Nkjv = Kjv???

[ohgin]

Hi everyone,
I am just wondering, can we trust NKJV as much as we do for KJV??? I read somewhere that the NKJV has been changed a little because of copyright issue as the editor of the NKJV wants the NKJV to be a little different as compared to the KJV. I know that not all bible text are reliable. For example my friend borrowed me his New Living Translation and really after reading parts of it, I find it not accpetable. It seems that most of the verses has been "interpreted" and I feel that it does not come from the original text. I do not think that bibles should be interpreted. Any interpretation should be done seperately. I would be a little dissapointed if NKJV is not acceptable as I am not used to the English regarding KJV.

 

[calmcoolandelected]

Hi everyone,
I am just wondering, can we trust NKJV as much as we do for KJV??? I read somewhere that the NKJV has been changed a little because of copyright issue as the editor of the NKJV wants the NKJV to be a little different as compared to the KJV. I know that not all bible text are reliable. For example my friend borrowed me his New Living Translation and really after reading parts of it, I find it not accpetable. It seems that most of the verses has been "interpreted" and I feel that it does not come from the original text. I do not think that bibles should be interpreted. Any interpretation should be done seperately. I would be a little dissapointed if NKJV is not acceptable as I am not used to the English regarding KJV.

Well, I am not an expert, just a mom. I like the NKJV. It is very readable. The New Geneva Study Bible is NKJV (Sproul, others, editors).

HTH,
CC&E

 

[mlqurgw]

Hi everyone,
I am just wondering, can we trust NKJV as much as we do for KJV??? I read somewhere that the NKJV has been changed a little because of copyright issue as the editor of the NKJV wants the NKJV to be a little different as compared to the KJV. I know that not all bible text are reliable. For example my friend borrowed me his New Living Translation and really after reading parts of it, I find it not accpetable. It seems that most of the verses has been "interpreted" and I feel that it does not come from the original text. I do not think that bibles should be interpreted. Any interpretation should be done seperately. I would be a little dissapointed if NKJV is not acceptable as I am not used to the English regarding KJV.

I honestly don't know much about the NKJV but do know that those such as the New Living and the Message are not translations but paraphrases. I have and use several translations: NASB, YLT, NIV and some others. I personally prefer the KJV because I believe it is as good as any. I do believe the translators could have used better words in some cases but they are few and really, for the most part, do not change the meaning of the text a great deal. I also use it because that is what I grew up reading and have no problem with the language. It is what I preach from and will till God shuts my mouth. I do have some pastor friends who use the NKJV and I have no problem with that.

 

[Jon_]

The NKJV is based mostly on the same texts that the original KJV was based on, but with a few updates and additions in terms of manuscripts. It does not use the Critical Text like most modern translations do, but the Majority Text, which is mostly Byzantium in heritage. The translation work in the NKJV is actually pretty good. I compare it to the ESV. Its literaly where it should be, but provides a good translation into comparable English phrases where the original text would be horribly ambiguous if translated literally. I believe it is a word-for-word translation the same as the KJV.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[arunma]

Hi everyone,
I am just wondering, can we trust NKJV as much as we do for KJV??? I read somewhere that the NKJV has been changed a little because of copyright issue as the editor of the NKJV wants the NKJV to be a little different as compared to the KJV. I know that not all bible text are reliable. For example my friend borrowed me his New Living Translation and really after reading parts of it, I find it not accpetable. It seems that most of the verses has been "interpreted" and I feel that it does not come from the original text. I do not think that bibles should be interpreted. Any interpretation should be done seperately. I would be a little dissapointed if NKJV is not acceptable as I am not used to the English regarding KJV.

It's important to note that while the KJV is a good translation, it is not the best translation out there, since it was written at a time when far fewer manuscript witnesses were available (I believe that only four Greek texts were used in compiling the Textus Receptus New Testament). It's just my personal opinion, but if you want a Bible that is translated in a style similar to the KJV, I'd recommend the English Standard Version. It was only published about five years ago, so it uses the best available scholarship. And like the KJV, it is translated word-for-word.

 

[ghs1994]

It seems that KJV and NKJV are based on the Byzantine Text.

The NASB, NIV, NLT and a few others use all of the texts; including the Alexandrian, which are the minority of texts.

For example: Look at Romans 8:1 in KJV or NKJV. Compare them to NASB, NIV, NLT, etc. You won't find part of that verse in the KJV or NKJV. Why?

Was it left out by the KJV translators? The KJV translators did not have a complete text to translate from. They were still translating part of it from the Latin, in which Jerome was a Catholic. Latin became the language of the upper class and only priests could translate for others. I do believe that is what started the Reformation, but I could be wrong.

Either way, it depends on whether or not you believe in the majority or all of the texts discovered. The KJV only people may tell you the minority texts have been tampered with and are not true.

 

[Jon_]

It seems that KJV and NKJV are based on the Byzantine Text.

The NASB, NIV, NLT and a few others use all of the texts; including the Alexandrian, which are the minority of texts.

For example: Look at Romans 8:1 in KJV or NKJV. Compare them to NASB, NIV, NLT, etc. You won't find part of that verse in the KJV or NKJV. Why?

Was it left out by the KJV translators? The KJV translators did not have a complete text to translate from. They were still translating part of it from the Latin, in which Jerome was a Catholic. Latin became the language of the upper class and only priests could translate for others. I do believe that is what started the Reformation, but I could be wrong.

Either way, it depends on whether or not you believe in the majority or all of the texts discovered. The KJV only people may tell you the minority texts have been tampered with and are not true.

Well, the Byzantine Text actually comes mostly from the Greek Orthodox church; although, one has to keep in mind the date that this applies to. If you look back at the history of the manuscripts we currently have, and the history of the manuscripts the translators of the KJV used (which is the Textus Receptus, which was primarily derived from Greek texts at the time and not Latin), you see that the KJV translators used the best manuscripts they had available. They were all too aware of the corruptions present in the Vulgate (the Latin translation of the Bible produced by Jerome), which is precisely why they translated directly from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. At the time, they only had access to the Textus Receptus, which was first published by Erasmus (if my memory serves me correctly) and was also updated by Beza in Geneva. It might be true that current manuscripts are better, but, at the same time, it's somewhat difficult to advance that argument when so many of them agree with the Textus Receptus. There are exceptions, though (for instance, 1 Jn. 5:7—consult this in the KJV and then ESV).

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[JimfromOhio]

The first Authorized version was written in 1611. Current KJV Bible was written in the language of 1700's. While it is not hard to read but takes LONGER to comprehend what is being said. There are other translations have done a good job making english translation more current to our own english language.

King James Version
Reading Level: 12.00
Readability: Difficult to read due to 17th-century English vocabulary and word order
Reference Support Material: High
Number of Translators: 54
Translation Philosophy/Format: Word-for-word
Notes: Traditionally loved and accepted by all Christians. Purpose in translation was "to deliver God's book unto God's people in a tongue which they can understand." Published in 1611. Timeless treasure.

I love KJV but I don't use KJV in public because not many excel in that kind of language. I prefer NKJV and NIV. At home, I study in KJV and NKJV. We are to rely on the Holy Spirit when we read our Bibles. God gives us spiritual knowledge with the help from the Holy Spirit. Believing in Christ is not an intellectual exercise though it involves the mind. Believing in Christ is a heart and life commitment to the Savior. All translations (i.e. KJV, RSV, NIV and etc) themselves are not inspired. Only the originals are inspired. However, the Holy Spirit have been with the translators while they were translating. Remember, God is control and keep in mind, its good to see 66 books agree with one another.