Assistance for KJV users - word updates
- Thread starter Nazaroo
- Start date
- Status
'U' and 'V' (but not interchanged as in the 1611 version!)
'W'
(no 'X': The Lord doesn't play the Xylophone!)
'Y'
(no 'Z': or zebras, only antelopes!)
Or add to my reputation!
Peace, Nazaroo
'W'
(no 'X': The Lord doesn't play the Xylophone!)
'Y'
(no 'Z': or zebras, only antelopes!)
If all this typing was of benefit to you, you can always bless me!
Or add to my reputation!
Peace, Nazaroo
Upvote
0
thetruth1611 said:
I'm Naz(aroo) and Kennedy is one of our charming moderators!
This was a harmless funny...
Upvote
0
Jesusong
Veteran
I've just read 24 pages of words that have changed in meaning in 400 years. Why in the the name of my loving God would I want to read a Bible where I need a 24 page appendix on the meaning of out dated words, to help me understand the Word of God?
It's a lot easier to pick up an NIV and start diving into the richness of His Word, and understand it more readily.
It's a lot easier to pick up an NIV and start diving into the richness of His Word, and understand it more readily.
Upvote
0
Jesusong said:
Here's why: the handful of changes here, that you could make with a hilighter and pen in the margin are trivial, compared to the mutilations to the text that have been done behind your back in the modern versions, including the NIV. In that case, over 200 whole and half verses have been chopped out of your New Testament, often without even a footnote. That's over 2000 words that have been removed from your bible before you got out of the starting gate.
Here's two links that document this problem, and offer something better:
Dark Secrets of Modern New Testaments
New Approachs to Textual Criticism
The point is, you don't even need to do what I suggested above. You could just go and buy a NEW KING JAMES NEW TESTAMENT, and you'd have your cake and eat it too. That is, you'd have an updated easy to read copy of the New Testament, WITHOUT the mutilations which follow the mistaken theories of textual critics.
Upvote
0
Just to make a few more points on this subject, consider this:
(1) The list above is pretty much a 'worst case' list. Any reasonably educated native English speaker should have no trouble understanding at least a third of them in context, even if they came across them for the first time.
(2) A further number (about 20%) could be easily noted and remembered without any problems. Although the actual meaning could not be correctly guessed, the change is logical or at least simple enough to pick up.
(3) Another group of words (10%) will be easily remembered because of their novelty and unfamiliarity in modern English. Having almost the status of 'foreign loan-words' they are also easily recognized and remembered.
(4) The only really difficult group of cases are words that are still in frequent use. These words have meanings which have seriously changed over time, but will have the appearance of being familiar words, and the modern meaning could unfortunately fit in the ancient setting, resulting in a misleading phrase or statement. Here there is a danger of misunderstanding or false doctrines.
(5) People for whom English is a SECOND language will have just as much difficulty with a modern translation. Typically, a foreign speaker of English will only have a conversational vocabulary of about 5000 words, compared to at least 20,000-50,000 in their own tongue. These people will not be able to get by with *any* translation without a good dictionary and a reasonably comprehensive grammar and English idiom book designed for the bible.
This last group represents the largest growing Christian convert group, and so the KJV is not the same issue it is for lazy English speakers who don't want to make the effort to read archaic English.
It boils down to this, depending upon your own educational background and reading experience as an English speaker.
(1) You will end up with essentially a subset of words, perhaps two dozen at the most in which you might want a quick look-up table or a 'cheat-sheet' on a slip of paper you can tape on the back page of your King James. That really isn't much effort for someone who is enthusiastic about God's Word.
(2) Or you can simply buy a New King James, or a King James II bible, and solve most of your problems and get some nice cross-references or marginal notes as well.
Hardship? I think not.
(1) The list above is pretty much a 'worst case' list. Any reasonably educated native English speaker should have no trouble understanding at least a third of them in context, even if they came across them for the first time.
(2) A further number (about 20%) could be easily noted and remembered without any problems. Although the actual meaning could not be correctly guessed, the change is logical or at least simple enough to pick up.
(3) Another group of words (10%) will be easily remembered because of their novelty and unfamiliarity in modern English. Having almost the status of 'foreign loan-words' they are also easily recognized and remembered.
(4) The only really difficult group of cases are words that are still in frequent use. These words have meanings which have seriously changed over time, but will have the appearance of being familiar words, and the modern meaning could unfortunately fit in the ancient setting, resulting in a misleading phrase or statement. Here there is a danger of misunderstanding or false doctrines.
(5) People for whom English is a SECOND language will have just as much difficulty with a modern translation. Typically, a foreign speaker of English will only have a conversational vocabulary of about 5000 words, compared to at least 20,000-50,000 in their own tongue. These people will not be able to get by with *any* translation without a good dictionary and a reasonably comprehensive grammar and English idiom book designed for the bible.
This last group represents the largest growing Christian convert group, and so the KJV is not the same issue it is for lazy English speakers who don't want to make the effort to read archaic English.
It boils down to this, depending upon your own educational background and reading experience as an English speaker.
(1) You will end up with essentially a subset of words, perhaps two dozen at the most in which you might want a quick look-up table or a 'cheat-sheet' on a slip of paper you can tape on the back page of your King James. That really isn't much effort for someone who is enthusiastic about God's Word.
(2) Or you can simply buy a New King James, or a King James II bible, and solve most of your problems and get some nice cross-references or marginal notes as well.
Hardship? I think not.
Upvote
0
thetruth1611
Active Member
Nazaroo said:
Actually, the NIV is missing 64,000 words and also 17 entire verses (Matthew 17:21 and Matthew 18:11-an important verse about why Jesus came to earth).
But the NKJV is missing 35,000 words. Most people think that the NKJV is just removing the "thee"s and the "thou"s but there are also many other things missing.
Check out:
http://jesus-is-lord.com/nkjvdead.htm and also http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html.
Perhaps this will open your eyes!
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
thetruth1611 said:
I don't know where you got these figures, but let's suppose their even close to a ballpark estimate. That makes the NKJV (New KJV) TWICE as good as pretty much all the others. Surely that is an argument in its FAVOUR over the others if the issue is the difficulty of outdated language.
Going to these websites is a disappointment, and here's why:
(1) NKJV LOGO: 'Satanic Symbol'?
On the www.av1611.org site over half the page is wasted on the bogus argument that the NKJV logo is a 'satanic symbol'. In fact the 'trillium rose' is an old Irish abstract design, which they chose to represent the Trinity, and which the site noted quite correctly has been appropriated by anarchists, fringe groups, 'wiccas' and other cultists or faddists, with various modifications.
There is no mystery here. The Christian Cross is another symbol, also equally easy to misappropriate or modify into a 'cult' symbol, as indeed it has been, far more frequently than the 'trillium rose' used by the NKJV. That is like saying that because inappropriate content stars dress up as nuns and cops that these symbols are also 'satanic'. It is nonsense like this that prevents sincere Christians from hearing more legitimate arguments and issues circling the New Testament text.
Just the Facts Please:
The second half of the site-page delves into details:
(2) Some Doctrinal Issues and changes reflecting our new knowledge of such New Testament themes as 'Hell' (Hades, Tartaros, Gehenna in Greek). While old time preachers might find a few of their favourite 'proof texts' no longer support their notions of 'hell' as clearly as the old King James seemed to, this is just sour grapes.
Early Church Dogma Unreliable:
The fact is, the reformers themselves had difficulty with many doctrines concerning 'hell', 'Satan' and 'purgatory' etc., and were concerned that the Catholic dogmas of the Middle Ages had over-reached scriptural warrants. This indeed turned out to be the case: from 'indulgences' to the 'Inquisition' and 'witch-burning', we have come a long way in shaking off some of the superstitious accretions that have built around the text.
Early Fathers Unreliable:
This is particularly true of the doctrines of the (often wrong, often flakey) early Fathers:
Tertullian (who now looks quite heretical on some points),
Origen (who appears a marginal Christian at best on some areas)
Augustine (whose proto-Calvinism distorted the view of man and salvation)
to name just a few would never be invited to speak at a modern Evangelical Rally today, because of fear that they'd rekindle all kinds of heresy.
Modern Translators Everywhere Now Play it Safe:
Why does a translation like the NKJV agree with say the NIV in many places as to how to handle certain keywords, especially when they are so diametrically opposed on other issues like what Greek text to rely upon, and Christological ideologies?
The answer is simple: They are being HONEST. Translators often have to admit they are not 100% on every variation of every doctrine that is popular, even among Evangelicals. They know they have no right to 'decide' for us these controversial and difficult issues.
So they fall back upon the same techniqe the original King James Translators used! The leave untranslated certain words, like "Sheol" (Hebrew O.T.) and "Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna" (N.T. Greek) and let the CONTEXT and USAGE determine the meanings or nuances to be inferred from the orginal authors. In other words, they don't do your homework for you: you have to, and you SHOULD, do it yourself!
If you think the KJV translators didn't fall back on this very same gimmick, just look at the Greek word 'BAPTIZE", which has simply been TRANSLITERATED, not translated at all, for the last 400 years in English bibles. Why? It's a simple word that means "WASH". That's it! What's the mystery? Simply this: The 'washing' was clearly a special 'ritual washing' not a simple bath or shower, and to this day, Christians debate about whether a full 'immersion' or a simple 'sprinkle' is sufficient or proper performance. Rather than get into fights with various Protestant groups, the KJV translators wisely left the word UNTRANSLATED, and let the denominations duke it out amongst themselves!
The point is, these debates are BEST handled by teachers, preachers and commentators, not translators.
Some mysteries, and some doctrines must be worked out, not cheaply 'solved' by preemptive or presumptuous translators.
Upvote
0
(3) Next on the site we get a bunch of Old Testament stuff, which in my mind is mostly minor, and again, having to do with doctrinal side-issues. The problem is, when you include the whole Old Testament, which is at least four times as large as the New Testament, it just dwarfs the N.T. question (the most important part of the bible!) and clouds the issue.
Lets keep the Old and New Testament problems separate please, because the Old Testament can be largely ignored for practical purposes in your Christian Walk, or should be. Sure its fun to read Genesis, and one should have a basic familarity with O.T. Law, and the histories. But once you have seen the prophecies of Christ in the Psalms and Prophets, you should be able to leave books like Esther or Song of Songs for a rainy day and dig into the New Testament in earnest. This is where the spiritual meat will be found.
What's next?
Finally some lists of texts and verses:
Here though we see about 30, 40 apparent problem verses listed.
But again there is disappointment: Yes there are a few important 'doctrinal' passages, and I guess we could expect that. But the bulk of the verses listed are either trivial, questionable stylisms, or actual improvements by any reasonable standard.
Sorry, but if the serious problems with the New King James New Testament can be counted as less than two dozen, I'll just buy a copy with wide margins and get out a pencil. How can that small bit of note-making compare to the much larger list of archaic and misleading passages in the old King James?
Or worse, who wants to try to correct the NIV by putting back over 200 whole/half verses? That has got to be twenty times the work for the same basic result.
Lets keep the Old and New Testament problems separate please, because the Old Testament can be largely ignored for practical purposes in your Christian Walk, or should be. Sure its fun to read Genesis, and one should have a basic familarity with O.T. Law, and the histories. But once you have seen the prophecies of Christ in the Psalms and Prophets, you should be able to leave books like Esther or Song of Songs for a rainy day and dig into the New Testament in earnest. This is where the spiritual meat will be found.
What's next?
Finally some lists of texts and verses:
Here though we see about 30, 40 apparent problem verses listed.
But again there is disappointment: Yes there are a few important 'doctrinal' passages, and I guess we could expect that. But the bulk of the verses listed are either trivial, questionable stylisms, or actual improvements by any reasonable standard.
Sorry, but if the serious problems with the New King James New Testament can be counted as less than two dozen, I'll just buy a copy with wide margins and get out a pencil. How can that small bit of note-making compare to the much larger list of archaic and misleading passages in the old King James?
Or worse, who wants to try to correct the NIV by putting back over 200 whole/half verses? That has got to be twenty times the work for the same basic result.
Upvote
0
Finally, we get a kind of chart/summary of the issue:
This looks like some kind of Scarecrow sign to chase away Christians.
But it really does cloud the issue. First of all, some of these numbers apply to the whole bible, both Old and New Testaments. But this isn't spelled out properly here.
Even assuming the accuracy of the above 'numbers',
Here is a much more useful chart:
# of times Our Lord God/ Jesus Omitted: 117 times (NKJV, whole bible) , vs. 190-230 times (N.T. alone, all other versions!)
# of words removed from NT: 2,289 (?) words (NKJV), vs. 8,400-8,675 words (all other versions!)
# of verses removed from NT: 2 to 4 verses (NKJV), 200 whole/half verses (all other versions!)
That is, all other versions remove the names of God over twice as often,
and all other versions delete four times as many words from the New Testament.
Fact.
This looks like some kind of Scarecrow sign to chase away Christians.
But it really does cloud the issue. First of all, some of these numbers apply to the whole bible, both Old and New Testaments. But this isn't spelled out properly here.
Even assuming the accuracy of the above 'numbers',
Here is a much more useful chart:
# of times Our Lord God/ Jesus Omitted: 117 times (NKJV, whole bible) , vs. 190-230 times (N.T. alone, all other versions!)
# of words removed from NT: 2,289 (?) words (NKJV), vs. 8,400-8,675 words (all other versions!)
# of verses removed from NT: 2 to 4 verses (NKJV), 200 whole/half verses (all other versions!)
That is, all other versions remove the names of God over twice as often,
and all other versions delete four times as many words from the New Testament.
Fact.
Upvote
0
The second website, http://jesus-is-lord.com/nkjvdead.htm is more interesting.
Here the page presents the problem with the New King James in a far smaller list of "16 points". This is probably a more realistic approach, which is good.
On the other hand, the propaganda engine here is cranked up to the max, with 'skull and crossbones' graphics, and wild statements, like "one of the deadliest translations on the market--the New King James Version".
You'd think we were talking about claymore landmines painted up to look like toys, or bottles of cyanide pills disguised as 'Smarties'.
Well, what about the 16 points? Let's have a look;
Uh oh: the guitarist for Led Zepplin plagarized a similar symbol for the 3rd album of his defunct 70s rock band. Call the exorcist.
(a) The readings are NOT 'Alexandrian' when the 'Byzantine/Western' Majority text also has the same reading. These are mostly just corrections of the 'received text' to make it more accurate.
(b) The footnotes in the NKJV hardly give any credence to the WH text! The whole point of putting those notes in the margin is to show for CONTRAST why the NKJV is better than other modern translations. This is the main selling point of the NKJV. The charge is ridiculous and misses the whole point. Try reading the indroduction.
It seems like a no-win situation here.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I am almost afraid to touch this one.
There are 6 different meanings for 'Israel' in the bible, and 4 meanings for 'Jew/Judah', none of which correspond to the blurry picture here.
A major bible study would be required to sort out this drivel.
Here the page presents the problem with the New King James in a far smaller list of "16 points". This is probably a more realistic approach, which is good.
On the other hand, the propaganda engine here is cranked up to the max, with 'skull and crossbones' graphics, and wild statements, like "one of the deadliest translations on the market--the New King James Version".
You'd think we were talking about claymore landmines painted up to look like toys, or bottles of cyanide pills disguised as 'Smarties'.
Well, what about the 16 points? Let's have a look;
Opening with a red herring like this hardly inspires any confidence in the writer: Of course the book is copyrighted, and so is the King James, by Her Majesty's Printers. Who cares? You buy the book, you can read it over and over for a lifetime. No one is likely to come after you for quoting it, even if you post huge chunks of it on the internet. People don't have the time for that tripe.
Uh oh: the guitarist for Led Zepplin plagarized a similar symbol for the 3rd album of his defunct 70s rock band. Call the exorcist.
(a) The readings are NOT 'Alexandrian' when the 'Byzantine/Western' Majority text also has the same reading. These are mostly just corrections of the 'received text' to make it more accurate.
(b) The footnotes in the NKJV hardly give any credence to the WH text! The whole point of putting those notes in the margin is to show for CONTRAST why the NKJV is better than other modern translations. This is the main selling point of the NKJV. The charge is ridiculous and misses the whole point. Try reading the indroduction.
Most sane defenders of the Received Text have admitted its imperfections. The main point is that however imperfect, it was 8,000 readings better than the Westcott-Hort critical text, and the modern versions that follow it.
Quoting these omissions without reference to where they occur, or what manuscript evidence is being used to support the readings or the translations is really stupid. How can anyone check these claims?
Finally some useful, checkable details. The number of texts involved is apparently less than a dozen.
This puts the cart before the horse. There is no point in arguing about controversial doctrines like Calvinism or Free will versus predestination, and appealing to the text as an authority, until the best and most accurate wording can be established. It may be that Calvinists and other extreme protestants would like their own bible, or think the old King James could suit that purpose, but really, if you want a bible that supports all your denomination's favourite doctrines, then translate it and publish it yourself! The King James was always meant to be a non-denominational bible for the English speaking peoples, and the New King James here is following the same Spirit.
A minor complaint, even if its a gaff.
I don't think this was done to give 'Ecumenicalists' power to reject people of divergent views: Think about it! Ecumenicalists want to UNITE the various denominations, even at the cost of 'important' doctrinal differences, not divide or isolate themselves! Most protestants who are anti-ecumenical are this way because of this. They don't propose 'conspiracies to divide' Protestants, who are already divided!
The question isn't whether it 'matches Alexandrian versions', but whether it is supported by the Byzantine or Majority text-type.
The translational point here is so obscure or ill-presented that it just comes off as a slur.
I doubt most bible students are going to stop studying and take it easy because of this verse.
Now the complaint is made over an obvious improvement in accuracy.
It seems like a no-win situation here.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I am almost afraid to touch this one.
There are 6 different meanings for 'Israel' in the bible, and 4 meanings for 'Jew/Judah', none of which correspond to the blurry picture here.
A major bible study would be required to sort out this drivel.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Jesusong
Veteran
Naz, We may not agree on the Byzantine and Alexandrian text issues, but after reading what you just posted I will say you've got a good head on your shoulders. I've visited those websites before, and come away shaking my head on how does one begin in forming a rebuttal on some of the nonsense there. You did a good job. 
P.S. I'm going to give you some reps for that one.
P.S. I'm going to give you some reps for that one.
Upvote
0
Thanks! After visiting sites like that I start to feel awfully lonely myself,Naz, We may not agree on the Byzantine and Alexandrian text issues, but after reading what you just posted I will say you've got a good head on your shoulders. I've visited those websites before, and come away shaking my head on how does one begin in forming a rebuttal on some of the nonsense there. You did a good job.
and I wonder if anyone is reading my stuff at all, and understanding it.
I really appreciate it when people take the time to check what I am really trying to say, and not just shoot me down in a knee-jerk reaction.
I would be delighted if you looked at my stuff in "previously unconsidered evidence for John 8:1-11 in this (bible study) forum. Any feedback on the things close to my heart are appreciated, from any quarter!
Peace, from Nazaroo
Upvote
0
thetruth1611
Active Member
Very much of what you say seems to be your own opinion. You seem to be quoting what was said on the website and then give your own commentary. I need better evidence than, "I doubt most bible students are going to stop studying and take it easy because of this verse."
Upvote
0
You have a valid point here.thetruth1611 said:
But try to keep in mind that I am a SUPPORTER of the traditional Greek text of the New Testament.
Nonetheless this heavy attack upon the New King James seems to be a misdirection of energy to me, when the more serious offences are found in OTHER modern versions, like the RSV, ASV, NASV, TEV, and even the NIV.
Try to understand that as an OPPONENT of the NIV, I have to acknowledge its high Christological integrity, its overall accurate translation (especially in comparison to other modern versions) and its clarity and ease of use for people with moderate vocabularies and education.
I am not against the work of the translators of the NIV per se, since their work is superior to that found in other modern versions. My beef is over the Greek text, and the Greek text alone. I only wish they had used their skills on a better Greek text as a base.
You have to be able to "know the things you can change, and the things you can't change". You have to be able to pick your battles, by recognizing and separating out the most important questions.
"Do not strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel!"
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
For those of you who don't have experience handling Old English pronouns, here's the deal:
________________________________________________
As Subject of clause:
_____________New English_________Old English_______
Singular
1st person...........I am ..........................I am.........
2nd person...........you are......................thou art*.....
3rd person............he,she,it is.................he, she, it is.......
Plural
1st person ............we are......................we are............
2nd person.............you are.....................ye are............
3rd person..............they are....................they are..........
*thou art - only used for 2nd person singular
Examples: Matt 5:24,25 11:28,29, 30 16:16-18 John 17:5-8
___________________________________________________
As Object in a Clause:
Singular
1st person.............me............................me.........
2nd person...........you............................thee.....
3rd person............him, her, it .................him, her, it.......
Plural
1st person ............us............................us................
2nd person.............you .........................you**............
3rd person..............they are....................they are..........
**you - only used for objective plural.
Examples: Matt.5:43,44 Luke 22:31,32 John 14:15-17
____________________________________________________
Possessive Forms:
Singular
1st person.............my, mine......................my, mine.........
2nd person.............your, yours ..................thy thine .....
3rd person............his, hers, its, .................his, hers, its,.....
Plural
1st person ............our, ours, ....................our, ours,......
2nd person.............your, yours .............. your, yours***......
3rd person..............their, theirs................their, theirs..........
*** also applied in royal court as 'majestic plural'.
Examples: Matt. 7:1-8, John 17:5-8
____________________________________________________
Enjoy!
[/b]
________________________________________________
As Subject of clause:
_____________New English_________Old English_______
Singular
1st person...........I am ..........................I am.........
2nd person...........you are......................thou art*.....
3rd person............he,she,it is.................he, she, it is.......
Plural
1st person ............we are......................we are............
2nd person.............you are.....................ye are............
3rd person..............they are....................they are..........
*thou art - only used for 2nd person singular
Examples: Matt 5:24,25 11:28,29, 30 16:16-18 John 17:5-8
___________________________________________________
As Object in a Clause:
Singular
1st person.............me............................me.........
2nd person...........you............................thee.....
3rd person............him, her, it .................him, her, it.......
Plural
1st person ............us............................us................
2nd person.............you .........................you**............
3rd person..............they are....................they are..........
**you - only used for objective plural.
Examples: Matt.5:43,44 Luke 22:31,32 John 14:15-17
____________________________________________________
Possessive Forms:
Singular
1st person.............my, mine......................my, mine.........
2nd person.............your, yours ..................thy thine .....
3rd person............his, hers, its, .................his, hers, its,.....
Plural
1st person ............our, ours, ....................our, ours,......
2nd person.............your, yours .............. your, yours***......
3rd person..............their, theirs................their, theirs..........
*** also applied in royal court as 'majestic plural'.
Examples: Matt. 7:1-8, John 17:5-8
____________________________________________________
Enjoy!
[/b]
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
