Fundamentalist hangupsgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Bethany Bible College : One Thread
I have often wondered why some of these fundamentalist websites insist upon using the KJV when the NKJV is so much superior. It is more understandable, and more readable. It is also very literal and close to the NASB--meaning it's also quite accurate. So why are we fiddling with something hundreds of years old when it's no longer necessary? I am beginning to think it's just silly stubborness. "His word was in mine heart..." (Jer. 20:9)? Why would anyone in today's world consciously use such English? Yeah, yeah, I know all about Westcott and Hort and old ms, etc., but if you used this language in a 4th grade compostion class you'd flunk out. So why use it to display the Word of God?
-- Ralph Filicchia (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 31, 1999
Of all the new translations on the market, the New King James has the most potential for being a useful Bible translation. It follows a formal equivalency method of translating the Majority Text (same as the King James Bible). But we do have some problems with the New King James Bible that must be admitted.
First, that copyright. Once again men with good intentions have done a very bad thing. To place a "copyright" upon God's word is unacceptable in our opinion. (See our article, "The Copyright Scam: An Infringement Upon God." This is a sad arrangement made between the translators and publishers. The translators needed money for the work and instead of doing things God's way and allowing for free will offerings from God's people to cover their needs, they solicited money from a publishing house who, in turn, required copyright control over the use and sale of the translation.
Second, there are some very bad changes made to the text. For example, the King James reading of Genesis 2:7 says, "Man became a living soul." The New King James changes this to "Man became a living being." Hebrew scholarship gives sufficient reason for leaving the word "soul" in the text. But more importantly it is definitely better doctrine to teach that man became a living soul since that is what differentiates man from beast. Fish are living being. Monkeys are living beings. But man is a living soul.
Third, footnotes like that of Daniel 3:25 provide some terrible information that can leave the undiscerning Bible student with great doubts. In this text, Nebuchadnezzar admits to seeing four men in the fiery furnace, though only three had been thrown in. The King James records his statement that the fourth looked like, "the Son of God." But the New King James footnote says that he actually might have said that the fourth looked like, "a son of the gods." This is terrible.
Other little errors can lead to big misunderstandings. Remember, Satan simply added the word "hath" to "God said" and turned the statement of faith that "God said" into a question of "hath God said?". The little things do matter.
One such little error is found in the John 4:24 reading of the New King James Bible. The King James correctly says, "God is a Spirit." The New King James makes the little change of dropping the article "a" and reads, "God is Spirit." This, again, is terribly wrong. God is A Spirit. To say "God is Spirit" is to lend oneself to pantheistic theology that "God is all and all is God".
We refer the reader to other bad changes such as removing the commandment to "study" from 2 Timothy 2:15. How many millions of Christians were reared on "Study to shew thyself approved unto God.."? The New King James dilutes this to, "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God." Why? Why change such a precious Bible verse and water it down like that? We are truly at a loss for words when we see such careless disregard for precious and meaningful verses like this.
Dear friend, if you are using a New King James Bible we do not want you to feel that we are condemning you. We know a good number of people who have parallel versions with the King James and New King James side by side. But nearly all of these use the New KJV as a tool for understanding the more trustworthy King James Bible. And we pray that you will begin the same practice.
We also pray that the NKJV publishers will release an updated edition of their translation and correct these terrible mistakes. It may never happen, but we pray it will. We hope that you have learned and been challenged by this information. We do not present it to upset you, but everything in this article is true. And we as Christians are to be lovers of the truth.
-- Greg "Fudge" Miller (email@example.com), May 31, 1999.
Well, I'm going to go out on a limb here, and make an educated guess and say that I believe this post is a "troll". For those of you not familiar with internet nomenclature, a "troll" is a message inserted, particularly in an online forum, specifically for the purpose of starting or exacerbating a controversy.
Or, perhaps you are using satire and double-entendre to illustrate your point. So call me naive!:-)
In this case, I personally feel it only muddies the waters. I'd prefer a more straightforward approach. If a discussion on Bible Versions is warranted or desired, why not just state it outright rather than playing the old "double-agent" routine?
Just some thoughts...you're mileage may vary!
-- Mark Jones (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 01, 1999.
You could possibly fall off your limb. I'm dead serious here. I live in a Boston suburb which is as far as one can get from the so-called Bible belt. No one up here (including most solid Bible preaching churches)uses the King James anymore. And with the advent of the NKJV I don't see why they should. I have heard that no translation is perfect, and that includes the KJV. Just consider 2 Cor. 5:21 where the NKJV straightens out the verse making it much more accurate. Or Rom. 6:2 where the KJV says "God forbid" even though the word "God" is not in the original. And there are other examples we could mention. You could go back and forth with these little illustrations. My point is, if someting is more readable and just as accurate, then why not use it? I even see some ads mentioning the original 1611 version of the KJV. But why would anyone want that? Has this version become some kind of fetish? There is a need for a New Fundamentalism that discards the KJV in favor of the NKJV, throws out the pre-trib rapture, questions the idea of eternal security, and junks cultural taboos like prohibibtions against dancing, buying lottery tickets, drinking wine, etc. With all due respect, this is all "southern junk" that should be seriously examined without referring to one as an agitator or "troll" or whatever... At this point in my life I see no need to blindly believe something just because the fundamentalist heirarchy says so. I am more a fundamentalist than they are because I refuse to go beyond what is written.
-- Ralph Filicchia (email@example.com), June 01, 1999.
SMACK...that's the sound of me falling of my limb! Sawed off right behind me!
I apologize...please forgive my haste to judge your post as a troll. Maybe we'll hear some good discussion on this thread...
-- Mark Jones (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 02, 1999.
This should prove to be an interesting thread....not to be argumentative, but here's a few comments:
"I live in a Boston suburb which is as far as one can get from the so-called Bible belt. No one up here (including most solid Bible preaching churches) uses the King James anymore. And with the advent of the NKJV I don't see why they should. "
Accuracy of translations has nothing much to do with geography, but for the record, there are a lot further places to be than Boston. :) Regarding the usage of the KJV, I find it hard to believe that 'no one' uses the KJV. I'm sure you mean that the KJV is not as widely used, but I wonder how you arrived at this conclusion.
"My point is, if someting is more readable and just as accurate, then why not use it?"
I agree wholeheartedly, but I have yet to see proof that the NKJV is 'more accurate' at all. Compared to what? The KJV? The 'originals'? I don't think anyone in this group can speak very firmly regarding 'the originals'. No one here has seen one, talked to anyone who has every seen one or had a great- great- granddad that ever saw one.
Regarding your comments about "no translation is perfect", I disagree. Would you not think that God is powerful enough to preserve his Word after He inspired it?
"There is a need for a New Fundamentalism that discards the KJV in favor of the NKJV"
Really? I hadn't noticed.
"throws out the pre-trib rapture"
That's a whole other thread and one that I might be interested in debating if I had more time. After another recent small study on the matter, I'm convinced that the Mid- and Post-Tribulation Raptures have no basis in the Bible.
", questions the idea of eternal security, and junks cultural taboos like prohibibtions against dancing, buying lottery tickets, drinking wine, etc. With all due respect, this is all "southern junk" that should be seriously examined without referring to one as an agitator or "troll" or whatever"
The amount of time I had spent on this response seemed like a waste of time when I read the above line. It leads me to believe that you either don't have a family or have no idea what it takes to lead one in the areas of Christianity, morality, decency and ambition. I believe that the rules my parents taught us regarding gambling and drinking had AlREADY been "seriously examined" by generation after generation of mothers and fathers who wnated to raise children who were able to effectively manage money (does the words "good steward" ring a bell?) and also to exercise moderation in the area of substances that cause social and family problems.
The statistics that show a minority of Christians consistently tithing their income and yet another good slice of the demographic pie buying lottery tickets are a good indication that we need to read more about what God expects from us in the area of finances.
Again, if I had more time, I'd be glad to give you some excellent reasons why the lottery is STUPID from a financial standpoint without using the Bible. It's really common sense. But as Samuel Clemens once sai
-- Tony Rush (email@example.com), June 02, 1999.
I suppose we will be having this discussion for quite awhile, At least until our Lord calls us to be with him. I would simply like to say what is wrong with using the KJV? Have you sir found any errors? It would appear to me, that with all(6 or more)other versions floating around, we are losing a "commoness" in our study of scripture.
We know that GOD said that he is not the author of confusion (1 Cor 14:33)nor would his Word be either. He did not intend for his Word to be copyrighted by men like Rupert Murdoch(NIV)and to be profited upon with the copyrights. Also, the denials of God's power, Christ's deity, and confusing terms seem to only confuse God's children today.
One of my favorite present day preachers, Dr. Stephen Olford, uses the NKJV but I don't pick a bone of contention with him over it. I simply lay my KJV next to the scriptures he is referencing. However, from the church pulpit we do teach from the KJV, we show the errancies of the other versions, and hold the KJV to be the Word of God.
I also do not buy the saying " that it is too hard to read" either. Let the God's Holy Spirit guide you in your reading and you will understand it. We know that the Bible is written for the child of God and that lost people will have difficulty understanding it. Let's win them to Christ not dilute his Word.
-- Darrin M. Hall (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 28, 1999.
I made a mistake! a very big typo...I meant to write Let God's Holy Spirit guide...not the God's Holy Spirit...see what happens when men write, we make mistakes!
-- Darrin M. Hall (email@example.com), July 28, 1999.
What always comes to my mind when reading these types of discussions is this: why is it seemingly impossible to correct/update the archaic English language of the KJV and NOT tamper with the basic text or translation? How difficult would it be to merely update pronoun useage without changing the sentences themselves? But noooo...a "new" translation is needed (always). I agree that the English language has changed over the last 400 years, and that moderns are really less literate than ever. But that doesn't mean radically alter something that is tried and true. Update, yes. Retranslate, no.
-- Dr. Jon F. Dewey (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 02, 1999.
I agree with Dr. Dewey. A while back, I heard of a Bible called the KJV2000. It was supposed to be basicly just what Dr. Dewey mentioned. I use the KJV in all of my teaching and preaching. However, I am not above changing the "ye" to "you" when I speak it aloud. I also will often change the "th" to "s" when applicable. With the find and replace function of most word processors, a half dozen people should be able to have the whole KJV changed to reflect common language and proofread in about a week or three. No retranslations, just replacing things like "saith" with "says".
-- Bill Ciocco (email@example.com), December 03, 1999.
Are you gentlemen being completely honest with yourselves? The difference between the KJV and the NKJV is a bit more than proper pronouns. We're talking about the meanings of words! I have great respect for the KJV, but for heaven's sake let's get realistic. When my daughter comes home from Sunday school and asks me "Hey, Dad, what's a milch kine," I didn't know what she was talking about. I look it up in 1 Sam. 6:7 and find out it should be "milk cow," as it says in the NKJV. Should my daughter have to fool around with that kind of archaic language? The same point can be made for the word "charity" instead of "love" in 1st Cor. 13. There's just no need of it.
-- Ralph Filicchia (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 04, 1999.
One more point I should have mentioned. I agree that it might be very easy to just change the necessary words instead of going through a whole new translation. So why hasn't this been done? I think the answer is obvious. It's the same old Fundamentalist stubborness that is suspicious of everything and everyone who doesn't cross their T's and dot their I's the same way--even when it makes obvious sense!
-- Ralph Filicchia (email@example.com), December 04, 1999.