KJVO

D. A. Waite asserted that the NKJV has “more similarity to the English Revised Version (ERV) of 1881, the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901, the New American Standard Version (NASV) of 1968, or the New International Version (NIV) of 1978, than to the KJV of 1611” (NKJV Compared to KJV, p. viii; Defects in the NKJV, p. 9).

Here is D. A. Waite making the same basic unbalanced and extreme accusation against the NKJV as Peter Ruckman makes.

D. A. Waite claimed that “the New King James Version is the most dangerous Bible version on the market today” (Defects in the NKJV, p. 8).

Waite contended that “the New King James Version Old Testament text is based on a different Hebrew text than the KJV” (p. 10). Waite's extreme accusation is not true.

 

From the Trinitarian Bible Society:
"...the New King James has thrown down ancient landmarks and made their translation of the Bible a potential haven for heretics by including heretical readings from the Alexandrian text as footnotes."

Now that is just complete garbage.

 

Yes, I've seen that charge before and their proof is that the NKJV will choose wording which is similar to a CT version yet no underlying serious Greek variances.:

KJV 2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

NKJV 2 Timothy 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

NAS 2 Timothy 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth.

Actually to some a more accurate rendering but a very subjective call not harming the meaning of the text.

 

Yes, all three of these.

Hills, of these three.

 

It seems to me that "KJVO" has changed. Back in the day it included the doctrines of Peter Ruckman - 1) Double inspiration and 2) Advanced Revelation.

1) Double Inspiration : God inspired the KJV translation Committee similar to the prophets and apostles - rendering the 1611 AV as "Inspired of the Holy Spirit".
.
2) Advanced Revelation : I don't want to start a firestorm - suffice to say there are/were/will be "new" revelation(s) brought forth by the 1611 KJV.

Just wondering - do any KJVO believe one or both of these teachings?

 

I hope you will accept that there is a difference between supporting the Traditional Greek Text and being KJV-only.

 

Yes there is. My wife uses the French Ostervald translation which is transalated from the Texte Reçu and differs at times from the KJV, very often in the tenses.

 

I haven't read too many anti-KJVO boox since I have my own knowlwdge of why it's false, but I've read many pro-KJVO worx, mostly for comedy since I fathomed the truth of why the KJVO myth is false.

 

However, those three seemtabee the best sellers of pro-KJVO stuff.

But they all fail on the MOST-IMPORTANT FACT that makes all pro-KJVO arguments moot: the lack of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for KJVO.

 

The REAL problem is there wwas NOT any corn as we know it in those fields! It was grain, likely wheat or some other kind of grass. Corn was not brought to that part of the world til it was discovered in the "New World"!

In the 17th century, most grain was called "corn", but still, only true corn has "ears".

 

The last pro-KJVO book I read was Crowned With Glory by Dr. Thomas Holland.(2000)

While it repeats several old pro-KJVO arguments, it still fails, as do all other pro-KJVO works, to address the main KJVO problem of NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT and thus a lack of AUTHORITY to believe the KJVO myth.

This very lack of Scriptural support is why Protestants reject many RCC tenets such as mariolatry and the office of pope. Why more people don't apply this to KJVO & thus reject it is beyond me!

 

It's extremely disappointing that Waite and the TBS take this stance.
The KJV is never again going to be the leading version of the Bible (not in the UK, anyway). It's being abandoned by more churches all the time. Quite apart from its various errors, the language is just too difficult for most people. The danger is that if people read the hostile reviews of the NKJV, they will move to a version that uses the Critical Text. If the NKJV really isn't up to scratch, then it is up to some group to improve on it. IMHO, although there are a few improvements that could be made, the NKJV is a fine translation.

I know personally some of the people involved in the Trinitarian Bible Soc, and they are fine, godly Christians, but with a bee in their bonnets!. The TBS has recently produced a new version of the Spanish Reina Valera Bible, and whilst I know no Spanish, my friends that do say it is splendid. Why, Oh why will it not bring out its own new revision of the KJV? Sad to say, so long as Malcolm Watts and John Thackway are involved with it, that's not going to happen.

BTW, IMO the footnote readings in the NKJV are among its best features-- really helpful!

 

I am quite a big fan of James White (less so of Carson), but neither of them did anything of the sort.

 

As a former KJVO :
IMO The oldest fly in the 1611 KJVO ointment is that there were two versions, the Cambridge and the Oxford and in fact the Ruckmanites are divided on this issue.

Some support one and some the other.

It might be urban legend but when Ruckman was asked which which KJ Bible he agreed with he said "the one in my hand".

Another fly (at least to me) is that the Apocrypha was included in the first editions - Catholic grave clothes - being also a former Catholic this rattled me.

These two things (and a couple of others like - the English corrects the Greek and Hebrew) changed me from KJVO to KJV preferred (actually TR strongly preferred).

I did and still do believe the Alexandrian scribes did violence to the Greek text.

 

As a Sunday School teacher of senior adults for many years I used NJKV, KJV, NIV in that order NKJV-KJV a toss up.
Fortunately I took Greek and Hebrew in my formal education and was able use it to enhance my presentations.

 

The good news is that the Nkjv is really good, but so is the Nasb, so you can have a reliable version regardless of Greek text source!