Green:

It looks to me like you are working on a revision of the KJV, rather than a translation.

Isn't that what the NKJV is?

What do you not like about the NKJV that causes you to compete with it?

Opinion!

You show your ignorance. You obviously haven't studied that issue in depth and/or with an open mind, comparing scripture with scripture. I somehow think your preconceived ideas tie into this somewhere as well.

Which brings us back to Walter Veith. How can he hope to help anyone understand these issues when their minds are already so firmly entrenched?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Whose mind is entrenched? I'd suggest you read EGW's description of 6th commandment, and read it putting aside your creed. It is very interesting.

APL,

First of all, Mrs. White told us many times to study the Bible itself, and that her writings were merely to help us understand the Bible better, not a replacement for the Bible. This topic is about the Bible.

It is unfortunate to have to define such a common-sense word as "kill," but you apparently do not understand it. What is "kill," APL?

To me, to the dictionary, and to society in general (though I wonder if it will be so with you), "kill" means to end the life of any living creature. Did God give us such a command? No. The Hebrew word mistranslated as "kill" in the commandments was not the same word used as "kill" in many other contexts. It is actually the word used for "slay," "manslaughter," "murder," etc. The translation the KJV holds for the sixth commandment is an anomaly compared to the word's translation in other places. It should have been translated as "murder."

You appealed to Mrs. White. Here you have some of her words on the subject, though she doesn't tell us about the Hebrew meaning--she addresses (as would probably irritate kland) the English side of the translation.



Obviously, "kill" in the commandment does not really mean "kill." If it did, one couldn't kill any animal, not even so-called "pests," without breaking the commandment. But Mrs. White tells us that not only does it NOT break the commandment to kill these pests, but that we MUST do so in order to "preserve ourselves and our possessions from harm."

Again, APL, the Bible version is not the real cause of trouble with you here. It is your bent to support preconceived opinions that causes you to misinterpret the Bible. Mrs. White had no problem redefining the word "kill" to mean we must sometimes kill and destroy. Mrs. White would applaud the translation "murder" in place of "kill," for it is more accurate.

If you want to continue this discussion, please do so on the merits or validity of the translation from the original language. We have other threads on punishment--that's not what this discussion is about, ok?

Clearly, the KJV is inferior in this text to most modern translations which accurately have translated "murder." This is one place where updating the KJV is more than appropriate.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Unfortunately, the NKJV muddled and made more difficult to understand a number of passages. In many places, the translators, while ostensibly using the Majority Text as the KJV did, leaned toward the minority manuscripts. There are certain passages that are remarkable in this.

At one time, I spoke on the topic of Bible versions in my home church, and a lady who was a somewhat nominal Christian but who was making some new steps in the right direction, took from me that the NKJV, also being translated from the Majority Text, was a good and reliable translation. She began using it. I later heard from her that she had begun to question it, based on some unusual readings she had encountered in it. (I no longer remember what she ran across, only that it raised my own eyebrows too.)

It's too bad that we don't have a truer translation that is commonly available in present-day English. (I would say "modern," but that's a relative term, and most linguists would consider "modern" English to go back several hundred years.)

There are a few specific errors that I do not agree with in the NKJV. One of those has already garnered some attention in the forums here: Isaiah 14:12. The NKJV includes as a footnote the blasphemous translation that appears in the modern versions. Only a footnote--but strongly implies it's the truth. Then there are the simply inaccurate and unnecessary adjustments like in the first verse of the Bible....

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Genesis 1:1, KJV)

IN the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1, NKJV)

The word "heaven" is singular in Hebrew. Why make it plural? The KJV and the NKJV differ only on that one letter "S" for that whole verse...and it's less accurate to add it. Why did they?

The NKJV uses some convoluted language at times, whereas the KJV is more readable. For example, the NKJV trades the KJV word "hell" for "Hades" at times. If "hell" is not correct, why not render it more correctly instead of more obscurely?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Me thinks green, you are doing exactly what EGW is saying when you stretch the word kill to include everything, which as she says, is not sound reasoning. I agree with her that the earth has been cursed by sin [not God!!!], and that it is SIN that has "created" the vermin. How does that happen green? "God has given no man the message, Kill not ant or flea or moth." What does the COMMANDMENTS deal with??? Our relationship to GOD and to MAN. Do you doubt that? Your attempt to extend my definition is all is only to discredit myself and the truth.

Green says, "If you want to continue this discussion, please do so on the merits or validity of the translation from the original language." That is what we are doing! The KJV translation needs no change on this point. And is it not interesting that it is one of the 10C that is in question? Walter Veith has talked about how the whole law will come under attack in the last days, not just the 4th commandment.

APL,

You might have more credibility if you were consistent. Are you a staunch KJV supporter now? It seems you have ordinarily fought for the legitimacy of the modern translations. Now, when a modern translation does not fit your pet ideas, you stick with the KJV--even though in this case the modern versions all have a better translation!

Even the NKJV, ostensibly translated from the same manuscripts the KJV came from, renders the verse "You shall not murder." (Exodus 20:13, NKJV)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

But yet, next he says, well... I can't support it...well, well,....why do you hold me to my claims.

Oh, I understood your purpose to not be clear alright. You jump from one side to the other depending upon whether it serves your purpose.

1) is what I thought you were trying to support somehow by quibbling over English words. Guess not. Guess your list(s) comparison was a meaningless list.

What I understand you talking about 2), "the original wording", is that the KJV is the standard because..... well, you said so.


Yep.
Yep!
I think Green means his opinion is deeply entrenched in what he as determined as "the original language" (except when it isn't!?) and so don't bother him.



(English side does not irritate me. It's when people make things up and cannot or won't even attempt to support their claims)

I note she quotes the KJV, uses the word "kill", and no where there uses the word "murder". Seems to me she is explaining what it means and does not require it to be switched to another word.

So..., you are saying the KJV is THE standard, except when your opinion is different.


....Which is what I've been saying from the beginning that you've been saying... Absolutely nothing!






'nuf sed. Green yet again, gives proof, [fill in the blank]

kland,

Your conflation of Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 2:1 does not prove anything to me. Your attempt to use said conflation to call me names is both disingenuous and unChristlike.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.