good one!

I'm doing a message on the contrast between the KJB and the NKJV. One of the items that has been used to discredit the NKJV was its use of the triquetra on the cover. I cannot find a copy with that symbol. My guess is that Nelson "recalled" those after the Christian public was made aware of the history and meanings behind the symbol. Does anyone have further info on when this may have happened?

I have a copy with this on the spine. When at my daughter's recently, I looked for it on her copy, it was not on the cover, but it was included on the title page.

My daughter's church uses the NKJV, and my copy was given to me by my daughter. However, I use the AV (aka KJV)

Brother Tim, I decided to take something you said a loing time ago here(speaking of the differences of the NKJV):

May I add something here?

You are 100% right in your above statement , but I was also thinking about another real problem with removing these personal pronouns.

If we lose our respect towards deity, we don't have a lot left do we? Our love, respect, honour, responsibility, and obligation to the Lord Jesus Christ is of such paramount importance, that it dwarfs many of our other actions to Him.

To change our wording to the risen Saviour denoted a tone of familiarity and sinful personification that we changed it to words(in the MV's) to a dialect that makes our Lord no more respectable than your "average Joe" that we would meet on the road, and say, "Hey, what's up?" (I don't speak like that, but thats the language the world uses), but you see what I am trying to say, in essence.

Take the German language for example (I do speak a little german, although not fluently). A man asking another man where he lives can be said in to different ways, it can be said "Wo wohnen Sie?" or it can be said "Wo wohnst du?"

They say basically exactly the same thing, "Where do you live?" but there is a huge difference. One is said to a man you have never spoken to before, and show him respect, and the other is what you would say to somone you may have been familiar with for ome time. The difference being the type of repsect you give someone. "Sie" can mean "you" in a respectful way, and "du" is a familiar way of saying "you".

The point here, is why should we change a very respectful way of addressing the Lord, to a more familiar way of addressing the Lord, removing the words themselves that show Him respect?

Now I do know that it also goes deeper than that, but i wanted to show that in that light.

Our respect for deity must not be compromised. He IS worthy of all honour and praise, and it is our duty to give our Lord such.

Love in Christ,

Jim

This post was last modified: Sat Nov 10, 2007 03:10 PM by Jim.

Jim, In French, also.

You would use vous (you) to anyone you did not know, except children who you always address as tu (thou). However anyone you know well, family, and close friends, you would also always address as tu.

When I try my limited French on my wife, who is fluent, I sometimes inadvertantly address her as vous. She always replies "I think you know me well enough by now, to call me "tu."

But seriously, there is a dotrinal point as I see it. I believe that the Church is the temple of the holy spirit from the AV. Whereas from the modern versions you can take it that the individual believer is. I stand to be correted on this if you can show me where I am wrong.

I will tread carefully here as I believe both are correct. 1 Corinthians 6:19 says:

What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

The way one could look at it would determine to whom Paul is addressing, individuals as believers, or believers as a whole. Being that the term "body" is translated from the Greek "soma" which translates to:

1) the body both of men or animals

a) a dead body or corpse

b) the living body

1) of animals

To me, I believe in the single believer it is the temple. the body of believers as a bride is also togetherness His temple.


Hope this helps,

Love in Christ,

Jim

Concerning "thee", "thou", etc.

I fully agree that we must show the utmost of respect when referring to God. I would never dream of speaking in a casual way to Him. That said, I do not use the "th" pronouns during my prayer. I do not criticize those that do, as I recognize and respect their intent.

The Scriptures use the "th" pronouns as a matter of exact translation only, not a sign of deity. The proof is obvious in that the pronouns refer both to man and God. To use "th" as a sign of reverence is customary and honorable, but not Biblically based or mandated.

I had a post "disappear". It may show up somewhere else, because I'm not familiar with the "new and improved" site.

I agree with Jim that the individual believer is the temple of the Holy Ghost.

I Cor 6:15-18 addresses the individual believer's body. It would not make sense that verse 19 switches to the church as the body. Use of the words "ye" and "your" maintains the consistency.

I also believe the individual human body to be the temple of the Holy Spirit.

(1Co 6:19) What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

In the preceding Paul is addressing the individual believer.

(1Co 12:20) But now are they many members, yet but one body.

In this case he is addressing a group of people. It is true the same Greek word is used in both cases but I believe we must look at the application and the context of what was written. It is quite interesting in that the word here used as "your" can also be plural in form. That is why I believe the scope of what was said and whom it was addressed to needs to be really looked at.

In Christ,
George

I love the proper english of the King James Bible. The word used in John 6:47 "hath" means present tense of have. I like that much better than just.... You could have it!
Macbeth wouldn't be the same in modern english....The Bible is a much better work than that! The problem is we no longer know how to speak proper english.

Jim Norman

The "-th". "-eth", "-st", and "-est" endings are more than just earlier forms of the modern-day present tense. While you could exchange "have" for "hath", "believes" for "believeth", etc. and on the surface have a simple understanding of the meaning of the verse, there is much more! These endings have the sense of a present event with continuing action.

"He that hath the Son of God hath life ..." (I John 5:12) speaks of a present condition that continues to be true. It is what I like to call the "everpresent" tense.

George wrote:

"I also believe the individual human body to be the temple of the Holy Spirit." (How do we do the quotes on this new board?)

George I used to believe that untill recently, I would like to show why I have changed my mind. I do not hold this a firm opinion, and stand to be corrected if you can show me wrong.

Ephesians 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

This plainly teaches that it is the believers built together who are the “habitation of God through the Spirit.” And grow into “an holy temple in the Lord”
=========================================
The words beginning with “th” are singular those with “y” are plural

1 Corinthians 3:16 ¶ Know ye (plural) not that ye (plural) are the temple (singular) of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? (plural)

1 Corinthians 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple (singular) of God is holy, which temple (singular) ye (plural) are.

1 Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye (plural) not that your (plural) body (singular) is (singular) the temple (singular) of the Holy Ghost which is in you, (plural) which ye (plural) have of God, and ye (plural) are not your (plural) own?

2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye (plural) are the temple (singular) of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, (plural) and walk in them; (plural) and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

None of theses scriptures say "........your bodies are the temples..." but "....your body is the temple..." The body and the temple is always singular.

Use the Reply button at the bottom right of each individual post to quote that post in your post.

Use the new reply button at the bottom left under the last post for a full menu of smilies and text options to use in your supply,

And the quick reply box is at the bottom of each thread.

Ray

Thanks Ray

Errors in the NKJV, Example #1

Are these all saying the same thing? (sampling of verses copied from BibleGateway.com) [I have underlined the pertinent parts]


GROUPED BY MATCHING MEANING:

FOUGHT AGAINST:

2 Kings 23:29 (King James Version)
In his days Pharaohnechoh king of Egypt went up against the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates: and king Josiah went against him; and he slew him at Megiddo, when he had seen him.

2 Kings 23:29 (Young's Literal Translation)
In his days hath Pharaoh-Nechoh king of Egypt come up against the king of Asshur, by the river Phrat, and king Josiah goeth out to meet him, and he putteth him to death in Megiddo, when he seeth him.

2 Kings 23:29 (Amplified Bible)
Amplified Bible (AMP)
In his days Pharaoh Necho king of Egypt went up against the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates. King Josiah went out against him, but he slew Josiah at Megiddo when he saw him.

2 Kings 23:29 (American Standard Version)
In his days Pharaoh-necoh king of Egypt went up against the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates: and king Josiah went against him; and Pharaoh-necoh slew him at Megiddo, when he had seen him.

FOUGHT FOR:

2 Kings 23:29 (New King James Version)
In his days Pharaoh Necho king of Egypt went to the aid of the king of Assyria, to the River Euphrates; and King Josiah went against him. And Pharaoh Necho killed him at Megiddo when he confronted him.

2 Kings 23:29 (New International Version)
While Josiah was king, Pharaoh Neco king of Egypt went up to the Euphrates River to help the king of Assyria. King Josiah marched out to meet him in battle, but Neco faced him and killed him at Megiddo.

2 Kings 23:29 (Contemporary English Version)
During Josiah's rule, King Neco of Egypt led his army north to the Euphrates River to help the king of Assyria. Josiah led his troops north to fight Neco, but when they met in battle at Megiddo, Josiah was killed.

DROPPED IN FOR A VISIT:

2 Kings 23:29 (English Standard Version)
In his days Pharaoh Neco king of Egypt went up to the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates. King Josiah went to meet him, and Pharaoh Neco killed him at Megiddo, as soon as he saw him.

2 Kings 23:29 (New American Standard Bible)
In his days Pharaoh Neco king of Egypt went up to the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates And King Josiah went to meet him, and when Pharaoh Neco saw him he killed him at Megiddo.

COMPARE WITH:

2 Chronicles 35:20 (King James Version)
After all this, when Josiah had prepared the temple, Necho king of Egypt came up to fight against Charchemish by Euphrates: and Josiah went out against him.

2 Chronicles 35:20 (New King James Version)
After all this, when Josiah had prepared the temple, Necho king of Egypt came up to fight against Carchemish by the Euphrates; and Josiah went out against him.

2 Chronicles 35:20 (New International Version)
After all this, when Josiah had set the temple in order, Neco king of Egypt went up to fight at Carchemish on the Euphrates, and Josiah marched out to meet him in battle.


SOME ARE RIGHT, SOME ARE WRONG, SOME DON'T KNOW. WHICH WOULD YOU CHOOSE?

Footnotes about Carchemish:
From the international Standard Bible Encyclopedia:

From Fausset's Bible Dictionary:

This post was last modified: Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:53 PM by Brother Tim.