Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Thoughts on a Good NKJV study Bible


Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...
  • Members
On 4/12/2020 at 11:39 PM, Sophiearose said:

I am looking for a NKJV study Bible.  I have found MacAuthur’s and Jeremiah.  Does anyone have a good study Bible they love?

If can find it, Ryrie Nkjv, and the reformation study bible!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
On 4/12/2020 at 11:39 PM, Sophiearose said:

I am looking for a NKJV study Bible.  I have found MacAuthur’s and Jeremiah.  Does anyone have a good study Bible they love?

Any particular reason why you are looking for a NKJV? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

One Book Stands Alone: The New King James PerVersion (part 4 of 4)

Deals with the internal inconsistency of the NKJV word choices and the fact that it changes meanings and does not just update language and grammar of the KJV.

Edited by John Young
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 5/28/2020 at 10:40 PM, John Young said:

One Book Stands Alone: The New King James PerVersion (part 4 of 4)

Deals with the internal inconsistency of the NKJV word choices and the fact that it changes meanings and does not just update language and grammar of the KJV.

Would yoyu feel the same way then on the 21 century Kjv?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote

 

In contradiction to scriptural instructions to apply the same measures/standards justly, it should be evident that Doug Stauffer applies different measures to the word choices in one English Bible translation [the NKJV] than he would apply to the word choices in another English Bible translation [the KJV].  Would use of double standards be just and scriptural?

The makers of the KJV changed meanings in the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision, and they did not just update language and grammar in them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Tyndale said:

The makers of the KJV changed meanings in the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision, and they did not just update language and grammar in them.

That's why the KJV isn't called the New Bishops bible. It was meant to be an an authoritative revision of all those that came before it. Modern Critical text revisions by their very nature are not authoritative works as they exclude the tradition of those faithful works that came before them in favor of "new discoveries" of manuscripts not historically used and passed down in the churches. The NKJV while claiming authoritative lineage favors and inserts into its text critical text revisions of doubtful origin and therefor it is not a KJV nor faithful to the text it claims to merely "update".

Edited by John Young
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
34 minutes ago, John Young said:

. The NKJV while claiming authoritative lineage favors and inserts into its text critical text revisions of doubtful origin and therefor it is not a KJV nor faithful to the text it claims to merely "update".

That may be your opinion, but I do not think that it has not been soundly and justly proven to be true.   I have read Stauffer's book, and I do not think that he makes a convincing case based on use of the same measures/standards applied justly. 

From the evidence that I have seen and examined, the differences between the KJV and the NKJV fall into the same range of differences as those between the KJV and the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision.   There are by far greater textual differences between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV than any KJV-only advocate has claimed to find between the KJV and the NKJV.   Thus, I think that my point that the same measures/standards are not being applied justly still stands.   I have found a good number of places where the NKJV differs with the KJV that is in agreement with the 1560 Geneva Bible, which has been claimed by KJV-only authors to be basically the same Bible or practically identical to the KJV

The makers of the KJV made use of multiple, textually-varying sources including non-TR sources such as the Greek LXX and the Latin Vulgate.  The fact that the makers of the KJV borrowed a good number of renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament translated from an edition of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome [a non-Textus Receptus source] is also skipped over.   There is the first-hand testimony from one of the KJV translators themselves that acknowledges the use of the Rheims.

Edited by Tyndale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

KJV defender David Norris acknowledged that the NKJV can “be classed largely as a revision rather than a retranslation” (Big Picture, p. 367). 

 

KJV defender David Sorenson admitted that the NKJV’s N. T. “is translated from the Textus Receptus” (Touch Not, p. 240).  David Sorenson also listed the NKJV as being “based upon the Received Text” (p. 10). 

 

Laurence Vance acknowledged that the NKJV’s “New Testament was based on the Received Text” (Brief History, p. 92).

 

Joe Gresham claimed that the NKJV “follows the same ancient manuscripts as the KJV” (Dealing with Devil’s Deception, p. 149). 

 

KJV-only author Samuel Gipp acknowledged that the NKJV “is based on the correct Antiochian manuscripts” (Answer Book, p. 104). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
8 hours ago, DaChaser said:

Would yoyu feel the same way then on the 21 century Kjv?

 

1 hour ago, Tyndale said:

KJV defender David Norris acknowledged that the NKJV can “be classed largely as a revision rather than a retranslation” (Big Picture, p. 367). 

 

KJV defender David Sorenson admitted that the NKJV’s N. T. “is translated from the Textus Receptus” (Touch Not, p. 240).  David Sorenson also listed the NKJV as being “based upon the Received Text” (p. 10). 

 

Laurence Vance acknowledged that the NKJV’s “New Testament was based on the Received Text” (Brief History, p. 92).

 

Joe Gresham claimed that the NKJV “follows the same ancient manuscripts as the KJV” (Dealing with Devil’s Deception, p. 149). 

 

KJV-only author Samuel Gipp acknowledged that the NKJV “is based on the correct Antiochian manuscripts” (Answer Book, p. 104). 

Interesting.

Instead of commenting on the numerous, obvious, perversions, and corruptions of the NKJV text that Dr. Stauffer mentioned, and very clearly explained, both DaChaser and Tyndale just ignore them and will not quote the textual corruptions that Dr. Stauffer, mentioned. Nor, will they quote the examples of the NKJV perversions  that David Sorenson, Laurence Vance, Joe Gresham mentioned. Hmmm??? Interesting.

Why not look at the individual textual perversions that Dr. Stauffer mentioned instead of ignoring the verses mentioned?

Edited by Alan
doubled word spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Doug Stauffer asked:  ""Does your version reduce Jesus to God's servant rather than His Son in Acts 3:13, 3:26, 4:27, or 4:30" (One Book Stands, p. 297)? 

 

     This same Greek word found at Acts 4:27 and 30 was also used of Jesus at Matthew 12:18a where it was translated "servant" in the KJV.  However, it was translated "child" in Wycliffe's, 1534 Tyndale's, Matthew's, Great, and Bishops' Bibles and as "son" in 1526 Tyndale's.  Why is this difference important in Acts 4:27 and 30 but unimportant in Matthew 12:18?  Does the KJV’s rendering at Matthew 12:18 demonstrate that the NKJV translators used one of renderings which the Greek NT text would allow?  Would Stauffer suggest that the KJV reduced Jesus to God's servant at Matthew 12:18?  Does this demonstrate that Stauffer does not use the same measures/standards in allegations against the NKJV since he does not apply the same measures to the KJV's rendering at Matthew 12:18?

 

     The Companion Bible [KJV] has this note for "child" at Acts 4:27:  "child=servant, Greek pais, as in v. 25" (p. 1585).  The 1657 English edition of The Dutch Annotations has the following note for "thy holy child Jesus" at Acts 4:27:  "or servant, minister, See Acts 3:13, 26, see also Matthew 8:6 compared with Luke 7:2 and here verse 25."  Concerning Acts 3:13 in his 1851 commentary as edited by Alvah Hovey in the American Baptist Publication Society's American Commentary on the N. T., Horatio Hackett (1808-1875) wrote:  "pais, not son=huios, but servant=Heb. ebhedh, which was one of the prophetic appellations of the Messiah, especially in the second part of Isaiah.  (See Matt. 12:18, as compared with Isa. 42:1).  The term occurs again in this sense in v. 26; 4:27, 30" (pp. 59-60).  Concerning Acts 4:27, John Gill noted:  "Unless the word should rather be rendered  servant,  as it is in verse 25 and which is a character that belongs to Christ, and is often given him as Mediator, who, as such, is God's righteous servant" (Exposition, VIII, p. 176).      

 

 The KJV translated this Greek word pais as "servant" 10 times, "child" 7 times, and "son" 3 times. 

 

James D. Price explained that the real reason for this choice of rendering in the book of Acts in the NKJV is that the translators thought that in this context Peter was alluding to Isaiah 52:13, which identifies Christ as the Servant of the LORD (False Witness, p. 25). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Doug Stauffer alleged that the NKJV has "51 omissions of God", but he does not compare these places in both the KJV and the NKJV to the Hebrew Masoretic text and Textus Receptus from which the KJV is translated (One Book Stands Alone, p. 150).

In response to this misleading charge likely repeated from Gail Riplinger, James D. Price noted:  "The truth is that the KJV added the word "God" in fifty one or more places where the Hebrew or Greek text did not contain it--and that without using italics in most cases.  This was because the KJV used dynamic equivalence paraphrases such as "God forbid," "God save the king," or "God speed" instead of a more literal expression in good English.  In all these places the NKJV made the KJV more literal and more faithful to the Hebrew and Greek texts without undermining the place of God in the Bible" (False Witness of G. A. Riplinger's Death Certificate for the NKJV, p. 4).

Edited by Tyndale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Wait a minute my friend Tyndale.

First of all, the NKJV states very clearly that it a new edition of the KJV and not a revised edition.

Dr. Stauffer is comparing the KJV with NKJV and has clearly shown that they are different in doctrinal issues. Therefore, Dr. Stauffer, through his clear examples of the corruption and perversion of NKJV has shown that, as  he mentioned in the video, the NKJV is "BLASPHEMOUS TRASH."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...