KJV ---> NKJV

Status
Not open for further replies.

blhowes

Puritan Board Professor
We've always used the KJV in our home. Often, as we read and we come across an outdated word, one of my sons will ask what the word means. Lately, I've been considering buying and using the NKJV so that it'll read more like how we talk. I was wondering if anybody knew how closely the KJV and NKJV track (ie., essentially translated the same, except using more modern words to replace outdated words)? Is the NKJV also translated from the TR?
 

bond-servant

Puritan Board Sophomore
The NKJ is an excellent translation. There is a great book about the making of the NKJV. I highly recommend it

[urlhttp://tinyurl.com/8k6de[/url]

{MODERATOR:
Long url changed to tinyurl. Please check length of links. USE TINYURL! }


[Edited on 12/21/2005 by fredtgreco]
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by blhowes
We've always used the KJV in our home. Often, as we read and we come across an outdated word, one of my sons will ask what the word means. Lately, I've been considering buying and using the NKJV so that it'll read more like how we talk. I was wondering if anybody knew how closely the KJV and NKJV track (ie., essentially translated the same, except using more modern words to replace outdated words)? Is the NKJV also translated from the TR?

The NKJV is basically modernized KJV, with some changes based on manuscript evidence.
 

C. Matthew McMahon

Christian Preacher
I usually preach from the NKJV. I enjoy the translation very much and find it very reliable. I also like the ESV. And for the Psalms, and some of the poetic/prophetic books, the KJV.
 

Peter

Puritan Board Junior
Actually, I think the prophetic books are difficult in the KJV, the didactic books (proper) to a lesser extent too. Otherwise I dont know what all the hub bub about the KJV being 'outdated' is about (besides a word here or there but context usually reveals the meaning)
 

Jie-Huli

Puritan Board Freshman
Originally posted by trevorjohnson
From http://www.ibs.org/niv/mct/14.php, here is a list of just a few of these outdated words that might be updated:


....what is the meaning of "œchambering" (Rom. 13:13), "œchampaign" (Deut. 11:30), "œcharger" (Matt. 14:8"”it is not a horse), "œchurl" (Isa. 32:7), "œcieled" (Hag. 1:4), "œcircumspect" (Exod. 23:13), "œclouted upon their feet" (Josh. 9:5), "œcockatrice" (Isa. 11:8), "œcollops" (Job 15:27), "œconfection" (Exod. 30:35"”it has nothing to do with sugar), "œcotes" (2 Chron. 32:28), "œcovert" (2 Kings 16:18), "œhoised" (Acts 27:40), "œwimples" (Isa. 3:22), "œstomacher" (Isa. 3:24), "œwot" (Rom. 11:2), "œwist" (Acts 12:9), "œwiths" (Judg. 16:7), "œwont" (Dan. 3:19), "œsuretiship" (Prov. 11:15), "œsackbut" (Dan. 3:5), "œthe scall" (Lev. 13:30), "œscrabbled" (1 Sam. 21:13), "œroller" (Ezek. 30:21"”i.e., a splint), "œmuffler" (Isa. 3:19), "œfroward" (1 Peter 2:18), "œbrigadine" (Jer. 46:4), "œamerce" (Deut. 22:19), "œblains" (Exod. 9:9), "œcrookbackt" (Lev. 21:20), "œdescry" (Judg. 1:23), "œfanners" (Jer. 51:2), "œfelloes" (1 Kings 7:33), "œglede" (Deut. 14:13), "œglistering" (Luke 9:29), "œhabergeon" (Job 41:26), "œimplead" (Acts 19:38), "œneesing" (Job 41:18), "œnitre" (Prov. 25:20), "œtabret" (Gen. 31:27), "œwen" (Lev. 22:22)?

Why not just bring these words back into common usage, so they will not be outdated anymore? Why let modern media and entertainment govern the direction of the English language? What better governor of the English language than the great Authorised Version of the Bible?
 

Jie-Huli

Puritan Board Freshman
Originally posted by trevorjohnson
Jie-Huli

I do not think that media and gov't "govern" language usage. They merely reflect it.


It is the nature of languages to always be in a state of transition.

Therefore, the very best translation that one could have of 1611 (which the KJV is a very excellent translation) is still obscure by today's standards.



This isn't the fault of today's standards. It is merely a fact of history.



Who would bring these words back?




Even in our churches that our Reformed and read the KJV often, people don't go around saying "THou are wont to..."


I have been to many churches that have a strong leaning towards "praying in the Old English..." They are trying to be reverant but there are several problems with this, 1) They use the grammar wrong, because it is unfamiliar2) It is distracting (at least to me) and it gives the impression to me that God will not hear normal, personal and intimate language, but only a "priestly" or "religious-sounding" lingo.

Plain, simple English (or whatever vernacular you speak) is always the best way to talk about God and talk to God.

Thank you for the reply.

I am not in a position to give a full thesis of the development of the English language at present. But I do believe that modern media and entertainment (which are, by and large, quite vulgar and godless) do indeed have a very strong influence over the development of the English language, and are guiding and redefining more than merely reflecting. The flavour given to words, the disposal of perfectly good words which are not of use to a lazy and pleasure-seeking society, excessive casualness and frivolity in communication, the loss of politeness and eloquence, a distaste for the noble and refined in favour of the silly and irreverent, a cold sarcasm pervading communications even between friends . . . all of these horrid things have a direct tie to the modern popular entertainment culture and media, I believe.

So my point is not that the Bible should not be close to our vernacular, which is of course a vital thing if we are to understand and be affected by God's Word. But what is to define and govern our vernacular? I would suggest we would be better off were it governed by the Authorised Bible (as indeed it was for several centuries before the 20th Century) rather than by the popular culture.

I am not suggesting anything drastic which would cut us as Christians off from fruitful communication with the heathens around us. But I think there are steps we can take to stand against the tide and be a positive influence for the resurrection and preservation of a more godly English language.

Incidentally, most of the English-language churches I have attended in recent years do use a more "Old English" speaking style during prayer . . . and though I do not suggest this is requisite, I do think it is a good thing, and it is quite easy to become accustomed to it. It is not merely an effort to sound religious. There is at once a reverence and an intimacy in speaking to God with the traditional "thee" and "thou" that makes it a custom worth retaining I believe.

In written communications with certain friends we also use the older style, and find it greatly enhances our discourse, raising it in both form and thought.

Blessings,

Jie-Huli
 

Mike

Puritan Board Freshman
Originally posted by blhowes
We've always used the KJV in our home. Often, as we read and we come across an outdated word, one of my sons will ask what the word means.
You are right to be concerned here. Besides specific vocabulary, the KJV can really be confusing for kids because of the grammar and syntax. A translation being hard for them to understand is excusable if this is because it is faithfully representing the Word of God, but the issue with the KJV is that it is choosing words that were the common vernacular then rather than now. It's not that I am against it part and parcel, but it can be an unnecessary stumbling block for kids.

Originally posted by blhowes
Lately, I've been considering buying and using the NKJV so that it'll read more like how we talk. I was wondering if anybody knew how closely the KJV and NKJV track (ie., essentially translated the same, except using more modern words to replace outdated words)?
The NKJV is a ground up translation.

Originally posted by blhowes
Is the NKJV also translated from the TR?
It is.
 

Mike

Puritan Board Freshman
Originally posted by Jie-Huli
I am not in a position to give a full thesis of the development of the English language at present. But I do believe that modern media and entertainment (which are, by and large, quite vulgar and godless) do indeed have a very strong influence over the development of the English language, and are guiding and redefining more than merely reflecting.
What of it? Was Koine Greek unaffected by a pagan culture?

Originally posted by Jie-Huli
The flavour given to words, the disposal of perfectly good words which are not of use to a lazy and pleasure-seeking society, excessive casualness and frivolity in communication, the loss of politeness and eloquence, a distaste for the noble and refined in favour of the silly and irreverent, a cold sarcasm pervading communications even between friends . . . all of these horrid things have a direct tie to the modern popular entertainment culture and media, I believe.
1. I fail to see how that is anything but reflecting the culture at hand.
2. At what point does this transformation become unwanted? Shall we use the Wycliffe Bible? The vulgate?

Originally posted by Jie-Huli
So my point is not that the Bible should not be close to our vernacular, which is of course a vital thing if we are to understand and be affected by God's Word. But what is to define and govern our vernacular?
This is not something we have control over.

Originally posted by Jie-Huli
I would suggest we would be better off were it governed by the Authorised Bible (as indeed it was for several centuries before the 20th Century) rather than by the popular culture.
Can you please give some proof that the kind of development has done more in the 20th century than the 19th? When I read stuff from 100 years ago (the ASV, for example,) it seems far more familiar than stuff from around 300 years ago (Gill, for example.)

Originally posted by Jie-Huli
I am not suggesting anything drastic which would cut us as Christians off from fruitful communication with the heathens around us. But I think there are steps we can take to stand against the tide and be a positive influence for the resurrection and preservation of a more godly English language.
This is not accomplished by reverting to the older forms of English. We are not somehow worse today than we were then. Despite what we like to think, there are no good old days.

Originally posted by Jie-Huli
Incidentally, most of the English-language churches I have attended in recent years do use a more "Old English" speaking style during prayer . . . and though I do not suggest this is requisite, I do think it is a good thing, and it is quite easy to become accustomed to it. It is not merely an effort to sound religious. There is at once a reverence and an intimacy in speaking to God with the traditional "thee" and "thou" that makes it a custom worth retaining I believe.
I agree this is a beautiful and poetic way of addressing God. However, this is precisely because it is not the vernacular anymore.

Originally posted by Jie-Huli
In written communications with certain friends we also use the older style, and find it greatly enhances our discourse, raising it in both form and thought.
The fact is, the Bible was written in the daily language of the people, especially the New Testament. It was not high and lofty, it was plain and clear. It's power is not in its beauty to the ear but its innate truth.
 

Herald

Administrator
Staff member
Has the NASB fallen out of favor? I use the NASB in my study. I will refer to the KJV and ESV, but the NASB is my translation of choice.
 

ChristopherPaul

Puritan Board Senior
Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis
Has the NASB fallen out of favor? I use the NASB in my study. I will refer to the KJV and ESV, but the NASB is my translation of choice.

Not for me. I prefer the NASB, ESV and NKJV. My primary Bible is NASB.
 

VictorBravo

Administrator
Staff member
Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis
Has the NASB fallen out of favor? I use the NASB in my study. I will refer to the KJV and ESV, but the NASB is my translation of choice.

I think mine is even more out of favor: The ASV. I think it is a good update, myself. The NASB claims to be an update of the ASV.

And, (putting on my flack gear) has anyone seen Darby's translation? I have it and find it pretty good. The ASV committee even acknowledged referring to it. In our day, however, Darby is almost akin to anathema because of his dispensationalism. But the guy was something of a genius at languages.

I like the KJV most of all. But I do go running to my Greek and Hebrew texts a lot just to check up on it. My wife has the NKJV and loves it.

Vic
 

blhowes

Puritan Board Professor
Thank-you for your feedback, comments, advice, and the book recommendation. I appreciate it.

I hesitated starting the thread, not wanting to start another KJV-only type debate. As I've mentioned, I come from a KJV-only background, and much of what I've read about the issue has tainted my thinking. With my wife and kids, KJV-only teachings are all they've really been exposed to from the pulpit and Sunday school classes. (in the more recent churches we've attended that don't use the KJV, Bible version preferences aren't even mentioned)

Fred wrote:

The NKJV is basically modernized KJV, with some changes based on manuscript evidence.

The books I've read seem to pounce all over the latter part of that comment and see it as corrupting the scriptures.

I think now I lean towards the idea of introducing the NKJV or a similar version into the Bible reading time. I've had limited exposure to the NKJV at the church we've been attending. They use the NKJV and, when I read along with my KJV, I haven't noticed yet where the meaning has changed drastically. The word order at times is a little different and a different word is used at times, but all-in-all the same message is there. I've yet to have the pastor expound upon a text of scripture from the NKJV and not get the same meaning out of my KJV.

If my thinking is wrong, maybe someone can give examples of teachings you'd get from the NKJV you wouldn't see in the KJV, or vice versa.

Added later:
As an after thought, Fred mentioned some changes made based on manuscript evidence. Is there a handy list somewhere that lists these verses?

[Edited on 12-20-2005 by blhowes]
 

Mike

Puritan Board Freshman
Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis
Has the NASB fallen out of favor? I use the NASB in my study. I will refer to the KJV and ESV, but the NASB is my translation of choice.
I primarily use the NASB.
 

Jie-Huli

Puritan Board Freshman
Originally posted by blhowes
The NKJV is basically modernized KJV, with some changes based on manuscript evidence.

The books I've read seem to pounce all over the latter part of that comment and see it as corrupting the scriptures.

I think now I lean towards the idea of introducing the NKJV or a similar version into the Bible reading time. I've had limited exposure to the NKJV at the church we've been attending. They use the NKJV and, when I read along with my KJV, I haven't noticed yet where the meaning has changed drastically. The word order at times is a little different and a different word is used at times, but all-in-all the same message is there. I've yet to have the pastor expound upon a text of scripture from the NKJV and not get the same meaning out of my KJV.

If my thinking is wrong, maybe someone can give examples of teachings you'd get from the NKJV you wouldn't see in the KJV, or vice versa.

Added later:
As an after thought, Fred mentioned some changes made based on manuscript evidence. Is there a handy list somewhere that lists these verses?

[Edited on 12-20-2005 by blhowes]

Bob,

I would not fault you for wanting to look at the "New King James" version as a reference. But at the least I would say it is important to make yourself aware of the important variances between the Authorised version and the "New King James". While the translators made reference to the Authorised version and the Textus Receptus, they certainly incorporated a lot of changes based on other manuscripts and other English translations as well. It is not simply an updating of the Authorised version, and hence, whatever one may think of the result, I do not believe "New King James" was ever an appropriate title for it.

At any rate, here is a site I found in a quick search which points out some of the deficiencies in the "New King James" translation: http://www.av1611.org/NKJV.html. The site is entitled "The New King James Bible: Counterfeit", so it is not difficult to guess what the author's position is.

Many of the statements on this site are quite extreme and I certainly do not endorse this site in its entirety. But I did think the list of changes made between the AV and the NKJV (which appears about halfway down the page) was useful, and link it here for those purposes. I am sure there are many statements on this cite which could be disputed, but the list of changes itself is useful, irrespective of the web author's commentary.

Some of the more significant changes cited:

Genesis 2:18: The NKJV ought to make Hillary Clinton proud: "And the Lord God said, It is not good that man should be alone; I will make a helper COMPARABLE TO HIM"

Genesis 22:8: One of the greatest verses in the Bible proclaiming that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh: "God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering:" The NKJV adds that little word "for": "God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering" And destroys the wonderful promise! Where'd they get their little "for"? From the NASV!

Psalms 109:6: removes "Satan". (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV).

Matthew 7:14: change "narrow is the way" to "difficult is the way". There's nothing "difficult" about the salvation of Jesus Christ! Jesus says in Matt. 11:30, "For my yoke is EASY, and my burden is light." THE EXACT OPPOSITE! Boy, you talk about a contradiction!

Matthew 18:26 & Matthew 20:20: The NKJV removes "worshipped him" (robbing worship from Jesus) (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

Mark 13:6 & Luke 21:8: removes "Christ" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

John 1:3: change "All things were made BY him;" to "All things were made THROUGH Him" (NIV, NRSV, RSV)

John 4:24: change "God is a spirit" to the impersonal, New Age pantheistic,"God is spirit" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

John 14:2: (NKJV 1979 edition) change "mansions" to "dwelling places" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

John 14:16: change "comforter" to "helper"(refers to Holy Spirit) (NASV)

Acts 4:27, 30: change "holy child" to "holy servant" (refers to Jesus) (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

Acts 17:22: changes "superstitious" to "religious" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

Acts 24:14: change "heresy" to "sect" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

Romans 1:18: change "hold the truth" to "suppress the truth" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

1 Cor. 1:22: change "require" to "request" (NASV)

1 Cor. 6:9: removes "effeminate" (NIV, NRSV, RSV)

1 Cor. 9:27: change "castaway" to "disqualified" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

2 Cor. 2:10: change "person of Christ" to "presence of Christ" (NASV, NRSV, RSV)

2 Cor. 2:17: With all the "corruptions" in the NKJV, you'd expect 2 Cor. 2:17 to change. IT DOES! They change, "For we not as many which CORRUPT the word of God" to "For we are not, as so many, PEDDLING the word of God" (ditto NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

2 Cor. 10:5: change "imaginations" to "arguments". Considering New Age "imaging" and "visualization" is now entering the church, this verse in the "old" KJV just won't do. (NIV, RSV)

Gal. 2:20: omit "nevertheless I live" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

Phil. 2:6: (NKJV 1979e.) change "thought it not robbery to be equal with God" to "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped". (robs Jesus Christ of deity) (NIV, NASV, RSV)

Phil. 3:8: change "dung" to "rubbish" (NIV, NASV, NRSV)

1 Thess. 5:22 change "all appearance of evil" to "every form of evil" (NASV, RSV, NSRV)

1 Tim. 6:20: change "science" to "knowledge" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

Titus 3:10: change "heretic" to "divisive man" (NIV)

Hebrews 4:8 & Acts 7:45: "Jesus" is changed to "Joshua". (NIV, NASV, RSV)

2 Pet. 2:1: change "damnable heresies" to "destructive heresies" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

1 John 3:16: remove "love of God"; (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

1 John 5:13: The NKJV reads: "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may CONTINUE TO believe in the name of the Son of God." They add "CONTINUE TO" without any Greek text whatsoever! Not even the perverted NIV, NASV, NRSV and RSV go that far! A cruel, subtil (see Genesis 3:1) attack on the believer's eternal security!

Rev. 2:13: change "Satan's seat" to "Satan's throne" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

Rev. 6:14: "Heaven" is changed to "sky" in (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

[Edited on 12-21-2005 by Jie-Huli]
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
As an advocate of the Majority Text, I wish some of these "Bible Defenders" would actually try and learn a little bit of the language before pontificating. The vast majority of these "horrible errors" are shown to be nothing with about minutes of review:

1 John 5:13: The NKJV reads: "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may CONTINUE TO believe in the name of the Son of God." They add "CONTINUE TO" without any Greek text whatsoever! Not even the perverted NIV, NASV, NRSV and RSV go that far! A cruel, subtil (see Genesis 3:1) attack on the believer's eternal security!

Well, that is because the NIV, NASB, NRSV and RSV have a slightly different text. They use the USB/NA27 critical text, which has:
τοῖς πιστεÏουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ

the MT/TR (Byzantine) has:
ινα πιστευητε εις το ονομα του υιου του θεου

The difference is obvious to a 1st year Greek student: the former is a participle, the latter a subjunctive. The subjunctive is a present subjunctive, which implies continuous aspect, as opposed to an aorist, which is punctilliar. So the change is entirely based on Greek, unlike what the author says.

1 Tim. 6:20: change "science" to "knowledge" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

This is interesting, especially since the word translated here by the KJV as "science" is γνωσις . It is used 28 times in the NT. Guess how the KJV translates γνωσις the other 27 times? Yep. "Knowledge"

What about:
1 Cor. 6:9: removes "effeminate" (NIV, NRSV, RSV)

Well the NKJV makes the huge compromise of using "homosexuals." Now which is more counter 21st century culture?

Phil. 3:8: change "dung" to "rubbish" (NIV, NASV, NRSV)

Does anyone actually use the word "dung" anyone?

Gal. 2:20: omit "nevertheless I live" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

The Greek text (even Stephanus' 1550 version) does not support "nevertheless I live." It has:
ΧÏιστῷ συνεσταÏÏωμαι· 20 ζῶ δὲ οá½ÎºÎ­Ï„ι á¼Î³ÏŽ, ζῇ δὲ á¼Î½ á¼Î¼Î¿á½¶ ΧÏιστός
literally, "I am crucified with Christ. And ( δὲ ) I ( á¼Î³ÏŽ ) no longer ( οá½ÎºÎ­Ï„ι ) live ( ζῶ ), but Christ lives in me"

If I had time, I could pick apart all of these statements. The problems is that I actually like the KJV, but these types of fools are doing it a grave disservice. When it only takes me 20 minutes to show how ridiculous these things are, it makes people say "the KJV is not good" instead of "that KJV only advocate is a lying moron."

If you like the language of the KJV Jie-Huli, you should use it. But don't fall for the tricks of these fools.
 

Jie-Huli

Puritan Board Freshman
Originally posted by fredtgreco
If I had time, I could pick apart all of these statements. The problems is that I actually like the KJV, but these types of fools are doing it a grave disservice. When it only takes me 20 minutes to show how ridiculous these things are, it makes people say "the KJV is not good" instead of "that KJV only advocate is a lying moron."

If you like the language of the KJV Jie-Huli, you should use it. But don't fall for the tricks of these fools.

I understand what you mean, and I agree with you that some of the items on the list are easy to pick apart. Perhaps I ought not to quote someone who has dodgy statements alongside the valid ones . . . I just found it in a quick search and thought the list did highlight some useful points. For example, changing "narrow is the way" to "difficult is the way", and omiting some references to people worshipping Christ. And I do think "dung" is a much more powerful word than "rubbish", and I understand a more faithful translation of what the Greek actually says. But I do not mean to begin debating the translation of individual verses. I just posted the list for what it is worth, but again I am not endorsing all the author says.

If using the NKJV in family worship, I do think it would be useful to refer to the KJV text as well during preparation, because the KJV and the NKJV do diverge in meaning or emphasis sometimes, that is inescapable, and one might wish to bring this up in important instances.

Blessings,

Jie-Huli

[Edited on 12-21-2005 by Jie-Huli]
 

blhowes

Puritan Board Professor
Jie-Huli,
Thanks for providing the list.

That's an interesting site where the list came from. Here's a pretty strong statement they make right at the beginning:
The greatest method of deception is to counterfeit.
And the master of counterfeit and deception is Satan.

What they contend about the inaccuracies of the translation may be correct, but my impression was that statements like this detract from their credibility (especially after you look into some of the verses).

The first verse I picked to check out was Mark 13:6. Here's what they said about it:

Mark 13:6 & Luke 21:8: removes "Christ" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)
When you read this, it seems a little shocking that the NKJV (and other modern versions) would remove the word Christ from the verse. But the shock value wears off when you compare the two verses.

Mark 13:6
(NKJV)For many will come in My name, saying, "˜I am He,´ and will deceive many.
(KJV) For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Italics are used in both the KJV (for Christ) and the NKJV (for He) to indicate words that the original texts do not contain but which English requires for clarity. Maybe others who know greek can help me out here, but it doesn't appear that there's any strong reason to use the word Christ instead of He. Christ certainly seems to fit, as would "the Savior" or "the Messiah" or "He".

I'll continue to look at other verses, but this first verse certainly doesn't seem to support the idea of the NKJV being corrupted, much less a Satanic deception.
 

VirginiaHuguenot

Puritanboard Librarian
The Trinitarian Bible Society has a good balanced critique of the NKJV called What today's Christian needs to know about the New King James Version. It avoids unnecessary hyperoble while highlighting areas of concern.
 

blhowes

Puritan Board Professor
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
The Trinitarian Bible Society has a good balanced critique of the NKJV called What today's Christian needs to know about the New King James Version. It avoids unnecessary hyperoble while highlighting areas of concern.
Andrew,
You don't happen to have a link, do you? I can't seem to find it.
Thanks,
Bob
 

VirginiaHuguenot

Puritanboard Librarian
Originally posted by blhowes
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
The Trinitarian Bible Society has a good balanced critique of the NKJV called What today's Christian needs to know about the New King James Version. It avoids unnecessary hyperoble while highlighting areas of concern.
Andrew,
You don't happen to have a link, do you? I can't seem to find it.
Thanks,
Bob

It's not available in electronic form on their website, but you can order it for 60 cents. It's under the section called "other publications"/"articles"/"modern version reviews".
 

Steve Owen

Puritan Board Sophomore
Phil. 3:8: change "dung" to "rubbish" (NIV, NASV, NRSV)

It appears that the Greek word skubalov can mean either. Thayer's Lexicon gives:-
Any refuse, as the excrement of animals, offscouring, rubbish, dregs etc.: [A.V. dung] i.e. worthless and detestable.

If skubalov means literally 'thrown to dogs' then the modern translations are correct. Other sources suggest that it comes from the root word skwr which really does mean 'dung'.

You pays your money and you takes your choice! :bigsmile: But 'Rubbish' isn't necessarily a euphemism.

Blessings,

Martin

[Edited on 12-24-2005 by Martin Marprelate]
 

Herald

Administrator
Staff member
My wife has been using the NIV for years and our homeschool daughter the KJV. We are all in agreement that one version should be used. My wife is sympathetic to the doctrines of sovereign grace and is coming around slowly. Not desirous of pushing the issue too hard and losing her, we agreed to provide two NKJV bibles (one to each of them) for Christmas. I took great care in reviewing some key passages in the NKJV and find them to be faithful to the doctrines of grace. In any event I find the NKJV to be superior to the NIV. In the words of the great theologian, Forrest Gump, "That is all I have to say about that."
 

bond-servant

Puritan Board Sophomore
My wife has been using the NIV for years and our homeschool daughter the KJV. We are all in agreement that one version should be used.

MT vs CT aside and translation issues aside...It is nice for the house to be in agreement on a translation. We had a similar issue. A few years ago, the kids were memorizing out of the NIV or NIrV for Sunday School, the NKJV for Awanna's, and the KJV for homeschool memorization and Bible Work. Last year our house switched over to the ESV for our family and homeschool work. It is nice to all be on one page as they say.

The adults also use the KJV and NASB for word studies and my dh and I use the NKJV as our 'second' Bibles. All four are excellent translations. We have been happy with the ESV as our default Bible. Another advantage of the ESV for our little ones is they don't get lost in the never ending pronouns present in some of the other translations. :book2:
 

Casey

Puritan Board Junior
Anyone know of a place where (website, etc.) the primary differences between the MT and TR are explained? Thanks! :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top