1. Standard memberNyxie
    The eyes of truth
    elsewhere
    Joined
    26 Apr '04
    Moves
    21784
    10 May '05 20:17
    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
  2. Standard memberColetti
    W.P. Extraordinaire
    State of Franklin
    Joined
    13 Aug '03
    Moves
    21735
    10 May '05 20:32
    Originally posted by Nyxie
    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
    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.
  3. Standard memberNyxie
    The eyes of truth
    elsewhere
    Joined
    26 Apr '04
    Moves
    21784
    10 May '05 20:36
    Originally posted by Coletti
    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.
    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?
  4. Standard memberColetti
    W.P. Extraordinaire
    State of Franklin
    Joined
    13 Aug '03
    Moves
    21735
    10 May '05 20:54
    Originally posted by Nyxie
    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 don't see any need for the symbol. The symbol is not the Word.

    I think the NKJV is one of the better translations.
  5. Standard memberNyxie
    The eyes of truth
    elsewhere
    Joined
    26 Apr '04
    Moves
    21784
    10 May '05 20:59
    Originally posted by Coletti
    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 "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 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?
  6. Standard memberColetti
    W.P. Extraordinaire
    State of Franklin
    Joined
    13 Aug '03
    Moves
    21735
    10 May '05 22:20
    Originally posted by Nyxie
    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?
    I'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.
  7. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36083
    11 May '05 07:16
    Who knows? I've never read either the KJV or the NKJV.
  8. Standard memberNyxie
    The eyes of truth
    elsewhere
    Joined
    26 Apr '04
    Moves
    21784
    11 May '05 12:48
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    Who knows? I've never read either the KJV or the NKJV.
    Strangely enough, they're very different versions....
  9. Donationkirksey957
    Outkast
    With White Women
    Joined
    31 Jul '01
    Moves
    91452
    11 May '05 23:52
    Originally posted by Nyxie
    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?
    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.
  10. Standard memberNyxie
    The eyes of truth
    elsewhere
    Joined
    26 Apr '04
    Moves
    21784
    12 May '05 01:22
    Originally posted by kirksey957
    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.
    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?
  11. Donationkirksey957
    Outkast
    With White Women
    Joined
    31 Jul '01
    Moves
    91452
    12 May '05 01:36
    Originally posted by Nyxie
    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?
    It 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.
  12. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39593
    12 May '05 03:42
    Originally posted by Nyxie
    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?
    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

    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.
  13. Not Kansas
    Joined
    10 Jul '04
    Moves
    6405
    12 May '05 03:55
    Originally posted by Nyxie
    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
    "slightly alarmist" seems to be quite the understatement.
  14. Standard memberNyxie
    The eyes of truth
    elsewhere
    Joined
    26 Apr '04
    Moves
    21784
    12 May '05 04:01
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    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.
    Yes of course he's a loon.

    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?
Back to Top