# Is the NKJV a faithful update of the KJV?



## Moireach (Mar 9, 2011)

Is the only difference really just updated English?
I've heard it consults the others manuscripts 2000 times. What does that mean? What is different? 

If you say it is not. Is there any? 21st century KJV?
And If there are none, why not?!


----------



## Puritan Scot (Mar 10, 2011)

David,
The following articles relating to the NKJV are available in pdf format on Trinitarian Bible Society - The Word of God Among All Nations and should be helpful.

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/ahnkjv1.pdf
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/ahnkjv2.pdf
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/a123.pdf
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/a110.pdf
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/songnkjv.pdf


----------



## JonathanHunt (Mar 10, 2011)

Where's that can of worms icon?


----------



## BibleCyst (Mar 10, 2011)

Oh, goodness... not the Trinitarian Bible Society. I lost a lot of respect for them after reading their case against the NKJV. Believe me, I'm pro-TR/Majority Text (more so Majority Text), so I welcome many of the things they do.

The TBS argument against the NKJV boils down to this: they disagree with a title in Song of Solomon, and they believe that the NKJV telling the difference between the CT/MT/TR in the footnotes somehow legitimizes the CT.

For a fair assessment of the NKJV, go to Darkness to Light Ministries. Verse Evaluations: KJV vs. NKJV - Part One


----------



## jayce475 (Mar 10, 2011)

The dropping of second person singular pronouns for a start is reason enough for us pro TR/MT people to be tentative about the NKJV.

By the way, Richard, in the circles I hang around, I think MT typically stands for Masoretic Text and not Majority Text, so I thought it quite odd to see you saying you are pro-TR/Majority Text.


----------



## Puritan Scot (Mar 10, 2011)

BibleCyst said:


> The TBS argument against the NKJV boils down to this: they disagree with a title in Song of Solomon,



It is not their disagreement with a title in the Song of Solomon that the TBS take issue with here. Instead it is with the more fundamental shift away from the historical biblical interpretation (ie) *that blessed relationship between Christ, the heavenly Bridegroom and His Church, His earthly bride* to simply *a relationship between two human lovers.* the latter being conveyed in the NKJV.


----------



## Moireach (Mar 10, 2011)

jayce475 said:


> The dropping of second person singular pronouns for a start is reason enough for us pro TR/MT people to be tentative about the NKJV


 
I haven't read the TBS links yet. But can you give examples/clarify what you mean? Complicated for minds like mine


----------



## BibleCyst (Mar 10, 2011)

jayce475 said:


> The dropping of second person singular pronouns for a start is reason enough for us pro TR/MT people to be tentative about the NKJV.
> 
> By the way, Richard, in the circles I hang around, I think MT typically stands for Masoretic Text and not Majority Text, so I thought it quite odd to see you saying you are pro-TR/Majority Text.


 
I definitely agree about the dropping of second person singular pronouns.

I've read MT abbreviated for both Majority and Masoretic Text, but in the NKJV, MT=Majority. Thanks for allowing me to clarify.



Puritan Scot said:


> It is not their disagreement with a title in the Song of Solomon that the TBS take issue with here. Instead it is with the more fundamental shift away from the historical biblical interpretation (ie) that blessed relationship between Christ, the heavenly Bridegroom and His Church, His earthly bride to simply a relationship between two human lovers. the latter being conveyed in the NKJV.
> 
> John



Brother, believe me, I'm not one to wish undermining of orthodoxy. I suspect I would agree with the historical Biblical interpretation of Song of Solomon (to be honest, it's something I've never investigated). Whatever the true interpretation might be, it wasn't a good idea to correspond the various sections of Song of Solomon to human lovers. Chapter headings, however, are not part of Gods word. I know that, we know that, and I'm sure the NKJV translators knew that. They are commentary. I happen to disagree with the interpretation of this group of individuals, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I disagree with their translation philosophy.


----------



## TimV (Mar 10, 2011)

BibleCyst said:


> Whatever the true interpretation might be, it wasn't a good idea to correspond the various sections of Song of Solomon to human lovers.



But they are....human lovers......


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 10, 2011)

*Historically and Biblically*, Tim, the Jews understood the book to be exactly what the NKJV and other interpreters have understood it to be.....that's why men under the age of 30 and unmarried were not permitted to read it. 

The allegorizing of the text to mean something other than two lovers is a holdover from pagan influence on the early church (esp. on men like Origen and Augustine). They had weird views on sex - one because he'd come to associate it with his own issues with lust, and the other....because he was a heretic. 

Unfortunately, 16+ centuries of this sort of thinking (reinforced by the Victorian era in the late 1800's-1901) doesn't make it go away easy. Add to that a sex-saturated media, and most well-meaning believers want to run in the opposite direction for fear of sinning by thinking too much on sex.

The problem, of course, is not thinking 'too much' of sex but not thinking 'enough' of it. Song of Solomon is not 'simply' about two lovers (what a LOW view of sex and marriage!) - but is a gift to the church on how to have a RIGHT view of sex and the marriage relationship.....including the many calls for abstinence throughout the text (contrasted with the times when those calls are no longer needed, but both lovers are free to express themselves to one another in the context of marriage).

So if we're going to talk 'historical and biblical', the older interpretation has more antiquity to it. ;-)


----------



## DavidoffLE09 (Mar 10, 2011)

*Augustine and Origien*

Dear Sir,
Would you be so gracious as to help me understand exactly what you meant by heretical views. Did you direct these charges against Augustine and Origien? If you did, I would like to know the basis of these charges. Secondly what does your definition of the word "heresy" mean and how do you apply its' usage?

From my own research from BAGD, heresy is a division, or a schismatic issue in an assembly. In the broader sense a departure from orthodox Christianity.

Thanks, Respectfully,
Tom Michnay


----------



## Grillsy (Mar 10, 2011)

BlackCalvinist said:


> So if we're going to talk 'historical and biblical', the older interpretation has more antiquity to it. ;-)



Ah yes, the ancient Jews, because they were spot on about recognizing Jesus in the Scriptures.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 11, 2011)

Grillsy said:


> Ah yes, the ancient Jews, because they were spot on about recognizing Jesus in the Scriptures.



Some were - like Paul, Peter and the rest of the disciples. 

Regardless, the ancient Jews (as a whole) missing Christ does not mean that they were wrong in everything. The original KJV (1611) had the apocrypha as a part of the text (I have a reprint) - the council of Jamnia excluded the apocrypha from the canon of the OT. 

Food for thought. 

Tom - did you read what I posted ? I didn't call both men heretics....just Origen.


----------



## Philip (Mar 11, 2011)

I happen to think that the Song of Solomon is about two human lovers. However, how does that make it not about Christ and the church? Is it possible that, like so much else in the OT, there are multiple layers of meaning here?


----------



## Grillsy (Mar 11, 2011)

BlackCalvinist said:


> Regardless, the ancient Jews (as a whole) missing Christ does not mean that they were wrong in everything. The original KJV (1611) had the apocrypha as a part of the text (I have a reprint) - the council of Jamnia excluded the apocrypha from the canon of the OT.
> 
> Food for thought.



Calvin even alludes to the Apocrypha at times but that really doesn't mean all that much concerning the Song of Solomon. All I am trying to say is that the Jews understanding of the text does necessarily negate a Christocentric interpretation. I also think it may be an unfair presumption to say that those who see the Song of Songs as speaking of Christ and His Church are only doing so because certain fathers may have had low (or is it a very high?) view of sex.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 11, 2011)

Oh, it's a very low view of sex.  God says it's honorable and undefiled, Ambrose said that married couples should be ashamed of their sexuality and both he and Tertullian said the extinction of the human race was preferable to procreation. 

That's a low view of sex.

I don't say, per se, that folk who see Song of Songs as speaking of Christ and His church are only doing it because the ECFs interpreted scripture this way. I mentioned that a lot of it is simply cultural influence guiding exegesis. There's just a long history of it in the church prior to the reformation (remember - the RCC had certain 'holy days' that they said people couldn't have sex on.....by the time of Luther, that list was up to 183 days according to Phil G. Ryken). 

So it's pretty fair and pretty accurate. You might disagree....but does a fish know it's wet ?


----------



## MW (Mar 11, 2011)

On the side issue of the Canticles' canonicity, if it is lauding human sexuality then it is also endorsing the ANE harem. 1:4, "Draw me, we will run after thee." The literal view ends up canonising immorality, and usually forces exegetes to posit different lovers to avoid the innuendo and to create a melodrama with an overall theme. The traditional view accommodates all the different characters into one specific redemptive-theological theme with diverse relations.

On the issue of the NKJV, speaking specifically to the question of whether it is correctly named the NEW KJV, and leaving out of view the question whether it is a faithful translation, it is clear that this is not a revision of the order of earlier revisions, but is in reality a new translation. The preface and title of the book therefore foists a deception on the reader.

To demonstrate that this is a new translation one only needs to acknowledge that there are numerous translation issues in which the NKJV sides with modern versions over against the AV. These issues can even convey theologically diverse sentiments, as in Gen. 4:7; Heb. 2:16.

The removal of the singular-plural pronominal distinction has already been mentioned, and it is worthwhile pointing out that the unsuspecting reader will naturally assume a conformity of usage to the detriment of his understanding of God's holy word.

Numerous other characteristics of this translation might be mentioned, but they really venture into the question as to whether it is a faithful translation. The two characteristics mentioned above are sufficient to prove that it not entitled to be regarded as a faithful revision of the AV.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 11, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> On the side issue of the Canticles' canonicity, if it is lauding human sexuality then it is also endorsing the ANE harem. 1:4, "Draw me, we will run after thee." The literal view ends up canonising immorality, and usually forces exegetes to posit different lovers to avoid the innuendo and to create a melodrama with an overall theme. The traditional view accommodates all the different characters into one specific redemptive-theological theme with diverse relations.
> 
> On the issue of the NKJV, speaking specifically to the question of whether it is correctly named the NEW KJV, and leaving out of view the question whether it is a faithful translation, it is clear that this is not a revision of the order of earlier revisions, but is in reality a new translation. The preface and title of the book therefore foists a deception on the reader.
> 
> ...


 
Rev Winzer:




> ...endorsing the ANE harem. 1:4, "Draw me, we will run after thee." The literal view ends up canonising immorality



Are there other interpretations to the "we" that do not invovle the endorsement of the harem concept?


----------



## TimV (Mar 12, 2011)

> All recent interpreters (except Böttcher) translate, like Luther, “Draw me after thee, so we run.”



From K&D, but there are other places you don't seem to get out of "we", and the explainations do seem a bit forced (outside the context of a Harem), like 



> The cohortative נָרוּצָה (we will run) was the apodosis imperativi; the cohortatives here are the apodosis perfecti hypothetici. “Suppose that this has happened,” is oftener expressed by the perf. (Psa_57:7; Pro_22:29; Pro_25:16); “suppose that this happens,” by the fut. (Job_20:24; Ewald, §357b). חֲדָרִי are the interiora domus; the root word hhādǎr, as the Arab. khadar shows, signifies to draw oneself back, to hide; the hhěděr of the tent is the back part, shut off by a curtain from the front space. Those who are singing are not at present in this innermost chamber. But if the king brings one of them in (הֵבִיא, from בּוֹא, introire, with acc. loci), then - they all say - we will rejoice and be glad in thee


 ibid.


----------



## MW (Mar 14, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> Are there other interpretations to the "we" that do not invovle the endorsement of the harem concept?


 
Yes; the claim of poetical variation, which cannot be substantiated, and hence leaves literalists admitting it as an accepted difficulty of the interpretation.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 14, 2011)

Call me slow, but.....where's the problem ?

[BIBLE]Song of Solomon 1:1-7[/BIBLE]

Who are the speaker(s) in the first 8 verses ?


----------



## Moireach (Mar 14, 2011)

Thanks Matthew for your comment. 
The S of S debate is taking over the original NKJ question.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 14, 2011)

Sorry. Maybe a mod can split them off into two different topics. I apologize to everyone for derailing.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Mar 25, 2011)

As Jesus told the Saduccees in Mark 12:24 "Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do not know the scriptures nor the power of God." Of course Song of Solomon is about two human lovers, but it is also about the relationship between Christ and the church. All of the bible is really about Christ, if properly understood. The problem is that so many are like the Saduccees and do not understand the bible. Why was Jesus crucified? Because the Jews misunderstood the scriptures and were expecting a messiah who would free them from the bondage of Rome and reestablish an earthly kingdom. Unfortunately, many have not learned from this lesson and are still expecting Jesus to return and establish an earthly "millennial" kingdom. They too will be disappointed because the Kingdom of God is not of this world.


----------

