Posted on 07/03/2002 7:53:56 PM PDT by gcruse
How do you feel about the NKJV?
I think that the NKJV is basically an NIV which has been stylistically rendered in a manner simlarly to the KJV, but is not a KJV.
In other words, in one of the most often mis-used passages of Scripture -- Romans 13, which has been abused to suggest that Christians should submit to a near-total subordination to Government -- the NKJV suffers from the exact same problem as the other Modern Translations... it suggests no "check" whatsoever on the Power of Government.
The Old King James, archaic though its wording may often be in many places, is the more accurate translation of the Romans 13 Greek, "higher powers", and thereby implies a check on the power of Government (the State's subordination to God) -- an important theological distinction which the Modern Translations (including the NKJV) do not preserve.
That's a good example. Thanks!
There were many King James Versions, so isn't it hard to know WHICH of them is the most accurate, if you don't just assume that "rev xxx" the latest is the best? Earlier versions for example included the apochrapha, which is now totally missing. That's dropping entire books, just to please the British and American Bible Societies, but some of those books were in the Bible Jesus used, if I'm not mistaken.
Why would we want to be 'originalists'? What we want to know is what does God say!
The divine inspiration of the literal words took place in those languages, not in Latin or English or Russian or what have you.
2Tim.3:16 says all scripture is given by inspiration...thus, if we have scripture (and we do) it is inspired (Heb.4:12,1Pet.1:23,1Thess.2:13)
Argue with the secular Nestle compilation all you want, but it does give the most objective statistical view of the New Testament manuscripts that we have, and is the reason why most modern translations have footnotes on the variant readings.
There is nothing objective about Nestles. It understates the number of ms support for Receptus readings and readings found in church fathers.
I'm the opposite of an onlyist; I'm an "allist." To ask the question of which one Bible we should trust, foolishly presupposes an answer of a certain kind. It's like asking what one food you would eat.
That is not a foolish question at all. We should eat the food that God gives us,
But now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all, besides this manna, before our eyes (Nu.11:6)God has given us His 'manna' in the AV1611, but men want to 'lust after flesh'(Nu.11:4)
I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food (Job.23:12) And for those who reject God's words,Behold the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst of water but of hearing of he words of the Lord (Amos 8:11)So, asking what food to eat is a very good question!
from the time of AD 100 till 1611, there was no Bible since the KJV wasn't translated yet?
And do I have to use a 1611 KJV, or is the 1742 Revision acceptable?
Loony....
Did I ever say that the AV1611 was the only Bible in history!
Talk about loony!
There were many Bibles before the AV1611 including the very fine Geneva, based on the Textus Receptus.
In that line of Bibles you find a German Luther's, a Spainish, a Italian, a Czech, a Dutch, well, many translations from the right Greek/Hebrew text, translated by men who believed that they were translating the words of God and not just another book (NIV, NAB, NKJ)
I would be happy to provide you a list of the Bibles before the AV1611!
The only difference is in spelling and printing errors that were corrected.
Thus, you may use either with full confidence you have the pure words of God.
The Greek and Hebrew texts underlying the 1611 has never be changed unlike the modern versions which are always changing their readings.
Last time Nestles had to reinsert 300 readings from the Receptus showing that the King James had been right all a long!
I don't mind the KJV -- but it is not superior to any other good translation (NAS, NKJV, and to a lesser extant, NIV), and it is certainly not superior to a study of the autographs, which we can say we have with a reasonable degree of certaintly.
The Greek text underlying the KJV was Erasamus's NT. A brilliant work of scholarship in its own right, to be sure, but limited because of the challanges Erasamus faced in getting manuscripts. For instance, he had to back-translate from the Latin Vulgate certain portions (shooting from the hip, not quite sure which portions). He did a respectable job, but archaelogy marches on -- and more MSS'es were found. They generally vindicated Erasamus, but in other areas revealed a better rendering.
God did not speak in the noble prose of 1611 (or 1742) King James English, but rather the earthy, easily understood common Koine greek. If God were to inspire the Sciptures in the intellectual Attic Greek, then we might have a leg to stand on for the KJV-only position. But he used the common language-- and why should we do any differently?
This new-age conspiracy crap of Riplinger et al. is certainly not correct. It is based on ignorance, misplaced fears, shoddy scholarship, and blatant mischaracterizations and slander. Unfortunately, Evangelical Christianity has overreacted to the excesses of higher Criticism and thrown out the proverbial baby with the bath water.
I myself use both the KJV and the NASB. Generally, I like the NASB translation because it is easier for exposition to others -- I'm not translating what the archaic English means. But I'll be the first to admit that I don't care for every translation of the KJV. There are some that are just unfortunate. But the same may easily be said of the KJV.
That is held by some in the KJV-only camp. If it does not describe your beliefs, I apologize.
Ofcourse it is better then the Originals. You know why?
(1) We don't have the Originals.
(2)If we did, someone would still have to translate them into English so we could read them!
What we have in the KJB is the perfect translation of the perfectly preserved words of those Originals.
that it was inspired in its translation?
It is inspired because it is Scripture and God has shown that it is 'quick and powerful' by its fruit.
That is held by some in the KJV-only camp. If it does not describe your beliefs, I apologize.
Well, thank you for the offer to apologize that was very gracious.
We look at the KJ as a culumnation of a long line of Bibles in the line of the Received text.
We do not hold that the KJ is the only Bible, only that it is the only Bible for the English speaking world.
Well, can you prove an error. Can you prove that the KJ translated something that cannot be translated that way?
I don't mind the KJV -- but it is not superior to any other good translation (NAS, NKJV, and to a lesser extant, NIV), and it is certainly not superior to a study of the autographs, which we can say we have with a reasonable degree of certaintly.
One, we do not have the autographs. Two, the NAS and NIV come from a corrupt text. The NKJ used the right text, but still snuck in some corrupt non-King James readings.
The Greek text underlying the KJV was Erasamus's NT. A brilliant work of scholarship in its own right, to be sure, but limited because of the challanges Erasamus faced in getting manuscripts. For instance, he had to back-translate from the Latin Vulgate certain portions (shooting from the hip, not quite sure which portions). He did a respectable job, but archaelogy marches on -- and more MSS'es were found. They generally vindicated Erasamus, but in other areas revealed a better rendering.
Actually, the Greek text underlying the KJB was Beza's 5 edition. They had many years since Eramus to collect additional evidence for the correct readings.
They also knew the other readings since they had the Catholic Douey-Rheims version in front of them, which used the Vaticanus manuscript.
They KJB translators were also experts in their fields of translation, one even having every Greek work extant in his own home!
God did not speak in the noble prose of 1611 (or 1742) King James English, but rather the earthy, easily understood common Koine greek. If God were to inspire the Sciptures in the intellectual Attic Greek, then we might have a leg to stand on for the KJV-only position. But he used the common language-- and why should we do any differently?
The King James 'language' is 'common' without being 'gutteral'. We are talking about the words of God and they should have some dignity.
When the text demands it the KJ is as blunt as necessary.
This new-age conspiracy crap of Riplinger et al. is certainly not correct. It is based on ignorance, misplaced fears, shoddy scholarship, and blatant mischaracterizations and slander. Unfortunately, Evangelical Christianity has overreacted to the excesses of higher Criticism and thrown out the proverbial baby with the bath water.
Now, you are just repeating what you heard. What Riplinger points out about the words being attacked is true as is the attempts against the Canon itself.
Note attempts to put in the Apocrypha books. An excellent book (not from a King James defender) is called Spirit Wars (I have forgotten the authors name).
Read it and see if view that there is an attack by the NewAgers is being overblown!
I myself use both the KJV and the NASB. Generally, I like the NASB translation because it is easier for exposition to others -- I'm not translating what the archaic English means. But I'll be the first to admit that I don't care for every translation of the KJV. There are some that are just unfortunate. But the same may easily be said of the KJV.
One, there are relativity few words that are actually 'Archaic' in the King James.
Two, the NAS is constantly having to change because its Greek and Hebrew Text are changed. Do you know where most of the those changes end up? Back to the King James readings (example Lk.24:51-52, 'carried up into heaven and they worshipped him' were recently put in)
As for using other 'versions' you are free to do so, it is after all a free country.
We just do not regard them as Bibles! And we will continue to say so.
#64,#84,#86,#87,#90,#91
m
Au contriare. I know that of which I speak becuase I read her book. I was once KJV-only, like you.
Luther translated the Bible into English?
Better check your history books again.
Incidentally, both the foreward to the 1611 KJV and John Foxe confirm that there were English translations of Scripture long before the KJV. In fact, the Catholic Douay-Rheims (still in print today!) preceded the KJV by a few years.
No, it's not a single verse. It's about 30 of them.
and such a dogma was NOT the practice of the Early Church
Take it up with Irenaeus of Lyons, who laid it out very neatly in Against Heresies. But, I must warn you, he probably has forgotten more about the early church than you know.
OK, shall we deal with some specifics?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.