Spirituality
10 May 05
10 May 05
http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html
I found this webpage to be slightly alarmist, but it does bring up a good point asking 'why the new symbol on the Bible'.
A small symbol, seemingly innocent in it's presence, but do you think there's more to it? I'd like to hear oppinions on this from the Christians on this site.
Also subtle langauge changes in the translations themselves. Are we losing something here or does it represent properly?
Nyxie
10 May 05
Originally posted by NyxieIt a symbol of the Trinity - the three in one. The author seems to think that symbols have some sort of mystical power in themselves. Symbols have no power in themselves, they have no meaning in themselves - they only represent ideas. The ideas can be powerful - but only if you know what the idea is. If one is ignorant of the idea, the symbol is pointless.
http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html
I found this webpage to be slightly alarmist, but it does bring up a good point asking 'why the new symbol on the Bible'.
A small symbol, seemingly innocent in it's presence, but do you think there's more to it? I'd like to hear oppinions on this from the Christians on this site.
Also subtle langauge changes in the translations themselves. Are we losing something here or does it represent properly?
Nyxie
10 May 05
Originally posted by ColettiBut I was under the impression that God does'nt need symbology, in fact I thought he was against it. Also, what did you think of the changes implemented in the new version?
It a symbol of the Trinity - the three in one. The author seems to think that symbols have some sort of mystical power in themselves. Symbols have no power in themselves, they have no meaning in themselves - they only represent ideas. The ideas can be powerful - but only if you know what the idea is. If one is ignorant of the idea, the symbol is pointless.
10 May 05
Originally posted by NyxieI don't see any need for the symbol. The symbol is not the Word.
But I was under the impression that God does'nt need symbology, in fact I thought he was against it. Also, what did you think of the changes implemented in the new version?
I think the NKJV is one of the better translations.
10 May 05
Originally posted by ColettiThe NKJV removes the word "Lord" 66 times
I don't see any need for the symbol. The symbol is not the Word.
I think the NKJV is one of the better translations.
The NKJV removes the word God 51 times
The NKJV removes the word "heaven" 50 times
I can't see any reason for those omissions?
A sample for a demonstration of the new better translation :
Then the NKJV decides that maybe "Hades" should be "grave"! So the NKJV makes 1 Corinthians 15:55 "much clearer" by changing "grave" to "Hades"! ". . . O Hades, where is your victory?" Clear as mud. . .
There are many changes listed on this web page, are you not concerned about any of them?
10 May 05
Originally posted by NyxieI'm not very concerned. I saw at the beginning of the site that the author was not arguing logically. I might scan over the claims made and see if any of them have any weight - but so far most of them have been exaggerated. There are problems I have heard of with most translations - but this site does not seem to address those rationally.
The NKJV removes the word "Lord" 66 times
The NKJV removes the word God 51 times
The NKJV removes the word "heaven" 50 times
I can't see any reason for those omissions?
A sample for a demonstration of the new better translation :
Then the NKJV decides that maybe "Hades" should be "grave"! So the NKJV makes 1 Corinthians 15:55 "much cl ...[text shortened]... . .
There are many changes listed on this web page, are you not concerned about any of them?
11 May 05
Originally posted by NyxieNyxie, there is no reason to be concerned at all. The one line that "really" tells the story of that website is when they invoke Hillary Clinton's name into the conspiracy. Just nonsense, that's all.
The NKJV removes the word "Lord" 66 times
The NKJV removes the word God 51 times
The NKJV removes the word "heaven" 50 times
I can't see any reason for those omissions?
A sample for a demonstration of the new better translation :
Then the NKJV decides that maybe "Hades" should be "grave"! So the NKJV makes 1 Corinthians 15:55 "much cl ...[text shortened]... . .
There are many changes listed on this web page, are you not concerned about any of them?
12 May 05
Originally posted by kirksey957That was a joke.
Nyxie, there is no reason to be concerned at all. The one line that "really" tells the story of that website is when they invoke Hillary Clinton's name into the conspiracy. Just nonsense, that's all.
MY point is'nt how crazy the website writer was. My point is about the ommisions in the version. Can you give me a decent reason why the word God would be removed from the bible?
12 May 05
Originally posted by NyxieIt sounds like the translation is similar in some respects to the RSV or NRSV and NIV. I like the RSV Oxford Annotated Bible as I like the notes in it and the different possibilities of translations for various words. I need to get a new one as one of my dogs ate a significant portion of Matthew including the beattitudes.
That was a joke.
MY point is'nt how crazy the website writer was. My point is about the ommisions in the version. Can you give me a decent reason why the word God would be removed from the bible?
12 May 05
Originally posted by NyxieI went to http://www.biblegateway.com/ which is a site with the most popular versions of the Bible. I ran a keyword search for the words "lord" "God" and "heaven" between the NJKV and the KJV. The results were:
The NKJV removes the word "Lord" 66 times
The NKJV removes the word God 51 times
The NKJV removes the word "heaven" 50 times
I can't see any reason for those omissions?
A sample for a demonstration of the new better translation :
Then the NKJV decides that maybe "Hades" should be "grave"! So the NKJV makes 1 Corinthians 15:55 "much cl ...[text shortened]... . .
There are many changes listed on this web page, are you not concerned about any of them?
NJKV KJV
Lord 6653 6667
God 3978 3877
Heaven 509 550
There does not appear to be significant differences in the use of these terms; God is used more in the NKJV than the KJV, but all the terms have less than a 10% variance. This doesn't seem extraordinary in a translation of ancient texts. I think the guy on the site you gave is a bit loony.
12 May 05
Originally posted by Nyxie"slightly alarmist" seems to be quite the understatement.
http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html
I found this webpage to be slightly alarmist, but it does bring up a good point asking 'why the new symbol on the Bible'.
A small symbol, seemingly innocent in it's presence, but do you think there's more to it? I'd like to hear oppinions on this from the Christians on this site.
Also subtle langauge changes in the translations themselves. Are we losing something here or does it represent properly?
Nyxie
12 May 05
Originally posted by no1marauderYes of course he's a loon.
I went to http://www.biblegateway.com/ which is a site with the most popular versions of the Bible. I ran a keyword search for the words "lord" "God" and "heaven" between the NJKV and the KJV. The results were:
NJKV KJV
Lord 6653 6667
God 3978 3877
Heaven 509 550
...[text shortened]... rdinary in a translation of ancient texts. I think the guy on the site you gave is a bit loony.
But why for any reason should Lord or God be taken out of the Bible?
Even as an agnostic, you should still have an appreciation for keeping ancient books from being translated slowly into oblivion.
It is by this 20 words or these 20 words that we slowly lose our history. Sure it does'nt have to be there, but it was, so I think it should stay.
Perhaps no1 would be more concerned if I were to give the declaration or the constitution a similiar facelift.
I realize I'm not as articulate as you but do you see my point now?