|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
There are many versions and translations of the Bible out there, and,
granted, some are worse than others; and the question inevitably arises,
"What about the New King James Version?" "Is it any different than the old
King James Version?"
At first glance, it would seem that the NKJV is a further revision of
the King James version for clarity as was made in 1769. But there are some
concerns that arise when you study it a little closer...
Acts 17:10-11, "And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas
by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received
the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily,
whether those things were so."
What about you? Have you already made your mind up? The Lord commends those
who listen and then take their Bible and study it to see if it is so. Dont
believe me--get your Bible and see what it has to say. Have you studied
it out for yourself, or do you just go on what you have been told by men?
How can the average person tell if there is a problem with a version of
the Bible? You dont have a degree in Greek of Hebrew; you dont have any
manuscripts; all you have is two Bibles, lets say the KJV and the NKJV.
Well, compare the two. See if they agree or disagree with each other.
The NKJV actually claims to be another revision of the KJV just to make
it clearer. Clarifying a word like "succour" is one thing, but what about
the words "thee, thou, and ye"?
Luke 22:30-33 (NKJV), "that you may eat and drink at My table in
My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And
the Lord said, Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that
he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, that
your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to
Me, strengthen your brethren. But he said to Him, Lord, I am ready
to go with You, both to prison and to death."
Ok... does this really matter? Actually, it does. The older English that was used in the writing of the King James was a little more precise than the English we use today. Take Shakespeare, he used very eloquent and descriptive language, and much of it does not have an equivalent in our modern speech. Thee and thou are second person singular pronouns. They are used when speaking to one person, as is seen in verse 33 when Peter says to Jesus, "I am ready to go with thee". Ye and you are second person plural pronouns. They are used when speaking to a group of people.
The older language of the King James can then accurately show these tenses when they appear in the Greek. In this passage in Luke, Jesus is speaking to all of his disciples (ye and you), and then he starts speaking directly to Peter (thee and thou). He specifically says that Satan desired to have all of the disciples, and that Jesus had specifically prayed for Peter. You will not see this in the New King James.
It seems that the King James is the more accurate translation on this point. How important is complete accuracy?
Lets go back to Shakespeare. If you couldnt understand a certain line in one of his plays, would you change it into a lesser form of English? No, you wouldnt tinker with Shakespeare just because you cant understand the archaic language, it would change the meaning. But that is just poetry, Gods Word is more important, and we should put it on a higher plane than any other form of literature.
Matthew 20:20 (NKJV), "Then the mother of Zebedee's sons came to Him with
her sons, kneeling down and asking something from Him.
These are the kind of omissions that you would find in paraphrase versions of the Bible--making worship of Jesus just reverence. The New King James only omits this one reference to worship of Jesus-- but why? It certainly isnt for clarity of the passage.
Acts 17:29 (NKJV), "Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought
not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone,
something shaped by art and man's devising."
There is a difference between the Godhead and the Divine Nature:
Colossians 2:9 (KJV), "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."
Romans 1:20 (KJV), "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse"
2Peter 1:4 (KJV), "Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust."
We are partakers of the divine nature; we are not partakers of the Godhead. We should be careful not to get the two confused.
1Corinthians 1:21 (NKJV), "For since, in the wisdom of God, the world
through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness
of the message preached to save those who believe."
There certainly is a difference between these two verses. Is it the message that is foolish, or is it the method of preaching that is foolish?
1Thessalonians 5:22 (NKJV), "Abstain from every form of evil.
Even more subtle. Abstaining from even the appearance of evil is staying away from something that just looks like it is bad. Abstaining from every form of evil is staying away from something that is definitely bad.
How close can we get to evil things? Even if it just has an appearance of evil, stay away from it.
1John 3:16 (NKJV), "By this we know love, because He laid down
His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
Define love. What kind? Be specific. We know the love of God because He laid down His life for us. Not just a generic love--the love of God.
Genesis 2:18 (NKJV), "And the LORD God said, It is not good that man should
be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him."
This seems to be a deliberate changing of the text to make it say something different than it has always said. It certainly changes the meaning.
Romans 6:22 (NKJV), "But now having been set free from sin, and having
become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end,
everlasting life."
Doesnt sound quite right does it? Slaves of God? That almost sounds bad. The word servants shows that we willingly serve Him.
John 14:16 (NKJV), "And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another
Helper, that He may abide with you forever;"
Whats going on here? This change didnt need to be made. It is so small
and subtle it seems to not really matter; but if it doesnt matter, why
change it in the first place? It is just confusing.