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

  • Members
10 hours ago, Alan said:

 

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?

 

9 hours ago, Alan said:

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."

 

Brethren,

In Dr. Stauffer's video he goes through Chapter 11, "They Call This New?" and Chapter 12, "No New Thing under the Sun," in his book, " One Book Stands Alone."

Dr. Stauffer very carefully examines numerous verses of the KJV Bible with the NKJV, the NWT, the NCV, and the CEV. Dr. Stauffer clearly, very clearly, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, the NKJV is comparable to the NIV, the NWT, the NCV and the CEV in numerous doctrinal and spiritual verses. The NKJV is not, repeat, is not, an updated King james Version. Dr. Stauffer states, "Thus began the "career" of one of the most insidious bibles ever to hit the market - the New King James Version," on page 167.  Dr. Stauffer is correct, the New King James Version (NKJV), is insidious.

As I stated before, our brother Tyndale ignores the comparison of these versions with the King James Version and tries other means to ignore Dr. Stauffer's par excellent teaching.

Brother John Young did us a great service in uploading the video by Dr. Stauffer. We need to carefully listen to the video, take notes, and I would encourage all of my brethren to purchase the book.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The title page of the 1611 edition of the KJV asserted [perhaps by the printer] that it is "newly translated out of the original tongues" while the translators in the 1611 preface suggested that the KJV is only a revision and not a new translation.

The fact is that the KJV can accurately be said to be both a revision and a translation [more a revision than a new translation since over 60% of the KJV's English comes from the pre-1611 English Bibles].

The NKJV is also both a revision [a revision of the KJV] and a translation of the same original-language texts used in making the KJV.

The terms "edition" and "revision" have been in effect used interchangeably by some KJV-only authors when sometimes it is suggested that the KJV is an edition of Tyndale's or another pre-1611 English and sometimes it is suggested that the KJV is a revision of Tyndale's or another pre-1611 English Bible.    Some will say that the 1769 Oxford is a revision of the 1611 edition while others will say that the 1769 Oxford is an edition.  Later editors/printers of the KJV made use of the original-language texts is making their revisions and changes to the 1611 edition just as the NKJV translators did in making their revisions to the KJV.  Some translating or re-translating was done in the making of changes and revisions to the 1611 edition.

David Cloud stated that the predecessors of the KJV were "the same basic Bibles."  He wrote:  "They were based upon the same Greek text and employed the same type of translation methodology" (For Love of the Bible, p. 48).  David Cloud referred to the Geneva Bible as "an edition of the Tyndale" and the KJV as "another edition of Tyndale" (Rome and the Bible, p. 106; Faith, p. 510; Glorious History of the KJB, p. 102).  Cloud also referred to the KJV as “a revision of the Tyndale Bible” (Faith, p. 577).  He also noted:  "Our Authorized English Bible is a direct descendant of Tyndale's faithful Version" (O Timothy, Vol. 14, Issue 5, 1997, p. 10).  Robert Sargent referred to the Geneva Bible as the "third revision of Tyndale's Bible" and to the Bishops' Bible as the "fourth revision of Tyndale's Bible" (English Bible, pp. 197, 198).  Edward F. Hills affirmed that the 1611 KJV "is mainly a revision of the Bishops' Bible, which in turn was a slightly revised edition of Tyndale's Bible" (KJV Defended, p. 215). 

 

It remains a fact that the same-type differences can be found between the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision and the KJV as can be found between the KJV and the NKJV.  I do not think that those same type-differences introduced in the KJV should be considered "insidious" and by the same exact measures/standards neither should they in the NKJV. 

 

 

Edited by Tyndale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

John 7:24

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Are some possibly jumping to wrong conclusions by judging merely according to the appearance instead of judging righteous judgment by applying the same exact measures/standards justly?   Would John 7:24 suggest that judging according to the appearance is excellent teaching?

13 hours ago, John Young said:

That's why the KJV isn't called the New Bishops bible.

The 1568 Bishops' Bible did not have the name Bishops' Bible on its title page, and the 1611 edition of the KJV did not have the name King James Version on its title page.

The first rule for the making of the KJV stated:  "The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit."

If a publisher today had first printed the KJV as a revision of the Bishops' Bible, that publisher may well have called it "the New Bishops' Bible."

Edited by Tyndale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Could KJV-only allegations against the NKJV demonstrate that many KJV-only advocates do not approach the NKJV with the same attitude with which they would approach the 1560 Geneva Bible or the 1611 KJV?

 

 Do some seem to approach the NKJV as a Bible critic instead as a serious, seeking reader of a Bible translation?  While they may condemn anyone who approaches the KJV as a critic, are they perhaps guilty of the same thing in their approach to the NKJV?  

 

Do the Scriptures instruct believers to approach their reading of one English Bible translation differently than their reading of another one?  Do the Scriptures instruct believers to show respect to persons or to show partiality to the translating work of one exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611 over the translating work of another group of scholars?

 

  Evidently, some KJV-only advocates may come to inspect a mirror [the NKJV] (perhaps using a magnifying glass) instead of coming to see themselves in this mirror of the Scriptures translated into present-day English in the NKJV.  Do they only look inconsistently and critically at this mirror and refuse to look in it? 

 

Would they read the NKJV as the word of God translated into present-day English and with a willingness to obey and apply the scriptural truths in its verses to their own lives? 

 

Because they may come to the NKJV solely as a critic or because they may read against it, they may be unable to see that it would belong in the same family of Bible translations as the Geneva Bible and the KJV.  They do not respect, accept, or believe the NKJV as a good Bible translation which could communicate to them the words of God translated into English. 

 

Could KJV-only advocates suppose that they see errors in the NKJV because they had already assumed that they are there or because they have been told that they were there based on a superficial judgment according to appearance? 

Edited by Tyndale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 5/30/2020 at 7:58 PM, Alan said:

 

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?

You are assuming there there was a definite TR text that was perfect and pure, but Eramus had believe 6 he compiled, and there are instances in the 1611 Kjv when they did not even use any TR text, but took it in right from latin Vulgate!

The Nkjv is the best Translation is use for those who like the Kjv tradition!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
4 hours ago, DaChaser said:

You are assuming there there was a definite TR text that was perfect and pure, but Eramus had believe 6 he compiled, and there are instances in the 1611 Kjv when they did not even use any TR text, but took it in right from latin Vulgate!

The Nkjv is the best Translation is use for those who like the Kjv tradition!

DaChaser and Tyndale,

John Young, and I, tried to show, politely and in Christian love and forbearance, the errors, corruption, and doctrinal changes of the NKJV, through the excellent video by Dr. Stauffer and we have been ignored by you and Tyndale. Instead of listening to the excellent teaching of Dr. Stauffer, and John Young and I, you and Tyndale have changed the subject and will not discuss the verses listed by Dr. Stauffer in Chapter 11 and 12 that he lists in the video.

It is my thoughts that you, and brother Tyndale,  came here on Online Baptist in order to create dissension and arguments and are not come on Online Baptist for honest, sincere Bible teaching. The apostle Paul stated, "For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would not: lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults."  2 Corinthians 12:20. Instead, you and Tyndale, thus far, are trying to cause the brethren here to doubt the veracity of the preservation of the scriptures, have a hatred towards the King James Version, disparage the those who use the KJV,  libel those who disagree, and both of you want to cause debates, strife and tumults among us brethren.

I have decided not to argue with either one of you. If you want to discuss, in an honest and Christian-like manner, my other Bible studies ( I have several here on Online Baptist), please do so. I would like to be your friend. But, I will not argue nor debate either one of you.

Regards,

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Alan said:

DaChaser and Tyndale,

It is my thoughts that you, and brother Tyndale,  came here on Online Baptist in order to create dissension and arguments and are not come on Online Baptist for honest, sincere Bible teaching. The apostle Paul stated, "For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would not: lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults."  2 Corinthians 12:20. Instead, you and Tyndale, thus far, are trying to cause the brethren here to doubt the veracity of the preservation of the scriptures, have a hatred towards the King James Version, disparage the those who use the KJV,  libel those who disagree, and both of you want to cause debates, strife and tumults among us brethren.

Regards,

Alan

I believe in the preservation of the Scriptures.  I accept all that the Scriptures state and teach about preservation.   No one demonstrated from the Scriptures anything unscriptural in my scripturally-based points concerning the preservation of the Scriptures. 

I love the KJV and accept it as what it actually is.   I have read the KJV for over 50 years.   I do not disparage those who read and use the KJV as what it actually is.  Do you disobey a command of God as you bear false witness by falsely alleging that I supposedly hate the KJV?   You are wrong to question my honesty, and your incorrect allegations do not demonstrate Christian love and forbearance.  In agreement with scriptural truth, I correctly disagree with the making of misleading, unproven, or false claims concerning the KJV and concerning the NKJV.  

My purpose is to speak the truth just as the Scriptures teach.   I may have been more kind when I disagree with another poster than those who choose to make unproven and even untrue accusations against me.   You do not demonstrate that I supposedly libeled any one.  It is in agreement with clear scriptural truth that I soundly reject the use of unjust divers measures [double standards] in the making of misleading accusations against the NKJV. 

Evidently, you could not answer my sound questions concerning a negative approach to the word of God translated into present-day English.

Edited by Tyndale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
17 hours ago, Alan said:

DaChaser and Tyndale,

John Young, and I, tried to show, politely and in Christian love and forbearance, the errors, corruption, and doctrinal changes of the NKJV, through the excellent video by Dr. Stauffer and we have been ignored by you and Tyndale. Instead of listening to the excellent teaching of Dr. Stauffer, and John Young and I, you and Tyndale have changed the subject and will not discuss the verses listed by Dr. Stauffer in Chapter 11 and 12 that he lists in the video.

It is my thoughts that you, and brother Tyndale,  came here on Online Baptist in order to create dissension and arguments and are not come on Online Baptist for honest, sincere Bible teaching. The apostle Paul stated, "For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would not: lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults."  2 Corinthians 12:20. Instead, you and Tyndale, thus far, are trying to cause the brethren here to doubt the veracity of the preservation of the scriptures, have a hatred towards the King James Version, disparage the those who use the KJV,  libel those who disagree, and both of you want to cause debates, strife and tumults among us brethren.

I have decided not to argue with either one of you. If you want to discuss, in an honest and Christian-like manner, my other Bible studies ( I have several here on Online Baptist), please do so. I would like to be your friend. But, I will not argue nor debate either one of you.

Regards,

Alan

I do respect and use the Kjv, but do not see it as being perfect and infallible, as there were known mistakes and errors that have been corrected in the later editions of the Kjv!

Do you respect dean Burgeon as a text critic, as he was not holding to the TR nor the 1611 as being perfect!

And as far as I know, the Sources and materials used by the Nkjv team to translate were the same ones the 1611 team had access to and used!

Edited by DaChaser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
  • Members
3 hours ago, robycop3 said:

  I have been told by the moderators  not to discuss KJVO here, but anyone wishing to discuss it may meet me on either the Baptist Board or CARM board, where I'm under the same handle, robycop3.

You no longer go by "steelmaker"?

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...