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!

NKJV - 'splain somethin' to me

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Phillip, Mar 16, 2004.

Top Posters
Page 1 of 3
  1. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay, according to the editors and publishers of the NKJV they claimed it was translated from the same "received text", "Messionic text", etc. etc. as the old KJV.

    The KJVO's say "NO WAY".....

    I figured it was actually marketed as a way to get a KJVO (who was obviously not a Ruckmanite) to consider using it based on the source documents.

    Okay, who is right. The publishers or the KJVO crowd?

    KJVO -- U are welcome to answer, too. But, I also want to hear from the non-KJVO crowd.

    In reality, I would like a little detailed reality about the background of the NKJV.

    Jump on in, its gonna get deep! [​IMG]
     
    #1 Phillip, Mar 16, 2004
  2. tinytim

    tinytim <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    the KJVO hates the footnotes that state differences between the TR, NU, and Majority texts.
     
    #2 tinytim, Mar 16, 2004
  3. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Back in the 70s the KJVOs said that
    they might accept a translation, if
    it was based on the TR (textus receptus).
    Unfortunately they didn't bother to
    listen to the anti-KJVOs who reminded
    them that the TR is a set of sources.
    The exact text of members of the TR
    vary several 100 places.

    What the KJVOs really can't stand is
    word variations.
    If one KJV edition varies from another
    KJV edition, KJVOs ignore it.
    IF one MV varies from another MV they
    shout it.

    So certain translatros who were Methodists,
    Presberterians, Baptists, and Lutherans
    got together and made a translation.

    The KJVOs also forgot that there are places
    where the KJV uses non-TR sources for their
    source.

    The NKJV has the source variations carefully
    documented. The KJVOs have stripped all
    source varioations (presenet in the KJV1611)
    from their favorite KJV edditons (usually
    1769 and 1762).
    The nKJV is honest.
    KJVs with no margin notes are dishonest.

    KJV was translated by anti-Baptits Anglicans.
    NKJV was translated by partial Baptists.

    Sorry, the nKJV is the inerrant
    preserved Written Word of God.

    [​IMG]
     
    #3 Ed Edwards, Mar 16, 2004
  4. Jim Ward

    Jim Ward New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    0
    You can claim it, but can you prove it?
     
    #4 Jim Ward, Mar 16, 2004
  5. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gotcha, I somehow thought that was the answer. So, if I were to sit down with a KJV and change the "thou's" to "you" and correct the "thee's", "whosoevers", "verily, verily's" among other words, but don't add ANY text changes. Don't try to retranslate because my sentence structure would change. Just change the "thee's" and "thou's". Of course I would have to leave out any footnotes, explaining other texts, that are not already found in the KJV. Then SOME (the half that believe it is the "source" that is correct--not the "inspired translationists") just might accept it.

    Yep. That's what I thought. I wonder why some genius Bible salesman hasn't thought of that angle (yet they probably have and the market share was too small)........!? :rolleyes:

    Yes, I am aware of the fact that there were thirteen different and incomplete copies of The Revelation of Jesus Christ that were pieced together--literally some sentences spliced together from one to another by the KJV translators in 1611. I've always suspected that there is (and was) "no REAL" or "complete" -- "received text" in one place that was not put together by either the KJV translators or some other group "after the fact".

    In fact, it is my understanding that there were much better copies of the OT Hebrew text than the Received Text, am I right?

    Go ahead KJVO's jump in here. Don't give us the old song and dance, give us some SPECIFICS, why you do not like it and why some of you have claimed the original sources were not used. I want some proof here, not retoric. Let's hear your story!!!!! :D :D :D
     
    #5 Phillip, Mar 16, 2004
  6. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    done 1994,
    The 21st Century King James Version (KJ21).
    Haven't seen much against it.
    Haven't seen anything for it.

    Here it is denounced:

    Partial List of Corrupt New Versions

    [​IMG]
     
    #6 Ed Edwards, Mar 16, 2004
  7. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    You can claim it, but can you prove it? </font>[/QUOTE]The same way
    that some do with the KJV,
    it is axiomatic. (of source, most
    who do the KJV only don't even
    know what an axiom is nor how long
    to cook it [​IMG] )
     
    #7 Ed Edwards, Mar 16, 2004
  8. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    You can claim it, but can you prove it? </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, how easy it would be to apply all the standard KJV-Onlyist cliches to the NKJV here...

    "What? Are you doubting the very words of God? Satan did that in the garden when he hissed, 'Did God say...?' (Gen. 3:1)"

    etc., etc. [​IMG]
     
    #8 Archangel7, Mar 17, 2004
  9. Jim Ward

    Jim Ward New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    0
    As I thought Ed, you can't prove your claim. All you can do when pressed to do is make more attacks on the word of God. Shame on you for haing a pic with you smiling while you engage in such a horrible action. Any who consider you their friend should likewise be ashamed.


    Same to Archangel, minus the pic comment.

    Once again, we have mv "defenders" and truth haters showing the utter fallacy of the mv myth, and how they would rather enjoy their double-standards and attacks on the word of God rather be lovers of truth.

    I pity the both of you.


    Jim
     
    #9 Jim Ward, Mar 17, 2004
  10. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    I note in the anti-nKJV literature, that
    the more is made of the triskelion
    symbol that Nelson put on
    the title page than the translated text.
    Tee Hee, i didn't know
    that triskelion was the devil's paw
    print until a KJVO told me. I always
    thought it was an easy to make
    geometric figure. DUH, what a dense-on
    there, Bro. Ed [​IMG]
     
    #10 Ed Edwards, Mar 17, 2004
  11. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    You can claim it, but can you prove it? </font>[/QUOTE]You cannot prove your assumption either. [​IMG]
     
    #11 Terry_Herrington, Mar 17, 2004
  12. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    You can claim it, but can you prove it? </font>[/QUOTE]You cannot prove your assumption either. [​IMG] </font>[/QUOTE]I have the moral highground;
    I know what it means to make an assumption,
    what the assumption i made is,
    how the assumption logically works in with
    my final conclusions, and how long to cook
    an axiom.

    [​IMG]
     
    #12 Ed Edwards, Mar 17, 2004
  13. Orvie

    Orvie New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jim, you are truly a commedian! Your KJVO:kjbo paranoia is showing again...maybe Ed's showing his pic b/c he's not ashamed of his position. :rolleyes: And to call MV advocates "Truth Haters" is a lie. I hope you see your error of giving the Anglican Translators who couldn't stand Baptists the status of prophets instead of interpretors. If you put the AV translators on equal footing as the writers of the Originals, Moses,David, Paul, Peter, John, etc, then you're a heretic(k). Confess your Nehushtan Pickled Version Sect views, then you can move on from your paranoia and KJVO:kjbo type meanness.
    "I pity you"- you don't pity anyone, you look down on those of us who reject your unScriptural man made myth...kind of like a Pharisee. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
     
    #13 Orvie, Mar 17, 2004
  14. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    "Shame on you" . . "Pity you", you say?

    Jim, your post is a caricature of what many feel is the WORST about the only sect.

    And to attack poor Ed just because his picture looks so, so, so much like him . . that is truly lower than low.

    You probably mock my bowtie or my gray hair because I believe the Greek text . .

    Reminds me of a petulant youth in II Kings 2:23 (NASB) "Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him . . . "

    We all know what happened to them!
     
    #14 Dr. Bob, Mar 17, 2004
  15. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It's simple.
    "Things which are different are not the same".

    HankD
     
    #15 HankD, Mar 17, 2004
  16. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    done 1994,
    The 21st Century King James Version (KJ21).
    Haven't seen much against it.
    Haven't seen anything for it.

    Here it is denounced:

    Partial List of Corrupt New Versions

    [​IMG]     </font>[/QUOTE]Hi Ed, thanks for the link. I do hope you realize that I was talking "tongue-in-cheek" when I said to take a KJV and change its words without changing anything else or translating it. My point was, that it may be the only way some of the KJVO's might have accepted it. I just hope you realized I was not being serious about that making a good translation. [​IMG]

    I now realize that KJV's are not even going to give up their thees and thous because it is "thus" that the KJV is inspired by. :D

    Without their "High-End Religious Archaic Old English" there can be no Bible in English. Modern words simply cannot transmit the honor and glory of the Word of GOd to the English speaking masses. ;)

    No market for the big Bible companies there. [​IMG] :rolleyes:
     
    #16 Phillip, Mar 17, 2004
  17. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Boy, I guess stuff is going right over my head. I just looked at your list. haha

    Okay, gotcha, I'm a little slow these days......
     
    #17 Phillip, Mar 17, 2004
  18. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    All I'm pointing out is that the very same arguments used to "prove" that the KJV *alone* is the word of God for English-speaking people can also be used to "prove" the same for the NKJV.
     
    #18 Archangel7, Mar 17, 2004
  19. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, Jim, since nowhere in the Bible does it say that God would maintain his inspired word in ENGLISH, then as far as I am concerned you are doing the same thing when you talk about my ESV. Shame on you for calling my translation of The Word of God a fallacy.

    If I have provided a new translation to an African nation that never had a Bible before, I must be a sinner in your book because it is not a KJV.

    By the way, which KJV version is inerrant?

    Ah well, same ol', same ol'. As long as it was good enough for Paul ..................
     
    #19 Phillip, Mar 17, 2004
  20. Trotter

    Trotter <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,818
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Well, Jim aside, I actually prefer the NKJV. I love its readability, and it holds to the same basic formula as the KJV (you can actually recognize the verses as the same ones).

    I also love the marginal notes that show the alternates and the omissions. I have discovered that most KJB's don't have the decency to let it be known that there just might be a different rendering. While most of these notes don't really change the meaning of the text, they do offer a glimpse into the deep riches that we have in God's word.

    Oh, and, Jim, they are all God's word. I know, I know, you have been immersed into your "the King James is the only WORD of God" mindlessness, and I must applaud your loyalty (as misplaced as it is), but facts are facts. Just because I don't adhere to your dogma of KJVO doesn't change the issue at all. Both the KJV and the NKJV (as well as the NASB, ESV, NIV, etc, etc) are translations of the Hebrew and Greek texts. Not the originals, which have long since vanished beneath the sands of time, but from copies that were faithfully written and handed down.

    Anyway. I guess I've said enough to be lamblasted. Pardon me while I go fill some extra sandbags...

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
    #20 Trotter, Mar 17, 2004
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 3
Loading...