Featured New King James Version (NKJV)

We're getting along fine without it.

 

Not really, as there's no "KJB" & Easter in the KJV is a goof that you won't admit.

 

That is because the literal Greek in English says One Person, even without this "rule"

"τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ"

"the Glory of the Great God and Saviour of us Christ Jesus"

One Person and not two!

 

That was my point, why did He not correct their mistaken translation here, if the Kjvo is right?

 

I meant without the rule

 

You will be quoted.

 

We have our own "KGB" now, acronymmed as "IRS".

 

Department of homeland security, cia, kgb cnn cbsn msnbc they are all kgb.

 

The NKJV is quite an improvement over the old KJV. Besides being in OUR English, it does not have many of the KJV's goofs.

The AV 1611 was made because the leading Anglican clerics wanted one standard version to be used in all their congregations. Its production was held up a little by the death of QE 1 & the clerics wanted to see who the new monarch would be & what his view on a new translation would be.

The AV wasn't much of an improvement over the Bishop's version, while the NKJV is an improvement over all the older versions. IMO, it's the best of the newer versions, although the NASV isn't bad at all, & neither is the ESV.

 

What do you think are the three worst errors in the NKJV that should be corrected?

 

The TR as a textual basis for the N.T. is the # 1 defect.

 

It is actually it's strength. It is now known that the most accurate Greek Text is when all three agree.

MT= Majority/Byzantine Text.
TR= Textus Receptus.
NA= Nestle Aland or Critical Text.

1. MT TR NA agree. 100%
2. MT TR agree against NA. 100%.
3. MT NA agree against TR. 100%.
4. TR NA agree against MT.
5. MT against TR against NA. All 3 disagree.

 

Not always. There is the F35.

 

Acts 3:26 calls Jesus God's "servant", not His Son.
1 Thess. 5:22, "Abstain from EVERY FORM of evil" insteada "Abstain from ALL APPEARANCE of evil".
A sentence in Isaiah 66:5 in the NKJV reads "Let the Lord be glorified THAT WE MAY SEE YOUR JOY" insteada "let the Lord be glorified; BUT HE SHALL APPEAR TO YOUR JOY".

No translation is simon-pure perfect, as all are the products of God's perfect word being handled by imperfect men. Also, most Hebrew, Aramaic, & Koine greek words and phrases have multiple meanings in English, so different translators use different meanings, making some renderings appear to be goofs to others who favor a different meaning.

 

The same Greek word found at Acts 4:27 and 30 was also used of Jesus at Matthew 12:18a where it was translated "servant" in the KJV. The KJV itself translated this word pais as "servant" 10 times, "child" 7 times, and "son" 3 times.

James D. Price explained that the real reason for this choice of rendering in the book of Acts in the NKJV is that the translators thought that in this context Peter was alluding to Isaiah 52:13, which identifies Christ as the Servant of the LORD (False Witness, p. 25).

Would you also suggest that it is an error for the book of Isaiah to identify the Messiah or Christ as the Servant of the LORD?

 

We must remember all english translations are flawed based on english language alone!.

The best example of this is Jesus conversation with Peter in John 21.

3 times in english Jesus asked peter if he loved him, Three times he replied. yeah lord I love you.

Yet in the greek, Twice Jesus asked peter if he agape him, and peter replied he only phileo him.

Thats a HUGE difference.. I remember the first time I was shown this, it opened up a deeper understanding of God and his love and forgiveness,

 

I have read many, if not most of the comments on this thread and have concluded from them that the NKJV, as with all other modern versions, causes division among the members of the professing English speaking church as well as with the scholars. The disagreements all come down to the words, as it should. No one really believes the words in the NKJV comprehensively are actually what God would have said when he thought and spoke in English. I sure don’t.

It would be good to return to a time when the church in the west agreed that the word of God was the KJV and sinners were still being saved by it.

 

I am looking forward to a time when Christians would not have the backwardness of mind thinking only the KJV houses the Word of God in English.
Those narrow-minded people of the past irrationally thought that each language must possess a singular Bible translation.
Imagine those of a pedestrian nature who believed that all other translations cannot lead someone to the Lord; as if the Lord isn't capable of communicating in anything other than antiquated English.

 

Very good translation, as is a formal one!