I'm very okay with the NKJV .
No doubt. Having seen the deceitful translations of the KJV and the NIV first hand 50 years ago, that's why I decided to learn Greek directly.
But it's likely that you are very okay with your NKJV because it speaks to what you already believe. To be honest, I just got a copy a few weeks ago, so I cannot comment as to its accuracy... yet. But it still contains the LIE.
well God has given us His Word. And His Word is the truth.
And there's the LIE. NOT that God has sent us His Word, since he indeed has done so, and we call him Jesus. And the LIE is
not that His Word is Truth. It is.
Here's the LIE... which Word? The New Testament teaches of TWO Words of God. The first is LOGOS (translated "word"). The second is RHEMA (translated "word"). But since both LOGOS and RHEMA are translated as "word" in your Bible, you are completely unable to tell the difference. They've lied to you. The New Testament speaks about the LOGOS(word) of God, but are you able to see what the New Testament teaches about the RHEMA(word) of God? Nope.
RHEMA and LOGOS are two very different concepts but they have been con-fused together in your English translations so that you cannot see the difference.
Again, the New Testament clearly teaches about the Word of God-LOGOS and the Word of God-RHEMA. And not only can you not see the difference, to push the LIE to another level, the Bible is now called the "Word of God" .. so that you will NEVER understand what the actual Word-of-God-LOGOS is nor the Word-of-God-RHEMA. If one has been taught that the Bible is the "Word of God" then one can never learn what the Bible teaches about the Word of God, either LOGOS or RHEMA.
And this is why the world is dying around us, because we truly don't bring it life... we offer a religion-fable.
I guess I should explain, though, that my faith is not based upon the Bible. Again, my faith is not in the Bible. Why? Because my faith is in Jesus. Look at Peter. Peter had Faith in Jesus long before the idea of a written New Testament was even a drop of ink. Read with me...
When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
(Matthew 16:13-17 KJV)
And the above passage is why I can say that my faith is not in the Bible, nor did it come from the Bible. I love this story. Jesus asks his disciples, "But whom say ye that I am?" And Peter gives the same answer I gave decades ago... "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." That answer made sense to me when I was six, so I agreed with it. But did my belief come from the Bible? No. I was blessed in the same manner as Peter. "
For flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." That's what happened to me. The Father in heaven placed upon my heart that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. With that revelation by the Father to me, I don't even need a Bible. So why learn Greek? Because of what others claim the Bible says. And while the revelation of my salvation was from the Father, the Word-of-God-LOGOS is still his Son, and the Word-of-God-RHEMA is still His Spirit, and I needed to learn what They teach.
Also I'm going to comment on various languages and translating from one language to another.
Humans are human, Sue. We walk with two legs regardless of what language we speak. We work for food regardless of what language we speak. Same with getting angry, or being compassionate. Language is just a common mechanism by which we as humans can express human experience and wonder.
So the process of going from say Greek to English the translators come as close to the original as possible.
No Sue, they don't. And I've had years of experience in this matter. (Though I vaguely recall you may have as well ??) Translations are expensive. And a translation team wants to Evangelize
their set of beliefs, the doctrines of the church that is paying them. These people tend to be of a herd mind and will be easily fired if something too radical is proposed, regardless of whether it is right or not. The KJV is a product of the doctrine of the Church of England. The Douay-Rheims is a product of the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. This is why you get the following two VERY different translations, but BOTH claiming to be "as close to the original as possible."
(Matthew 4:17 KJV) From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
(Matthew 4:17 DRB) From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say: Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Translators come as close to
their doctrines as possible, not the original.
But what does "come as close" mean? There are two basic answers.
1) Word for Word - (or literal translation) the closest word as possible is selected.
2) Equivalency of Thought - The concept is translated as close as possible.
So let's look at the Greek word ARXH. A simple word for word translation would give "Beginning." BUT, someone who was well studied in Greek Science would know that ARXH also meant the "stuff" out of which all matter in the universe came. In other words, the ARXH is the "Cosmic Protoplasm" (cf. Kittel's).
Should we translate word for word and get "In the Beginning"? OR should we translate the equivalence of thought and read "Suffused throughout the Cosmic Protoplasm"?
You're very okay with a translation that has no clue about what ARXH means in the broader context of the style of Gospel written by John.
I'm not.
- was put into Latin 1st and then various other languages with different alphabets and sentence structure to work with.
Not many modern translations start with Latin, Sue. Even the New Jerusalem Bible started out in French.
The Greek publication known as the Textus Receptus is a compendium of six manuscripts. But was only published as an appendix to Eramus' new Latin Bible, the one he expected to replace the Vulgate. He didn't publish a Greek text for the sake of having a Greek text. He published the "original" Greek text to show just how better his Latin was over that of Jerome.
Now, had I known that there was a complete Aramaic New Testament all those decades ago, I would have rejected Greek and spent my time learning Aramaic. This way I could read the New Testament that was written in the language that Jesus Himself spoke, comprised of the books selected by an actual Apostle, Thomas, not some 'who-knows-what' priest hundreds of years later who was exiled from the church five times.
So is there a major difference? A "functional" difference? Yeah. The New Testament texts as originally composed don't teach Evangelical Christianity. But that's an adventure that each person needs to decide to travel - a narrow road.
Rhema
