KJV or NKJV??

[Christian1stBaptist2nd]

I know, I know....this has been discussed a thousand times, but I'm STILL not sure!!!.......I go back and forth with it.....WHICH is a BETTER translation?....KJV or NKJV.......I LOVE the old KJV I have, BUT, the NKJV IS easier to understand...I'm just concerned about it's accuracy.......my Pastor preaches from a NKJV Bible and that is what made me think about getting a NKJV Bible..I trust my Pastor completely, my church is VERY STRONG doctrinally, so I'd like your opinion???

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

I love the NKJV. I don't have to keep looking up words with the NKJV because the word is unknown or even worse the meaning has changed so if you're not careful you'll misunderstand what God is saying. It uses the same manuscripts as the KJV so it isn't "missing" any verses. Also on the bottom of the pages it does a good job of letting you know what the Majority and Critical Manuscripts have for wording. By The way our IFB church uses the NKJV as well.

 

[edie19]

My pastor teaches from the NASB (it is incredibly accurate). I love my NKJV Reformed Study Bible and use it during worship - overall I find it pretty close to the NASB. I love the NKJV (love my NASB too, don't think you can go wrong with it. Many of our guest pastors use the NKJV and my pastor is very zealous of our pulpit and is quite cautious about who teaches in our church.

 

[JimfromOhio]

I love both KJV and NKJV.... however most of my "serious studies", I use NKJV.

 

[Rion]

I like my NKJV since it has alternative translations/readings from the other versions.

 

[Taylor43]

I use NKJV at times it is so much easier to understand. I use other versions but there is nothing wrong with King James

 

[RichardT]

I love the NKJV. I don't have to keep looking up words with the NKJV because the word is unknown or even worse the meaning has changed so if you're not careful you'll misunderstand what God is saying. It uses the same manuscripts as the KJV so it isn't "missing" any verses.

Not true, it has used westcott/hort greek text for many of its verses.

 

[PETE_]

Not true, it has used westcott/hort greek text for many of its verses.
[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT]

The question should be if these verses are translated correctly

 

[RichardT]

The question should be if these verses are translated correctly

The question should be whether "textual criticism" is God's method of preservation.

 

[Logos1560]

The question should be whether "textual criticism" is God's method of preservation.

Do you ask if the textual criticism of Erasmus and the textual criticism of Church of England scholars in 1611 was God's method of preservation?

The KJV does not follow any one Hebrew manuscript for the Old Testament 100% or any one Greek manuscript for the N. T. 100%; therefore, someone used textual criticism to decide which readings were thought best.

 

[Logos1560]

Not true, it has used westcott/hort greek text for many of its verses.
[/size][/color][/font]

Your statement is not correct. The NKJV was not based on or translated from the Westcott/Hort Greek text. Does love for the KJV justify making false claims about the NKJV?

 

[Logos1560]

Below is a thread where you can find some of the inaccurate KJV-only claims about the NKJV and documented evidence that shows the claims to be incorrect.

http://www.christianforums.com/t4525609-is-kjv-1000-times-better-than-the-nkjv.html

 

[Christian1stBaptist2nd]

See???...this is exactly what I'm talking about........BOTH sides make points, so WHO'S right???.....I want the TRUE Word of God in my hands...........please don't turn this into a KJVO thread........I think the NKJV is a pretty good translation, but I would NEVER own an NIV or TNIV, for example.

 

[Logos1560]

The NKJV is based on the same underlying original languages texts as the KJV. Just as the KJV is both a revision of earlier pre-1611 English Bibles and a translation of original language texts, the NKJV is both a revision of the KJV and a translation of the same underlying original languages texts. The NKJV updates much of the archaic language of the KJV. I have examined the claims that are made against the NKJV, and I found that there is valid evidence that shows them to be misleading or incorrect.

The NKJV is at least clearer, better, more accurate, and more up-to-date at many verses than the KJV. Perhaps the KJV may be better at some verses. It would be difficult to provide evidence to show which one is the better overall English translation. Of course, those who use the KJV may say and assume that the KJV is better, but they do not provide consistent, compelling evidence to support their claim. I sometimes carry a KJV/NKJV Parallel Bible so I can have both with me.

My view of Bible translation is the same view as that held by the early English translators including William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, John Rogers, the translators of the 1560 Geneva Bible, and the translators of the KJV.

I have not recommended the Critical Text or any translations made from it. Therefore, my posts that respond to inaccurate claims about the NKJV are not made to promote the Critical Greek Text.

 

[arunma]

I know, I know....this has been discussed a thousand times, but I'm STILL not sure!!!.......I go back and forth with it.....WHICH is a BETTER translation?....KJV or NKJV.......I LOVE the old KJV I have, BUT, the NKJV IS easier to understand...I'm just concerned about it's accuracy.......my Pastor preaches from a NKJV Bible and that is what made me think about getting a NKJV Bible..I trust my Pastor completely, my church is VERY STRONG doctrinally, so I'd like your opinion???

If you don't mind the opinion of a youngin'...

I find that it is generally more helpful to use the same translation as the rest of the church. Not too long ago when I was using the NIV, I joined a church in which the pastor preached from the ESV. They pushed the ESV pretty strongly. It was the pew Bible, it was used for all the verses on the church bulletins, all the Sunday school classes and Bible studies used it; you could say the church was ESV-only. At first I insisted on using the NIV, but I eventually switched, and it made Bible study in this church community a lot easier. That, and I became convinced that the ESV is the greatest English translation that man has (by God's grace) ever produced.

What's funny is that I recently moved, and my new church uses the NIV. So now I've got to brainwash into thinking that the NIV is better.

 

[FreeinChrist]

I like the KJV, NKJV, NASB and when studying, I like to include an Interlinear.

A site that has the Interlinear is here:
http://www.studylight.org/isb/

and
http://www.scripture4all.org/

And also blueletterbible.com has links to look up the Greek or Hebrew.

 

[arunma]

I like the KJV, NKJV, NASB and when studying, I like to include an Interlinear.

A site that has the Interlinear is here:
http://www.studylight.org/isb/

and
http://www.scripture4all.org/

And also blueletterbible.com has links to look up the Greek or Hebrew.

FYI: Greek/Hebrew dictionaries, as well as Greek and Hebrew texts of the Bible are also available on E-Sword.

www.e-sword.net

(It's a free download, BTW.)

 

[BereanTodd]

Not true, it has used westcott/hort greek text for many of its verses.
[/size][/color][/font]

That is a blatant, false lie there. I don't know whether you are ignorant to the fact that it is false, or whether you are willfully and knowingly putting out false information, but either way it is wrong

NEITHER the NKJV or the NASB use the Westcott/Hort as you KJO people like to claim. The NASB used, among other things the Nestle-Alland, but both NKJV and NASB (and especially the NASB) consult all of the available texts, including the TR materials.

 

[BereanTodd]

As for the OP, the NKJV is far superior to the KJV, especially when factoring modern language and the ease of reading. I highly recomend it's useage.

 

[RichardT]

Your statement is not correct. The NKJV was not based on or translated from the Westcott/Hort Greek text. Does love for the KJV justify making false claims about the NKJV?

Actually, I was sort of right in my statement.

"The footnotes in the NKJV are based on the Nestle-United Bible Society critical Greek text and thus create exactly the same kind of doubt you find in the modern versions. It tempts the readers to discount the authority of the passages questioned in footnotes. It also accustoms Bible students to the philosophy of textual neutrality, of picking and choosing between the readings of competing texts and versions.
The Nestle-Aland United Bible Societies critical Greek text (NU) follows the Westcott-Hort text of 1881 in removing or questioning dozens of entire verses and thousands of words that are in the Received Text. It is shorter than the Received Text by the equivalent of the entire books of 1 and 2 Peter. Those who believe the Received Text underlying the Authorized Version and other revered Protestant versions is the preserved Word of God reject the NU text as corrupted."

From : http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/whatabout-nkjv.html


Unless you can show this to be a lie, the NKJV footnotes are still connected to the westcott/hort critical greek text. Actually, I have an KNJV that's collecting lots of dust somewhere in a closet in my room, I'm going to check this out for myself. I see that there are footnotes, but I thought there would be much more.

The NKJV is not merely based on the TR/KJV, it also uses the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate.

“I am not a TR advocate. I happen to believe that God has preserved the autographic text in the whole body of evidence that He has preserved, not merely through the textual decisions of a committee of fallible men based on a handful of late manuscripts. The modern critical texts like NA26/27 [Nestles] and UBS [United Bible Societies] provide a list of the variations that have entered the manuscript traditions, and they provide the evidence that supports the different variants. In the apparatus they have left nothing out, the evidence is there. The apparatus indicates where possible additions, omissions, and alterations have occurred. … I am not at war with the conservative modern versions [such as the New International Version and the New American Standard Version]” (James Price, e-mail to David Cloud, April 30, 1996).

From : http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/whatabout-nkjv.html

"Kirk DiVietro, Pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Franklin, Massachusetts, attended one of the Thomas Nelson planning meetings that prepared the way for the publication of the New King James. He testified to me that the Thomas Nelson representative plainly stated that their goal with the NKJV was to create a bridge to the modern versions, to break down the resistance of those who still revere the KJV. Following is Bro. DiVietro’s testimony as he gave it to me by e-mail on January 9, 2005: “Over 20 years ago I attended a pre-publication meeting of the NKJV held by the Thomas Nelson People and hosted by the Hackman’s Bible Bookstore in Allentown, PA. I am personal friends with the owners who took great delight in seating me next to the brother of the main translator of the NIV. The meeting was attended by over 300 college professors and pastors. At the meeting we were treated to a slide presentation of the history of the English bible and in particular the King James Bible and its several revisions. During the presentation of the NKJV the Thomas Nelson representative made a statement which to the best of my memory was, ‘We are all educated people here. We would never say this to our people, but we all know that the King James Version is a poor translation based on poor texts. But every attempt to give your people a better Bible has failed. They just won’t accept them. So we have gone back and done a revision of the King James Version, a fifth revision. Hopefully it will serve as a transitional bridge to eventually get your people to accept a more accurate Bible.’ Because of the years, and because I did not write it down, I cannot give you the speaker’s name and I cannot promise you that this is word for word correct, but the meeting so seared my spirit that I have never picked up and opened a NKJV. I can tell you that this is absolutely the substance and nearly the exact words of what was said.”"