-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
S
I have been using the NKJV for about 20 years for most uses. It is contemporary enough in English for most readers above elementary school.
It follows the older KJV closely enough that it is good for church and class.
I really like the fact that it footnotes the major variants in the Greek texts so you know what other versions are likely to say when they differ and why.
The translation itself is from the Textuas Receptus like the old KJV but it footnotes differences from the Majority Text and the Critical Text (ie, Nestle/Aland or UBS).
It also leans toward the more literal or formal equivalence approach.
It follows the older KJV closely enough that it is good for church and class.
I really like the fact that it footnotes the major variants in the Greek texts so you know what other versions are likely to say when they differ and why.
The translation itself is from the Textuas Receptus like the old KJV but it footnotes differences from the Majority Text and the Critical Text (ie, Nestle/Aland or UBS).
It also leans toward the more literal or formal equivalence approach.
It's a shame that there are so many English versions of the bible we can pick and choose from but still there are many more people without the bible in their own language. Still millions of christians in the world who don't even have a bible.
There are at least 6,675 of the worlds 16,321 ethnic people groups have never heard the Gospel message. Some 2.6 billion people of the world’s 6.6 billion people have not had the opportunity to respond to the message of God’s Word.:
http://www.bibleleague.com.au/aboutus/mo_scriptureplacement.shtml
There are at least 6,675 of the worlds 16,321 ethnic people groups have never heard the Gospel message. Some 2.6 billion people of the world’s 6.6 billion people have not had the opportunity to respond to the message of God’s Word.:
http://www.bibleleague.com.au/aboutus/mo_scriptureplacement.shtml
C
You have twisted the word so bad it is almost demonic Paul told Timothy to abide at Ephesus And Paul went to Macedonia Not GOD . if we apply your teaching then Mark 16Mr 16:15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Jesus was talking to the 11 disciples so that means that we are wrong when we go preach for it was a commandment only to the disciple there with Him at the time COME DUDE.!!!! get real[/quote]
Why doesn't Ecc !-2 state "The words of the philosopher..." ?since they aren't spiritually inspired? I believe that by the time everyone chooses what is spiritual and what isn't we will have "See spot run" , like these new translations! Pastor, what's up with the people? Am I missing something? By the way, Jesus was speaking to the eleven: if everyone was sent to preach the word then just who are they going to preach to? That's the major problem now, everyone thinks they are called to preach and don't even know what they are talking about!
C
In referance to Rev. , John was on Patmos 91-93 AD, and if u read Kjv u will find "was" on the isle which is past tense. Who is wrong, Scripture or Men who say John wrote Rev. while on Patmos? And everyone that keeps writing Reverlations needs to drop the "s". If they can't read that and "was" then how are they reading the rest?
S
Charles,
You have hit on something that many overlook. The "Great" commission is actually the "Apostolic" Commission. It was to the eleven. When one compares the various parallel passages and other texts they were specially chosen witnesses empower to reveal and confirm the word.
But we do see the early church scattered and taking the word whereever they went. We see the apostles affirming the practice with the situation at Samaria. We see Paul telling Timothy to entrust the word to reliable ones who would be able to teach others also.
The principle of do unto others as you would have them do unto should compel us to share the gospel. The command to love our neighbor as ourself should prod us to take the message to others.
You have hit on something that many overlook. The "Great" commission is actually the "Apostolic" Commission. It was to the eleven. When one compares the various parallel passages and other texts they were specially chosen witnesses empower to reveal and confirm the word.
But we do see the early church scattered and taking the word whereever they went. We see the apostles affirming the practice with the situation at Samaria. We see Paul telling Timothy to entrust the word to reliable ones who would be able to teach others also.
The principle of do unto others as you would have them do unto should compel us to share the gospel. The command to love our neighbor as ourself should prod us to take the message to others.
The eleven weren't the only apostles though. If it was only to the 11 disciples as Charles claims, then what about Paul? He wasn't one of the 11, nor replaced Judas. And they weren't the only ones to perform miraculous works , remember Stephen ?
The whole goal and aim of the early church was to fulfill the Great commission. It is well known that the responsibility for evangelism was not just to the apostle but to the whole church. The whole church community worked towards this goal, it was not just the apostles involved in evangelism as the book of Acts shows. Otherwise once the apostles died there would have been no more evangelism.
The whole goal and aim of the early church was to fulfill the Great commission. It is well known that the responsibility for evangelism was not just to the apostle but to the whole church. The whole church community worked towards this goal, it was not just the apostles involved in evangelism as the book of Acts shows. Otherwise once the apostles died there would have been no more evangelism.
S
The Apostles of Christ were originally 12. Judas was removed (down to 11) but replaced by Matthias (back up to 12).
Paul is referred to one born out of due season (up to 13)
There were apostles of the church (ie, missionaries) like Barnabas.
Jesus was the Apostle of God.
The term apostle simply means -- one sent.
The others who performed miracles had received that power through the laying on of the apostles' hands.
Paul is referred to one born out of due season (up to 13)
There were apostles of the church (ie, missionaries) like Barnabas.
Jesus was the Apostle of God.
The term apostle simply means -- one sent.
The others who performed miracles had received that power through the laying on of the apostles' hands.
S
Keith,
You have overlooked the means of transmission for the gifts. Acts 8 clearly reveals that this power was given through the laying on of the apostles hands.
As far as Mark 16:17-20, these promises were given to the apostles. If one bothers to closely examine the grammatical construction and follow the pronouns to their antecedents this is understood. Caution, a literal version is easier to use in this regard.... there is less interpretation.
In vs. 14 the apostles were rebuked for unbelief. As a group the pronouns to be used would be "they" and/or "them". In vs. 16 the pronoun is "he". But beginning in vs. 17 it goes back to them. If you follow that through vs. 20 and notice what is explicitly stated, "The Lord worked with them".
The function of the Holy Spirit in the first century was to reveal and confirm the word as it was being unfolded. We now have that complete canon to guide us. The powers were intended to be limited (1 Cor. 13:8).
You have overlooked the means of transmission for the gifts. Acts 8 clearly reveals that this power was given through the laying on of the apostles hands.
As far as Mark 16:17-20, these promises were given to the apostles. If one bothers to closely examine the grammatical construction and follow the pronouns to their antecedents this is understood. Caution, a literal version is easier to use in this regard.... there is less interpretation.
In vs. 14 the apostles were rebuked for unbelief. As a group the pronouns to be used would be "they" and/or "them". In vs. 16 the pronoun is "he". But beginning in vs. 17 it goes back to them. If you follow that through vs. 20 and notice what is explicitly stated, "The Lord worked with them".
The function of the Holy Spirit in the first century was to reveal and confirm the word as it was being unfolded. We now have that complete canon to guide us. The powers were intended to be limited (1 Cor. 13:8).
God's power is given not only by laying on of hands.. but also directly from God. e.g. Pentecost (Acts 2) , and hearing of the Word ( Acts 10:46 ) , as God wills. Often God's power can come upon a person during a time of repentance, prayer, or worship. No hands required.
And the word does not need to be revealed and confirmed today? Of course it does. In fact many people who come to Christ on the mission fields only come to Christ after seeing a miraculous work eg a healing.
And the early christians had their scripture well before the canon was complete, not to mention a complete old testament which were the Scriptures Jesus had. But Jesus or the apostles didn't lay aside their miracle-working ability just because they had a complete Scripture. It proves nothing really when the canon was completed. The scriptures cannot heal except by the supernatural workings and giftings of the Spirit. The scriptures cannot encourage a person without the spiritual gift of encouragement. Both the Word and power of God is needed.
S
I like the NKJV the best. I still read the KJV too from time to time. When studying I use a parallel Bible that contains the KJV, NKJV, NIV, and NLT, and a computer program with several more translations to compare and Strong's Concordance. I also use the NASB on my computer program Bible quite a bit.
As a general rule thought for thought translations are good for a casual read, and word for word translations like the NKJV and NASB are better for in-depth study.
But in addition to how the translation was made it's also important what texts were used. And after years of studying, researching, and following the debate about the Majority Text, Textus Receptus, NU-Text, etc......I've come to the personal conclusion that I trust the texts the KJV was translated from. I know that's not the most popular thought of the modern high scholars. And I think they frequently use better points and arguments than those who defend the Textus Receptus as better (who seem mostly to be KJV-only people nowadays. I'm not one of those!) But still I can't help but to see some flaws in the logic of modern scholars and question the idea that we have better access to better manuscripts NOW because of more recent findings. That would seem to indicate the pure Word of God was lost for centuries. I'll trust the consensus of the majority of texts. Older doesn't always mean better in spight of the obvious reasons it would seem so when comparing ancient texts. The amount of such texts and the location of them are important clues too. Suppose 1000 years from now someone finds a Jehovah's Witness Bible printed in 1975 and a KJV printed in 2001 and declares that this must mean the JW Bible is older and more reliable? It's NOT older than the KJV translation just because a couple were found and the JW Bible is NOT an accurate translation of the originals just because someone finds an older one in the future!
Personally, I feel good about the texts used for translating the KJV, with the possible exception of the Johannine Comma which is just one line that might have krept in as a footnote in a margin of a manuscript. (Even Erasmus who compiled the TR thought so.) But that one sentence is also a true one that won't confuse anyone if it's authentic or not.
This is why I prefer the NKJV. I also like that it's easy to follow along with either the KJV or NASB being read. I like that some of the structure and poetic qualities of the KJV remain. And most of all I like that it does have in the notes the variant text readings. That in my opinion makes it THE best scholarly work because I can read an accurate translation from the Textus Receptus AND still see what the variants used for the NIV and other modern Bibles say.
As a general rule thought for thought translations are good for a casual read, and word for word translations like the NKJV and NASB are better for in-depth study.
But in addition to how the translation was made it's also important what texts were used. And after years of studying, researching, and following the debate about the Majority Text, Textus Receptus, NU-Text, etc......I've come to the personal conclusion that I trust the texts the KJV was translated from. I know that's not the most popular thought of the modern high scholars. And I think they frequently use better points and arguments than those who defend the Textus Receptus as better (who seem mostly to be KJV-only people nowadays. I'm not one of those!) But still I can't help but to see some flaws in the logic of modern scholars and question the idea that we have better access to better manuscripts NOW because of more recent findings. That would seem to indicate the pure Word of God was lost for centuries. I'll trust the consensus of the majority of texts. Older doesn't always mean better in spight of the obvious reasons it would seem so when comparing ancient texts. The amount of such texts and the location of them are important clues too. Suppose 1000 years from now someone finds a Jehovah's Witness Bible printed in 1975 and a KJV printed in 2001 and declares that this must mean the JW Bible is older and more reliable? It's NOT older than the KJV translation just because a couple were found and the JW Bible is NOT an accurate translation of the originals just because someone finds an older one in the future!
Personally, I feel good about the texts used for translating the KJV, with the possible exception of the Johannine Comma which is just one line that might have krept in as a footnote in a margin of a manuscript. (Even Erasmus who compiled the TR thought so.) But that one sentence is also a true one that won't confuse anyone if it's authentic or not.
This is why I prefer the NKJV. I also like that it's easy to follow along with either the KJV or NASB being read. I like that some of the structure and poetic qualities of the KJV remain. And most of all I like that it does have in the notes the variant text readings. That in my opinion makes it THE best scholarly work because I can read an accurate translation from the Textus Receptus AND still see what the variants used for the NIV and other modern Bibles say.
S
Shawn,
I am glad that you have done your homework. The Textus Receptus (TR) and the Majority Text (M) are in much greater agreement with each other than either one is with the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society (NU).
NU is based not simply on the "earliest" mss. but primarily on two (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) and sometimes on just one. These two were known but left unused. One was in the process of being destroyed (Sinaiticus). The other (Vaticanus) was left on shelf unused... uncopied. It would seem that those who had access to them deemed them corrupt or of lesser value.
A great confirmation is the writings of the early church fathers who quoted virtually the entire NT except for about a dozen verses. Add to this the early translations (Syriac, Latin, Ethiopic) and then the lectionaries (collections of scripture portions for public reading). There is a lot of supporting evidence for the text that has dominated Christianity for millenia.
I am glad that you have done your homework. The Textus Receptus (TR) and the Majority Text (M) are in much greater agreement with each other than either one is with the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society (NU).
NU is based not simply on the "earliest" mss. but primarily on two (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) and sometimes on just one. These two were known but left unused. One was in the process of being destroyed (Sinaiticus). The other (Vaticanus) was left on shelf unused... uncopied. It would seem that those who had access to them deemed them corrupt or of lesser value.
A great confirmation is the writings of the early church fathers who quoted virtually the entire NT except for about a dozen verses. Add to this the early translations (Syriac, Latin, Ethiopic) and then the lectionaries (collections of scripture portions for public reading). There is a lot of supporting evidence for the text that has dominated Christianity for millenia.
- Status