The NKJV symbol question?

[earl40]

Jeremiah Burroughs: "Our adversaries call images and pictures, books to teach laymen; but the Scripture tells us they teach a lie. And if they be laymen’s books, they are full of errata in every page, yea, there are more errata than true lines."

Are you trying to quote Burroughs for a reason in the English that was common in the past? This is a serious question because it appears you disapprove of any symbols, which represent God in any shape or form. Or am I reading this wrong?

 

[Pilgrim]

While the question in the OP is an interesting one, I thought it would perhaps be helpful to point out that Nelson, to my knowledge, hasn't used the triquetra symbol in conjunction with the NKJV since some point in the late 1990's or very early 2000's. My first edition MacArthur Study Bible that was printed in 1997 has it but a reference edition I have that was printed in 2002 does not as they had switched to a different logo by then. They are on at least their third logo for the NKJV now, which you can see here.

 

[MW]

Are you trying to quote Burroughs for a reason in the English that was common in the past? This is a serious question because it appears you disapprove of any symbols, which represent God in any shape or form. Or am I reading this wrong?

The reason I quoted Burroughs was in order to show that any symbol attempting to represent God will by nature be in error, and his way of putting the matter goes straight to the point. Behind my use of the quotation is the conviction that the second commandment forbids the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever. I suppose this would have been the conviction of Burroughs as well.

 

[earl40]

The reason I quoted Burroughs was in order to show that any symbol attempting to represent God will by nature be in error, and his way of putting the matter goes straight to the point. Behind my use of the quotation is the conviction that the second commandment forbids the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever. I suppose this would have been the conviction of Burroughs as well.

Now that is a post I read once and understood exactly what you believed. The reason I asked was two fold. One to make sure I understood Burroughs (a conviction I also hold) and the second to point out the same trouble I had with your quote also can be the same as many who read the AV.

 

[MW]

can be the same as many who read the AV.

How could it possibly be the same?

 

[One Little Nail]

can be the same as many who read the AV.

How could it possibly be the same?

Burroughs quote seemed to be pretty straight forward
I agree with it also, then again I'm pretty sure most
people on the Puritan Board forum would agree with it as well

 

[One Little Nail]

Tried the link and the link worked but the video showed "an error has occurred" and wouldn't play. I did though scroll slowly through the pictures via the time line and they sure have some questionable symbolism there. One has to ask why there is so much of it around and why its injected so sneakily into society the way it is? The Mason's infiltrating the Church, how weird is that! There is some seriously strange things that go on behind the scenes these days. I don't have all the answers but they do go on.
I agree Jimmy, and give it no power either myself. But its out there and widely used and like I said, sneakily injected into society.
I know that for the most part people don't pay attention to them or care what they mean. The general non God believing public Im talking about here, but the widespread use of them is bizarre!

The film is called Riddles in Stone by Adullam Films part of a series on the Secret mysteries of America beginnings.
unfortunately there is alot of it around but as long as we stay seperate from it we will please our God.
the wicked will get whats coming to them in the end. Proverbs 6:12-15 speaks of these people.

someone has noted that Thomas Nelson haven't been using the triquetra symbol for quite some time
which is good to see.

 

[earl40]

can be the same as many who read the AV.

How could it possibly be the same?

13 And from thence we fetched a compass, and came to Rhegium: and after one day the south wind blew, and we came the next day to Puteoli:

Do you suppose todays english speaking person who reads this thinks they got a magnetic device to point which way pointed north?

 

[earl40]

can be the same as many who read the AV.

How could it possibly be the same?

Burroughs quote seemed to be pretty straight forward
I agree with it also, then again I'm pretty sure most
people on the Puritan Board forum would agree with it as well

I think ,maybe wrongly, most here would not agree with it. If not most, many.

 

[JimmyH]

the second commandment forbids the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever.

I find this a very difficult commandment to obey. Reading the Gospels, the Pharisees bringing the adulteress to our Lord, his kneeling and writing in the sand. Difficult not to visualize that in my mind's eye.

Regarding symbols, it seems that mankind, some of us, have always been attracted to symbols. I went to my OPC published Trinity Hymnal last night and, for the first time, noticed the artsy symbol on the cover, spine and the title page. It is a pyramid shape, separated, I suppose to represent the Trinity. Odd that I never noticed it before. Reading this thread is what brought it to my attention.

I don't think that there is any kind of conspiracy or evil intent behind the use of these symbols in the hymnal or in the earlier editions of Nelson's NKJV. Just decorative art In my humble opinion, however misguided according to the commandment.

 

[MW]

can be the same as many who read the AV.

How could it possibly be the same?

13 And from thence we fetched a compass, and came to Rhegium: and after one day the south wind blew, and we came the next day to Puteoli:

Do you suppose todays english speaking person who reads this thinks they got a magnetic device to point which way pointed north?

You have lost me. Maybe I need to fetch a compass to work out the direction you are taking this. What does this verse have to do with symbolic representations of God and reading the AV? What does reading the AV have to do with symbolic representations of God?

 

[MW]

Difficult not to visualize that in my mind's eye.

I think most people would struggle with this. We naturally try to picture what we are thinking about. Culturally we are immersed in visual representations. Educationally there has been a drive towards self-expression and letting the imagination go free. And sadly, there is little Christian teaching on the sinfulness and sanctification of the imagination, so it tends to be neglected. The important thing is to maintain the clear perspective of God's law as to what is good and evil, look unto Jesus with a spiritual delight in Him, and continually offer resistance to the temptation to carnalise our most holy faith.

 

[earl40]

can be the same as many who read the AV.

How could it possibly be the same?

13 And from thence we fetched a compass, and came to Rhegium: and after one day the south wind blew, and we came the next day to Puteoli:

Do you suppose todays english speaking person who reads this thinks they got a magnetic device to point which way pointed north?

You have lost me. Maybe I need to fetch a compass to work out the direction you are taking this. What does this verse have to do with symbolic representations of God and reading the AV? What does reading the AV have to do with symbolic representations of God?

I apologize, in that I have brought up a point from the topic on the AV and how I think it would be a good thing to use a version that is easier to understand. Thus my compass reference in the AV as compared to the Burroughs quote, which both took me A WHILE to comprehend. Once again I am sorry I was so obtuse.

 

[MW]

I apologize, in that I have brought up a point from the topic on the AV and how I think it would be a good thing to use a version that is easier to understand. Thus my compass reference in the AV as compared to the Burroughs quote, which both took me A WHILE to comprehend. Once again I am sorry I was so obtuse.

So the lesson is, a little patience and hard work is required. According to the Proverbs that is a virtue and its opposite is a vice.

 

[earl40]

I apologize, in that I have brought up a point from the topic on the AV and how I think it would be a good thing to use a version that is easier to understand. Thus my compass reference in the AV as compared to the Burroughs quote, which both took me A WHILE to comprehend. Once again I am sorry I was so obtuse.

So the lesson is, a little patience and hard work is required. According to the Proverbs that is a virtue and its opposite is a vice.

No I think "the lesson" is the NT was written in Koine Greek which The Lord used to spread his Word instead of Classical Greek, much like most of the English speaking world does not use Middle English now. Of course I am here in The States and my experience is no way exhaustive.

PS. I mean not to teach you any "lesson" other than the common layman's experience and I humbly bow to your "point" which is very good. I try to keep up with the vast wisdom you and others on this board, which In my most humble opinion is the best resource we laymen should avail to our benefit.

 

[One Little Nail]

can be the same as many who read the AV.

How could it possibly be the same?

Burroughs quote seemed to be pretty straight forward
I agree with it also, then again I'm pretty sure most
people on the Puritan Board forum would agree with it as well

I think ,maybe wrongly, most here would not agree with it. If not most, many.

Hi Earl, ye I was referring to the contents of what Burroughs wrote that most people
here on the Puritanboard would agree with it as it upholds The Second Commandment
&/or Regulative Principle which is what this Board espouses.
Im sorry if you had trouble understanding it.

 

[earl40]

can be the same as many who read the AV.

How could it possibly be the same?

Burroughs quote seemed to be pretty straight forward
I agree with it also, then again I'm pretty sure most
people on the Puritan Board forum would agree with it as well

I think ,maybe wrongly, most here would not agree with it. If not most, many.

Hi Earl, ye I was referring to the contents of what Burroughs wrote that most people
here on the Puritanboard would agree with it as it upholds The Second Commandment
&/or Regulative Principle which is what this Board espouses.
Im sorry if you had trouble understanding it.

No need to apologize. It took me a while to figure out what Burroughs was saying which took a little effort. I work in the medical field and often have to explain in layman's terms what is happening to a patient. Now this takes work and experience and I do not expect the average lay-person to medicine to understand all the terms we use here at the hospital...though with practice I can explain exactly what is going on using the "vulgar" language they speak. I think "we" (of which I am least) here at The PB need to remember we are not typical of the majority of Christians in this world. Just as much as those Christians who understand accounting, mathematics, or loyal housewife, which professions have a language of their own.

 

[Free Christian]

I have never visualised Jesus, or anyone else when I read the Word.
Its like a thin end of a wedge, or the start of a leak. Not everyone who accepts a symbol will go further down the path and then accept an image or statue type representation, but more do than don't. And I believe that we were told not to represent God, or Jesus or the Holy Spirit, for many other reasons, but also so that no-one goes down that path and progresses further. I believe it is the widespread use today of symbols, not only symbols alone but they have greatly contributed, that has lead to so much acceptance of the image of Christ by so many churches in the times we live in. The same churches that years ago would have shunned that said image! You have to ask yourself honestly. "Did God say not to represent Him with anything, is that written in God's Holy Word?" "Do I accept any visual representation of God?" If so and the answers are "yes" then give one good Biblical reason why, that you would boldy stand before God to give as an excuse!