NKJV vs KJV accuracy

Isn't the Wyclife ( BibleGateway.com )

Matthew 28:19 (Wycliffe New Testament)

Wycliffe New Testament (WYC)2001 by Terrence P. Noble,


19 Therefore go ye, and teach all folks, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;


Quite a folksy translation, eh?

 

"It ain't the KJV" still reigns as the number one reason.

All the examples given are differences in the language over nearly 400 years of usage.

 

Hi Mexdeaf & annsni


I have saved your two responses for last, because I want to pick your brains a little.
--------------------------------------------------
First of all, this all started, when I was asked to give an example, of where the NKJV, and the KJV, used different words, and sure enough I found one.
--------------------------------------------------
Now Mexdeaf; You said........

As far as I know, the KJVO’s were popular, from about 1700 to 1900 AD,

Now are you talking about “years before that”?
--------------------------------------------------
And as for what preachers were saying(behind the pulpits), and what the crowds were yelling, anytime before 1865 or so, we don’t know for sure.
Recording devices weren’t around then and so all we have is second hand information.
--------------------------------------------------
Now, annsni
You mentioned the word “matheteuo”

Now here, is what I have learned about the word “teach” in this verse.......
“It’s a Verb”
-----------
Strong’s Definition:

-----------
Thayer’s Definition:

-------------------------------------
Now as for the word “disciple”:
“It’s a Noun”
-----------
Strong’s Definition:

-----------
Thayer’s Definition:

--------------------------------------------------
As you can see, the word “disciple”(noun), is found about 269 times in the New Testament, while the word that we are looking at (“teach”, verb), is only found about 4 times.
It is translated once, “teach”, and then another time “taught” another time “instructed” and one time “Jesus’ disciple”.

If the Lord had wanted to say disciple, He surely could have, but He didn’t.

Instead He said this other word. The same word, that (The Bishop's Bible), (The Coverdale Bible), (The Geneva Bible), (The Webster Bible) and (The KJV Bible), all translate “teach”.
While Bible’s like the NIV, RSV, NASB, etc, translate, “Make Disciples”.

Now the question is, which is the correct interpretation?
--------------------------------------------------
An interesting observation, that I have made.

A few yeas ago, as I was writing a paper, and used the word, discipled. My word processor, put a red line under it, because it was misspelled.

After going to my dictionary, I discovered, that it wasn’t misspelled after all, because the word discipled, does not exist.

Neither do the words, discipleship nor discipling, exist.

Using these words, would be like saying, “Studented”, or “Studentship” or “Studenting”.
--------------------------------------------------
I would love, to be able to make people want to sit at Jesus feet and learn God’s Word.
But this is a decision, that each individual Christian must make themselves!


Thank you, for any help you can give me.

 

You are making a mental leap here that I can't follow. "They" are the wicked? What other verses support "they"? Can you expand on this?

 

You are creating a difference where there is none.

"Teach" and "Make disciples" mean the exact same thing. The both involve the process of teaching, training, discipling, and indeed, if you wish, studenting.

Don't be limited by dictionaries secular dictionaries when discussing Bible concepts. They are nice tools, but that is all.

If you want an example of a real difference look at 1 John 5v12 in the KJV1611, the KJV 1769, and the NKJV.

 

OED is Oxford English Dictionary. My primary comment was addressing an English definition.

My question did relate to Hebrew. Your answer was not helpful, however.

The KJV probably ends up with "meet" exactly the same way that the NIV, NLT(vs 20) and NASB ended up with "suitable" and the ESV and RSV ended up with "fit". Perhaps there is more to it than a simple word substitution. This suggests that your comment is either incomplete or in error.

For now I will withdraw my (partial) statement " "help meet" is translated from one Hebrew word" because I need to study the passage more.

Unless you can help me choose between a LM329 and a LM336 I have to go back to my antenna farming.

God Bless all
good night

 

You wouldn't side track us would you C4K? :)

 

Nope, the theme is accuracy of the KJV and NKJV. Some have claimed that they have chosen the KJV and not the NKJV because they are not the same. The examples given here as to meaning are far less than the differences in that one verse.

 

Ok, I think I will keep my head down in case we get the usual riot!

God bless

A.F.

 

It makes perfect sense. The Bible itself gives you no reason to choose the KJV as a point of reference. In other words, you will not find one verse in the Bible that makes the KJV the point of reference.

There are no original manuscripts. But you talk about my reading things you didn't say. You didn't read what I did say. I said "original language manuscripts." And there are many of those.

No I don't think you grasp it. Your responses are misleading. You have no biblical basis for using the KJV as a reference point. And if you are correct that the KJV is the reference point, then most of church history has had no reference point. And I could give other reasons.

 

I am not sure why you are asking the question. You are operating under the flawed knowledge that mathetheuo can only mean "teach." You are wrong. It means to make disciples. The noun form (mathetes) means "disciple." The verb form means "make disciples."

So versions that say "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" are correctly translating the passage.

 

"Perhaps whomever programmed your word processor might need to become a better disciple of the English language!"

Signed, Language Cop

 

Ya' beat me to this one.

But one might add the Tyndale (TNT), KJ21, Third Millenium Bible, Douai-Reims, and I would strongly suspect the KJII (LITV) to the list, that now includes some 10 or more different editions/versions that do render this word as "teach".

However, I also found this:

Even the KJV translators recognized the 'alternative(s)' amounted to the same thing. Interesting, wot!??

Ed

P.S. I'm t'other Ed, so no one gets confused. :thumbs:

 

Hi AntennaFarmer

Please forgive me, for almost getting this tread off track.......
I did not intend to do that.
--------------------------------------------------
As for why, all of us should use the KJV as a point of reference......
(Here is a good reason!)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MONphmfQmbk

 

Sorry SL, I have a very difficult time with your source on this one. Don't want to derail the thread so will stop with that.

 

Probably a good choice, here.

Ed

 

That depends on several factors.

Which translation is superior and why?

KJV
2 Corinthians 6

11 O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged.
12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
13 Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.​

NKJV
2 Corinthians 6
11 O Corinthians! We have spoken openly to you, our heart is wide open.
12 You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted by your own affections.
13 Now in return for the same (I speak as to children), you also be open.​

 

I am talking about before say, 1970. All of the KJVO history revisionists want to make it appear that what modern-day KJVO's teach and believe was the norm prior to about 1970. (I say "about 1970" because it was about that time that it became an issue in the group I was running with at the time.)

Prior to about 1995, it was not uncommon for one to hear a preacher read from the KJV and expound upon the meaning of the underlying Greek or Hebrew text. No one cried 'foul' at that time. It was completely acceptable for a preacher to acknowledge that the KJV words might not be the best exact words to use in exegeting the underlying text- although no preacher worthy of the title would call the KJV a bad translation. The KJV is indeed an excellent translation, however modern day English usage has rendered many of the words therein obsolete.

I won't beat this dead horse any longer- it just spreads the odor.