 godly men. These 4 Gospels are not translations. You confuse the difference between the writings and translations.
     
    #58 Askjo, Aug 25, 2004
  19. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    The statement has been made that the NKJV does not follow the TR, but the KJV does. Scriptures were given by KJVO (OT) that NKJV was in correct in its rendering of Mark 13:6 & Luke 21:8. In looking at Greek TR I have stated that it does not use the word Christ in either verse. The KJV adds Christ. It has been said that the NKJV messed it up. I am still waiting for someone to deal with this.

    Bro Tony
     
    #59 Bro Tony, Aug 25, 2004
  20. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Stephens 1550 and Beza's 1588-89 differ very little. </font>[/QUOTE]Correct! I agree with you.
     
    #60 Askjo, Aug 25, 2004
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 3 of 7
Loading...