Here is a excerpt from James Melton on the difference between the KJ and NKJ.
3. It is estimated that the NKJV makes over 100,000 translation changes, which comes to over eighty changes per page and about three changes per verse! A great number of these changes bring the NKJV in line with the readings of such Alexandrian perversions as the NIV and the RSV. Where changes are not made in the text, subtle footnotes often give credence to the Westcott and Hort Greek Text.
4. While passing off as being true to the Textus Receptus, the NKJV IGNORES the Receptus over 1,200 times.
5. In the NKJV, there are 22 omissions of "hell", 23 omissions of "blood", 44 omissions of "repent", 50 omissions of "heaven", 51 omissions of "God", and 66 omissions of "Lord". The terms "devils", "damnation", "JEHOVAH", and "new testament" are completely omitted.
6. The NKJV demotes the Lord Jesus Christ. In John 1:3, the KJV says that all things were made "by" Jesus Christ, but in the NKJV, all things were just made "through" Him. The word "Servant" replaces "Son" in Acts 3:13 and 3:26. "Servant" replaces "child" in Acts 4:27 and 4:30. The word "Jesus" is omitted from Mark 2:15, Hebrews 4:8, and Acts 7:45.
Note : His terminology is a bit harsh,but he has some useful statistics.
Wow John, these are some statistics. I have seen some differences through various comparisons... but nothing like this... but, the "thees, thous, thys and thus drive me nuts in the KJV. I have been using the NKJV the most because of what this web site, that web site, her website, his website, their website, etc. suggested. One could (possibly) even look up (10) of our favorite Wof ministries and get several "different" most accurate translation in each of their opinions
I plugged this into Google, "What is the most (accurate) bible translation" and... 699 zillion billion recommendations were offered (exaggerating just a fuzz).
Has anybody considered making a version that
ONLY takes out the thees, thous and the thereto's? In one site (Bible Gateway) quoted that the NASB actually did do that and was first on their list when compared to KJV. Next on their list was NET. I will do more research on these. Perhaps, someone on our Wof forum has already done that. One wonders just who are these 112, 57, 77 or so bible scholars and educators that are making these Changes? What is their background? I Love the Amish but I don't want their interpretations, nor the Quakers. Wouldn't it be nice if just Wof educators get together (not that were better etc)... and come up with version(s) in our area of beliefs. I am sure that even with (Wof)... there would be areas where they would have to agree to disagree.
I have the new Kenneth Copeland Study Bible with (all his notes) and also other study bibles (with their notes) such as Oral Roberts, Morris Cerillo, and Andrew Wommack. Between what I believe (or think I believe) and what they (each) believe... we would ALL have to "agree to disagree" in some areas of either bible translations, or even what Wof teaches from these different translations. I am sure that if I had Kenneth E. Hagin's study bible with his notes (if he had one) it would be the same. What's astonishing is that we can ALL read just "one" bible version and come up with half a dozen different views.
I've seen different "translation comparisons charts" in which were all different which can add to the confusion. One website person asked, "It depends on what you want to use it for." Huh? If I would have responded back to him/her, I would have said "regardless" of how I use it... I would want the most accurate version comparable to the KJV.
I also plugged into Google and asked this, "The thees and thous in the KJV version drives me nuts." It took me to a Yahoo forum site where the main responder suggested this...
"For the best translation, use the word "version" in your search which makes it a fairly safe bet. The word "translation" should be avoided in your search." He may be right for that's where the 699 zillion billion hits came from. He continued to say, "I go with several versions at once, Genova, ASV, ESV, NIV, KJV, KJV+. I mostly only use "KJV" to go along with Strong's Concordance. Truth be told, the thees, thys and thous drive me nuts."
Hmmm... That's exactly what I also said!
Interestingly, another site said the oposite... that he uses the "NKJV" to go along with Strong's Concordance. (talk about confusion)
Here's my best one. I went to earlier "past" discussions (several years back) on this very thing. (Names were changed to protect the innocent)
Clifford says, "I fasted and prayed for days and days and God told me to just read this one only." Clyde said, "well, I done the same and God told me to just only read this other version." By this time Orrville, Leroy and Pudd spoke up and said that God told them to "stay away from those versions." Hmmm... Orrville, Pudd and Leroy must have prayed and fasted more/longer than Clifford and Clyde. They may have felt they heard God "more clearly" and are more spiritual (all paraphrased). How sad, God must be really excited that these kind of things are going on within His Body.
John... I just wanted to add my thoughts so I will be looking for yet another version to study with and will look into NASB and NET versions for now. I won't be shelfing my NKJV away any time soon (too many notes). But..! Then again, some of my notes may be based on those 100,000 errors in the NKJV.
Go figure!!
