KJB1611reader
Active Member
That's funny.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Was the Nkjv translated from same sorce texts as used by the 1611 translators for Kjv then?
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
This example would fall into the range of places where the KJV does not give an English word or English words for all original-language words of Scripture. It could possibly be a difference in translation similar to some of the translation decisions in the KJV.
KJB1611reader
Active Member
No, they used the c.t.
KJB1611reader
Active Member
I will not dicuss with Rick anymore.
Thanks,
Shawn
Thanks,
Shawn
You are misinformed. The NKJV's NT is translated from an edition of the Greek Textus Receptus.
I stated the truth when I pointed out that the KJV translators did not always give an English word or English words for all original-language words of Scripture. The KJV translators themselves acknowledged that fact in several of the 1611 marginal notes.
You can choose to avoid the facts and not discuss them.
Alan Dale Gross
Active Member
See: An Examination & Critique of The NEW KING JAMES VERSION.
As we see above, the critical text is ill-advised and for all intents and purposes a compilation of the worst manuscripts known to Mankind.
While Logos points out, there is a 'KJV' of the Bible which had terrible, known to be spurious, manuscripts used to force-feed their errors into the footnotes in a King James version, as an example of, 'the exception proves the rule', since they were abandoned to that one publication, then dismissed out of hand.
Then, apart from that one-off instance, other versions, such as the original 1611 KJV, have had footnotes added in the margins, however, only to give some more clarity, such as in 'alternate renderings' of the text. Those footnotes were not from a completely different composition made in a vain attempt to 'reconstruct' the Word of God and not from manuscripts opposed to the actual text, like that reassembled attempt to reconstruct the text in the critical text. They are the first to admit that they don't believe that 'the Truth' of God's original Word has been Preserved where we can be confident that we have the Revealed Will of God in its entirety. THAT was the very reason they tried to reconstruct it, we're told.
The idea that the NKJV faithfully does anything, as it relates to the KJV can not be sustained.
I'm not KJVO-KJVO, but apart from not appreciating their own untenable position as KJVO the way everyone else sees it, since in their stated position the term 'version' is used, they're mostly mad, I assume, because the advertisement and sells campaign pushing the NKJV claimed it was based on the same manuscripts as the KJV, which is a demonic lie of the Devil. They even got everyone and his brother with any religious world stature to say it is. Even Logos 1560. But I don't know if he or they are paid for their warfare in its behalf. I can't say.
Note above and the fact that believers are not to have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, from these scraps unearthed from the Underground Occult, after hundreds of years.
Conspicuous in their absence today, while other so-called versions embrace anything that serves to dilute the original expression.
37818
Well-Known Member
The TR, and Byzantine Text also omits εκ σου.
But Scrivener's TR has the reading.
Also Beza, Greek New Testament, 1598.
Last edited:
Alan Dale Gross
Active Member
This has not proven to be the case, whatsoever.
Non-issue. It's called, 'translating'.
Dead-issue, since that day.
You should really study it out and learn "The NKJV's NT is translated from an edition of the Greek Textus Receptus" is not something anyone needs to try and advance as if it is true.
Alan Dale Gross
Active Member
There is no dier need to suggest the KJV requires any additions or deletions, and in that sense it has been produced
as a complete work of literature that is more perfect than is humanly possible.
The idea that "the KJV" IS "ONE SINGLE PERFECT ENGLISH BIBLE" does need some qualification, doesn't it? I know you've heard that, but I believe you mean something entirely different than EXACTLY the way that reads, because the first step in attempting to 'prove' such a statement is going to have to include a selection of one specific publication of the KJV, then what does that tell you about every other publication of the KJV?
You might try to say the 1611 KJV is 'perfect', as an example of one to select, but there are variations in the text, however frivolous and inconsequential they may be, which a grade school kid can show you where there is something different from the 1611 compared to the one you are using. What are you to do with that?
Say the one you use is not perfect? What kind of definition for the word 'perfect' are you using when you say, "there is one single perfect English Bible"? Are you comprehending my concern there? Every anti-KJVO proponent does. Bet your life on that. You have to answer them on that.
Alan Dale Gross
Active Member
"In this review, we examine the original language texts of Scripture which the New King James uses for its translation, the alternate readings from the NestleAland/UBS critical Greek text and the Hodges-Farstad majority Greek text which it supplies in its footnotes, and the actual translation work itself. Is the New King James a mere update of the Authorised (King James) Version, or is it a new translation? In a statement of purpose for the New King James Version, the Thomas Nelson Publishing Company set forth this aim, among others:
"to produce an updated English Version that follows the sentence structure of the 1611 Authorized Version as closely as possible. As much of the original King James Version as possible will be preserved. The intention is to clarify the 1611 translation by the use of current words, grammar, idioms, and sentence structure so that this edition of the King James Version will speak to the individual reader in a clear and accurate manner. The intention is not to take from or alter the basic communication of the 1611 edition but to transfer the Elizabethan word forms into twentieth century English".1
"Thus we see that Thomas Nelson initially proposed a mere language update of the Authorised Version (though this certainly was not the result, as shall become obvious). The preface to the New King James Version tells us that the NKJV translates the Old Testament from the Hebrew Masoretic Text, as did the Authorised Version. It also tells us that the NKJV uses the Textus Receptus in the Greek for its New Testament translation.2
"Relatively speaking, the New King James Version is better than the other modern versions because its actual text is not based on the modern critical Greek text. Yet we must also state firmly that we do not deem it a faithful translation. Indeed, we cannot recommend it at all. We must to the contrary note its following grave defects: In the New Testament, the NKJV presents a textual apparatus, alongside its translation, with readings from the Nestle-Aland critical Greek text, the text from which the New International Version, the New American Standard Bible, the Revised Standard Version and the vast majority of modern versions are translated. The textual apparatus also includes variant readings from the socalled Byzantine majority text which is an edition of the Greek text edited by Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad (Dr Farstad was also the editor of the New King James Version).
"The presentation of these variant readings would make it appear that the Textus Receptus is not reliable, and that therefore, by implication, the Authorised Version, which used the Textus Receptus in Greek for its New Testament translation, is itself suspect.
"Instead of staying as close to the text of the Authorised Version as possible, as the guidelines originally stated, the New King James translators made many unnecessary translational changes and mostly for the worse, as we shall demonstrate.
"Contrary to what the original purpose was stated to be, the NKJV is a new translation, not a mere language update.
"Not only that, the translation changes impact key doctrines of the Scripture, such as the eternal punishment of the lost in hell. The doctrinal impact of the changes made by the NKJV is heightened when one considers the inclusion of the readings of the NestleAland/UBS text in the NKJV margin. These marginal readings make potential doctrinal impacts upon key doctrines such as the incarnation of Christ and His eternal Godhead, as we shall itemise. We now consider the New King James Version translators’ equivocal and duplicitous commitment to the Textus Receptus of the Greek. We quote the following from David Cloud’s Web site article entitled What about the New King James Version?
"It should be noted that we do not personally endorse all that Mr Cloud has to say concerning the Providential preservation of the text.
"Nonetheless, we must take note of what he relates below concerning the executive editor of the Old Testament of the NKJV, and how that editor views the Received Text of the New Testament:
"We have corresponded with the executive editor of the Old Testament portion of the NKJV, Dr James Price. In April of 1996 he admitted to me that he is not committed to the Received Text and that he supports the modern critical text in general: ‘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 [Nestle-Aland] and UBS [United ible 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).3
"So there you have it. The executive editor of the Old Testament of the New King James Version does not advocate the Greek Textus Receptus at all; he is an advocate of the Nestle-Aland critical Greek text, by his own admission. Not only that, the principal editor overall of the New King James Version, Arthur L. Farstad, was also coprincipal editor, along with Zane Hodges, of the Hodges-Farstad majority text, a Greek text that makes nearly 1,900 changes to the Textus Receptus.4 No wonder the editors of the New King James wish to present us with their textual apparatus of alternate Greek readings; they do not believe in the Textus Receptus, they advocate other Greek texts! Says Dr Farstad in his preface to the New King James:
"Today, scholars agree that the science of New Testament textual criticism is in a state of flux. Very few scholars still favor the Textus Receptus as such, and then often for its historical prestige as the text of Luther, Calvin, Tyndale, and the King James Version. For about a century most have followed a Critical Text (so called because it is edited according to specific principles of textual criticism) which depends heavily upon the Alexandrian type of text. More recently many have abandoned this Critical Text (which is quite similar to the one edited by Westcott and Hort) for one that is more eclectic. Finally, a small but growing number of scholars prefer the majority text, which is close to the traditional text except in the Revelation.5
"Thus, we see that Dr Farstad deprecates the Textus Receptus. New Testament textual criticism is in a state of flux, he tells us; the old is no longer good, he implies. Very few scholars still favour that old-fashioned Textus Receptus, which was once universally recognised by the Church as the Providentially preserved and pure text of all ages, and which once held universal sway as the Byzantine text for 1,400 years, the last nearly five hundred years as the printed Textus Receptus.6
"But no, we must now set aside that old-fashioned text; we must turn instead to the Greek texts favoured by the real scholars: either to the critical text, which is favoured by most, or to the new so-called Byzantine majority text, which is favoured by an increasing minority of scholars. Thus, the editors of the NKJV will now do us a great favour by setting forth to us these better readings in the margin, these better readings which they have given in English in the margin, these better readings which overthrow and undermine the authority of the translation from the Textus Receptus we see in the main body of the text.
"What we have just said is no overstatement, but is a necessary consequence of what Dr Farstad has said. Apparently, the Textus Receptus is no longer to be regarded as the Providentially preserved Greek text because it was compiled by a ‘committee of fallible men’ using ‘a few late manuscripts’, as Dr Price has told us. If, as we are told by Dr Farstad (who was co-editor of the Hodges-Farstad majority Greek text which is at major variance with the Textus Receptus in over 1,000 places), that scholars today hold for the most part to either the critical text or the majority text and therefore those texts are better than the Textus Receptus, then one of those texts and a translation made from one of those texts should be what we read. Therefore, it follows that the Textus Receptus, and its faithful translation, the Authorised Version, should be set aside."
This is an excerpt from: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.tbsbibles.org/resource/collection/D4DCAF37-AEB6-4CEC-880F-FD229A90560F/An-Examination-of-NKJV-Part-1.pdf
KJB1611reader
Active Member
I believe the pce kjb is.100% correct.
KJB1611reader
Active Member
And.this is why I can't be a tr only or bzt only.
Even though it's been PROVEN to be IMperfect? My, my, you sure have swallowed Satan's KJVO myth.
...Except where it's NOT !
The need for use of the same exact measures and standards in evaluating translation decisions is not a non-issue. The fact that the makers of the KJV give no English word or words for many original-language words of Scripture does have bearing on inconsistent accusations against the NKJV. The Scriptures clearly condemn the use of divers measures [double standards] as an abomination to the LORD (Proverbs 20:10).
Proverbs 20:10 Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the LORD.
My 500+ page book Practically Identical: The Geneva Bible, the KJV, and the NKJV provides many verifiable facts from the 1560 Geneva Bible, the 1611 KJV, and the 1982 NKJV that exposes the KJV-only use of double standards or divers measures in their misleading accusations against the NKJV.
I have really studied it out, perhaps more carefully and thoroughly than any KJV-only author has.
Your belief in what you asserted does not make it true or scriptural.
You can choose to believe assertions that are not true; thereby, deceiving you yourself.
The fact that Dr. James D. Price is not a TR-only advocate does not change the truth that the NKJV was based on the same multiple original-language texts of Scripture as the KJV is. The KJV translators were not all TR-only advocates. The KJV translators had been raised and taught from Jerome's Latin Vulgate, and one of the KJV translators wrote a book defending it. The KJV translators used Hebrew-Latin lexicons and Greek-Latin lexicons that often had renderings from Jerome's Latin Vulgate as the definitions of original-language words of Scripture.
KJV translator John Bois (1560-1643), one of this Arminian party, was known for his defense of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. Alexander McClure observed that John Bois had "a double share" in the translation of the KJV--first in the Cambridge company that translated the Apocrypha and then on the Cambridge company that translated 1 Chronicles to Song of Solomon (KJV Translators, p. 203). Gustavus Paine pointed out that Bois also "played an important part in the final revision of the entire Bible" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 61). The reference work The Dictionary of National Biography noted that Bois wrote a manuscript that "consists of brief critical notes, in which the renderings of the Vulgate are in the main defended, but Bois frequently proposes more exact translations of his own, both Latin and English" (p. 775). Austin Allibone quoted Orme as writing the following about John Bois: "his defences of the Latin Vulgate are often ingenious and important" (Critical Dictionary of English Literature, p. 233). John McClintock confirmed that Bois' only published work was "a vindication of the Vulgate version of the New Testament" (Cyclopaedia, I, p. 869). This manuscript written at the request of Bishop Andrewes would be published in 1655 and was entitled The Collatio Veteris Interpretis cum Beza. Nicholas Hardy noted that “Andrewes was the patron who commissioned the work” of John Bois—“a defense of the Vulgate version of the New Testament against the revisions of modern Latin translations from Erasmus to Beza” (Feingold, Labourers, p. 309). Scrivener observed: “Adopting the Vulgate Latin as his standard, he [Bois] compares it with the revisions of Erasmus, Piscator, Beza, and occasionally of one or two others” for the first five books of the New Testament (Supplement, I, p. 72). Scrivener added: “Beza is the chief, I might almost say, the sole object of Bois’s attack” (p. 72). Scrivener maintained that “the great end of the Collatio is to vindicate the rendering of the old version [the Latin Vulgate]“ (p. 72). Scrivener asserted that “this irrational desire of maintaining the integrity of the version [the Latin Vulgate] against the sense of the original disfigures every page of his book” (p. 73).
John Bois is said to have been one of the editors of the 1638 Cambridge standard edition of the KJV along with KJV translator Samuel Ward (1572?-1643), Thomas Goad (1576-1638), and Joseph Mede or Mead (1586-1638).
W. F. Moulton stated: "The Rhemish Testament was not even named in the instructions furnished to the translators, but it has left its mark on every page of their work" (History of the English Bible, p. 207). Diarmaid MacCulloch and Elizabeth Solopova asserted that in the KJV “it was possible to see some of the readings of the Doua-Rheims version amid all the work of Tyndale, Coverdale and the Geneva translators” (Moore, Manifold Greatness, p. 38). Ward Allen maintained that "the Rheims New Testament furnished to the Synoptic Gospels and Epistles in the A. V. as many revised readings as any other version" (Translating the N. T. Epistles, p. xxv). Allen and Jacobs claimed that the KJV translators "in revising the text of the synoptic Gospels in the Bishops' Bible, owe about one-fourth of their revisions, each, to the Genevan and Rheims New Testaments" (Coming of the King James Gospels, p. 29). About 1 Peter 1:20, Ward Allen noted: “The A. V. shows most markedly here the influence of the Rheims Bible, from which it adopts the verb in composition, the reference of the adverbial modifier to the predicate, the verb manifest, and the prepositional phrase for you” (Translating for King James, p. 18). Concerning 1 Peter 4:9, Allen suggested that “this translation in the A. V. joins the first part of the sentence from the Rheims Bible to the final phrase of the Protestant translations” (p. 30). Allen also observed: "At Col. 2:18, he [KJV translator John Bois] explains that the [KJV] translators were relying upon the example of the Rheims Bible" (pp. 10, 62-63). The note of John Bois cited a rendering from the 1582 Rheims [“willing in humility”] and then cited the margin of the Rheims [“willfull, or selfwilled in voluntary religion”] (p. 63). Was the KJV’s rendering “voluntary” borrowed from the margin of the 1582 Rheims? The first-hand testimony of a KJV translator clearly acknowledged or confirmed the fact that the KJV was directly influenced by the 1582 Rheims. KJV defender Laurence Vance admitted that the 1582 “Rheims supplies the first half of the reading” in the KJV at Galatians 3:1 and that the “Rheims supplies the last half of the reading” at Galatians 3:16 (Making of the KJV NT, p. 263).
In the introductory articles in Hendrickson’s reprint of the 1611, Alfred Pollard maintained that “the exiled Jesuit, Gregory Martin, must be recognized as one of the builders of the [1611] version of the Bible” (p. 28). David Norton affirmed that the words borrowed from the Rheims “make Martin a drafter of the KJB” (KJB: a Short History, p. 32). David Norton added: “Since most of them are transliterations of Jerome’s Latin, they also make Jerome an author of the KJB” (Ibid.). Norton pointed out that “the Roman Catholic John Hingham (fl. 1639) was to claim that the KJB in fact supported Roman Catholic, not Protestant views” (History of the English Bible, p. 54). Robert R. Dearden, Jr. observed that “it must be conceded that his [Gregory Martin’s] translations exerted a pronounced influence on the King James Version of 1611, transmitting to it distinctive phrases and style of expression” (Guiding Light, p. 219).
The sound evidence of the direct influence of the Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament on the KJV is a serious problem for a KJV-only view and its claims. In his book edited by D. A. Waite, H. D. Williams asserted the following as one of his criteria for translating: “Under no circumstances should a version which is not based upon the Received Texts be used as an example” (Word-for-Word Translating, p. 230). Troy Clark claimed that the Douay-Rheims “was translated strictly from the Critical Text Latin Vulgate bible of Rome,” and he listed it in his “Critical text” stream of Bibles (Perfect Bible, pp. 267, 296). Mickey Carter listed the 1582 on his “corrupted tree” of Bibles (Things That Are Different, p. 104). H. D. Williams maintained that “the Douay-Rheims Bible is based upon Jerome’s Latin Vulgate” (Word-for-Word, p. 42). Peter Ruckman acknowledged that “the textual basis of the Douay-Rheims is Jerome’s Latin Vulgate,” but he also claimed in his endnotes that “the Greek text of the Rheims Jesuit bible was the Westcott and Hort Greek text” (Biblical Scholarship, pp. 162, 517). Ruckman referred to “Satan’s interest in reinstituting the Dark Age Jesuit Rheims Bible of 1582” (Alexandrian Cult, Part Eight, p. 2). Jim Taylor asserted that “Jerome’s Latin Vulgate generally agrees with the Westcott and Hort Text” (In Defense of the TR, p. 204).
Were the KJV translators wrong to consult and make use of any edition of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate and of the 1582 Rheims New Testament that were not based on the Received Texts as an example or as a source for some renderings? Should the KJV translators have changed, revised, or corrected the Geneva Bible by borrowing renderings from the 1582 Rheims? Would not the fact that the makers of the KJV followed or borrowed renderings from Bibles on the KJV-only view’s corrupt stream/line of Bibles be a problem for KJV-only reasoning? Does a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning suggest that the makers of the KJV borrowed renderings from a corrupted source when they borrowed from the 1582 Rheims? Would KJV-only advocates suggest that Satan’s interest was involved in the KJV’s borrowing of renderings from the 1582 Rheims? Is a Pandora’s box opened when professed Bible believers accept any renderings from the Latin Vulgate or the 1582 Rheims being inserted into their claimed pure stream of Bibles? Would a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning suggest that a little leaven from the 1582 Rheims would leaven the whole KJV? Considering the fact of the multiple textually-varying sources used in the making of the KJV and the borrowed renderings from the 1582 Rheims, would it be accurate to suggest that the KJV emerges solely from the Received Text?
Do renderings from the 1582 Rheims make the KJV a hybrid Bible? Could the KJV’s borrowing from the Latin Vulgate or 1582 Rheims serve as a bridge to the modern versions? Is it now very clear that KJV-only advocates do not apply their own measures, criteria, or requirements concerning translating to the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV even though they may inconsistently use them to criticize later English Bibles such as the NKJV?
In the introductory articles in Hendrickson’s reprint of the 1611, Alfred Pollard maintained that “the exiled Jesuit, Gregory Martin, must be recognized as one of the builders of the [1611] version of the Bible” (p. 28). David Norton affirmed that the words borrowed from the Rheims “make Martin a drafter of the KJB” (KJB: a Short History, p. 32). David Norton added: “Since most of them are transliterations of Jerome’s Latin, they also make Jerome an author of the KJB” (Ibid.). Norton pointed out that “the Roman Catholic John Hingham (fl. 1639) was to claim that the KJB in fact supported Roman Catholic, not Protestant views” (History of the English Bible, p. 54). Robert R. Dearden, Jr. observed that “it must be conceded that his [Gregory Martin’s] translations exerted a pronounced influence on the King James Version of 1611, transmitting to it distinctive phrases and style of expression” (Guiding Light, p. 219).
The sound evidence of the direct influence of the Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament on the KJV is a serious problem for a KJV-only view and its claims. In his book edited by D. A. Waite, H. D. Williams asserted the following as one of his criteria for translating: “Under no circumstances should a version which is not based upon the Received Texts be used as an example” (Word-for-Word Translating, p. 230). Troy Clark claimed that the Douay-Rheims “was translated strictly from the Critical Text Latin Vulgate bible of Rome,” and he listed it in his “Critical text” stream of Bibles (Perfect Bible, pp. 267, 296). Mickey Carter listed the 1582 on his “corrupted tree” of Bibles (Things That Are Different, p. 104). H. D. Williams maintained that “the Douay-Rheims Bible is based upon Jerome’s Latin Vulgate” (Word-for-Word, p. 42). Peter Ruckman acknowledged that “the textual basis of the Douay-Rheims is Jerome’s Latin Vulgate,” but he also claimed in his endnotes that “the Greek text of the Rheims Jesuit bible was the Westcott and Hort Greek text” (Biblical Scholarship, pp. 162, 517). Ruckman referred to “Satan’s interest in reinstituting the Dark Age Jesuit Rheims Bible of 1582” (Alexandrian Cult, Part Eight, p. 2). Jim Taylor asserted that “Jerome’s Latin Vulgate generally agrees with the Westcott and Hort Text” (In Defense of the TR, p. 204).
Were the KJV translators wrong to consult and make use of any edition of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate and of the 1582 Rheims New Testament that were not based on the Received Texts as an example or as a source for some renderings? Should the KJV translators have changed, revised, or corrected the Geneva Bible by borrowing renderings from the 1582 Rheims? Would not the fact that the makers of the KJV followed or borrowed renderings from Bibles on the KJV-only view’s corrupt stream/line of Bibles be a problem for KJV-only reasoning? Does a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning suggest that the makers of the KJV borrowed renderings from a corrupted source when they borrowed from the 1582 Rheims? Would KJV-only advocates suggest that Satan’s interest was involved in the KJV’s borrowing of renderings from the 1582 Rheims? Is a Pandora’s box opened when professed Bible believers accept any renderings from the Latin Vulgate or the 1582 Rheims being inserted into their claimed pure stream of Bibles? Would a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning suggest that a little leaven from the 1582 Rheims would leaven the whole KJV? Considering the fact of the multiple textually-varying sources used in the making of the KJV and the borrowed renderings from the 1582 Rheims, would it be accurate to suggest that the KJV emerges solely from the Received Text?
Do renderings from the 1582 Rheims make the KJV a hybrid Bible? Could the KJV’s borrowing from the Latin Vulgate or 1582 Rheims serve as a bridge to the modern versions? Is it now very clear that KJV-only advocates do not apply their own measures, criteria, or requirements concerning translating to the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV even though they may inconsistently use them to criticize later English Bibles such as the NKJV?
Examples from the book of Judges where the NKJV may agree basically with the 1560 Geneva Bible when it differs from the KJV.
Jud. 1:4 Then Judah (Geneva, NKJV) And Judah (KJV)
Jud. 1:7 Seventy (Geneva, NKJV) Threescore and ten (KJV)
Jud. 1:9 the low country (Geneva) the valley (KJV) the lowland (NKJV)
Jud. 1:20 Moses had said (Geneva, NKJV) Moses said (KJV)
Jud. 1:21 But the (Geneva, NKJV) And the (KJV)
Jud. 2:2 covenant (Geneva, NKJV) league (KJV)
Jud. 2:11 Then the (Geneva, NKJV) And the (KJV)
Jud. 2:23 immediately (Geneva, NKJV) hastily (KJV)
Jud. 3:4 obey (Geneva, NKJV) hearken (KJV)
Jud. 3:5 the Hittites (Geneva, NKJV) Hittites (KJV)
Jud. 3:7 So the (Geneva, NKJV) And the (KJV)
Jud. 3:11 So the land (Geneva, NKJV) And the land (KJV)
Jud. 3:25 the key (Geneva, NKJV) a key (KJV)
Jud. 4:6 Then she (Geneva, NKJV) And she (KJV)
Jud. 4:14 Then Deborah (Geneva, NKJV) And Deborah (KJV)
Jud. 5:5 before (Geneva, NKJV) from before (KJV)
Jud. 5:12 sing a song (Geneva, NKJV) utter a song (KJV)
Jud. 5:21 hast marched (Geneva) hast trodden down (KJV) march on (NKJV)
Jud. 6:10 you have not (Geneva, NKJV) ye have not (KJV)
Jud. 6:20 bread (Geneva, NKJV) cakes (KJV)
Jud. 7:7 Then the (Geneva, NKJV) And the (KJV)
Jud. 8:14 seventy and seven (Geneva) threescore and seventeen (KJV) seventy-seven (NKJV)
Jud. 8:29 Then Jerubbaal (Geneva, NKJV) And Jerubbaal (KJV)
Jud. 8:30 seventy (Geneva, NKJV) threescore and ten (KJV)
Jud. 9:1 Then Abimelech (Geneva, NKJV) And Abimelech (KJV)
Jud. 9:2 in the audience (Geneva) in the ears (KJV) in the hearing (NKJV)
Jud. 9:2 seventy (Geneva, NKJV) threescore and ten (KJV)
Jud. 9:3 in the audience (Geneva) in the ears (KJV) in the hearing (NKJV)
Jud. 9:4 seventy (Geneva, NKJV) threescore and ten (KJV)
Jud. 9:5 seventy (Geneva, NKJV) threescore and ten (KJV)
Jud. 9:7 you men (Geneva, NKJV) ye men (KJV)
Jud. 9:8 forth to anoint (Geneva, NKJV) forth on a time to anoint (KJV)
Jud. 9:10 Then the trees (Geneva, NKJV) And the trees (KJV)
Jud. 9:13 But the vine (Geneva, NKJV) And the vine (KJV)
Jud. 9:18 seventy (Geneva, NKJV) threescore and ten (KJV)
Jud. 9:24 seventy (Geneva, NKJV) threescore and ten (KJV)
Jud. 9:34 So Abimelech (Geneva, NKJV) And Abimelech (KJV)
Jud. 9:36 tops of the mountains (Geneva, NKJV) top of the mountains (KJV)
Jud. 9:53 But a certain (Geneva, NKJV) And a certain (KJV)
Jud. 10:1 After Abimelech (Geneva, NKJV) And after Abimelech (KJV)
Jud. 11:10 said to (Geneva, NKJV) said unto (KJV)
Jud. 11:19 our place (Geneva, NKJV) my place (KJV)
Jud. 11:25 far better (Geneva) any thing better (KJV) any better (NKJV)
Jud. 12:3 So when (Geneva) And when (KJV)
Jud. 12:10 Then Ibzan died (Geneva, NKJV) Then died Ibzan (KJV)
Jud. 12:14 seventy (Geneva, NKJV) threescore and ten (KJV)
Jud. 13:8 prayed to (Geneva, NKJV) intreated (KJV)
Jud. 14:1 Now Samson (Geneva, NKJV) And Samson (KJV)
Jud. 14:12 Then Samson (Geneva, NKJV) And Samson (KJV)
Jud. 15:8 So he (Geneva, NKJV) And he (KJV)
Jud. 15:14 to Lehi (Geneva, NKJV) unto Lehi (KJV)
Jud. 15:14 from his hands (Geneva, NKJV) from off his hands (KJV)
Jud. 15:16 Then Samson (Geneva, NKJV) And Samson (KJV)
Jud. 16:7 cords (Geneva) withs (KJV) bowstrings (NKJV)
Jud. 16:13 to Samson (Geneva, NKJV) unto Samson (KJV)
Jud. 16:14 he awoke (Geneva, NKJV) he awaked (KJV)
Jud. 16:26 Then Samson (Geneva, NKJV) And Samson (KJV)
Jud. 16:28 Then Samson (Geneva, NKJV) And Samson (KJV)
Jud. 16:31 sepulchre (Geneva) buryingplace (KJV) tomb (NKJV)
Jud. 18:10 lack nothing (Geneva) no want (KJV) no lack (NKJV)
Jud. 19:4 young woman’s father (Geneva, NKJV) damsel’s father (KJV)
Jud. 19:5 young woman’s father (Geneva, NKJV) damsel’s father (KJV)
Jud. 19:6 young woman’s father (Geneva, NKJV) damsel’s father (KJV)
Jud. 19:9 young woman’s father (Geneva, NKJV) damsel’s father (KJV)
Jud. 19:21 fodder (Geneva, NKJV) provender (KJV)
Jud. 19:22 wicked men (Geneva) sons of Belial (KJV) perverted men (NKJV)
Jud. 19:24 virgin (Geneva, NKJV) maiden (KJV)
Jud. 19:30 consult (Geneva) take advice (KJV) take counsel (NKJV)
Jud. 20:13 wicked men (Geneva) men, the children of Belial (KJV) perverted men (NKJV)
Jud. 20:21 came out (Geneva, NKJV) came forth out (KJV)
Jud. 20:23 evening (Geneva, NKJV) even (KJV)
Jud. 20:26 evening (Geneva, NKJV) even (KJV)
Jud. 21:6 were sorry (Geneva) repented (KJV) grieved (NKJV)
Jud. 21:10 most valiant (Geneva, NKJV) valiantest (KJV)
Jud. 21:13 Then the (Geneva, NKJV) And the (KJV)
Jud. 21:24 So the (Geneva, NKJV) And the (KJV)
Jud. 1:4 Then Judah (Geneva, NKJV) And Judah (KJV)
Jud. 1:7 Seventy (Geneva, NKJV) Threescore and ten (KJV)
Jud. 1:9 the low country (Geneva) the valley (KJV) the lowland (NKJV)
Jud. 1:20 Moses had said (Geneva, NKJV) Moses said (KJV)
Jud. 1:21 But the (Geneva, NKJV) And the (KJV)
Jud. 2:2 covenant (Geneva, NKJV) league (KJV)
Jud. 2:11 Then the (Geneva, NKJV) And the (KJV)
Jud. 2:23 immediately (Geneva, NKJV) hastily (KJV)
Jud. 3:4 obey (Geneva, NKJV) hearken (KJV)
Jud. 3:5 the Hittites (Geneva, NKJV) Hittites (KJV)
Jud. 3:7 So the (Geneva, NKJV) And the (KJV)
Jud. 3:11 So the land (Geneva, NKJV) And the land (KJV)
Jud. 3:25 the key (Geneva, NKJV) a key (KJV)
Jud. 4:6 Then she (Geneva, NKJV) And she (KJV)
Jud. 4:14 Then Deborah (Geneva, NKJV) And Deborah (KJV)
Jud. 5:5 before (Geneva, NKJV) from before (KJV)
Jud. 5:12 sing a song (Geneva, NKJV) utter a song (KJV)
Jud. 5:21 hast marched (Geneva) hast trodden down (KJV) march on (NKJV)
Jud. 6:10 you have not (Geneva, NKJV) ye have not (KJV)
Jud. 6:20 bread (Geneva, NKJV) cakes (KJV)
Jud. 7:7 Then the (Geneva, NKJV) And the (KJV)
Jud. 8:14 seventy and seven (Geneva) threescore and seventeen (KJV) seventy-seven (NKJV)
Jud. 8:29 Then Jerubbaal (Geneva, NKJV) And Jerubbaal (KJV)
Jud. 8:30 seventy (Geneva, NKJV) threescore and ten (KJV)
Jud. 9:1 Then Abimelech (Geneva, NKJV) And Abimelech (KJV)
Jud. 9:2 in the audience (Geneva) in the ears (KJV) in the hearing (NKJV)
Jud. 9:2 seventy (Geneva, NKJV) threescore and ten (KJV)
Jud. 9:3 in the audience (Geneva) in the ears (KJV) in the hearing (NKJV)
Jud. 9:4 seventy (Geneva, NKJV) threescore and ten (KJV)
Jud. 9:5 seventy (Geneva, NKJV) threescore and ten (KJV)
Jud. 9:7 you men (Geneva, NKJV) ye men (KJV)
Jud. 9:8 forth to anoint (Geneva, NKJV) forth on a time to anoint (KJV)
Jud. 9:10 Then the trees (Geneva, NKJV) And the trees (KJV)
Jud. 9:13 But the vine (Geneva, NKJV) And the vine (KJV)
Jud. 9:18 seventy (Geneva, NKJV) threescore and ten (KJV)
Jud. 9:24 seventy (Geneva, NKJV) threescore and ten (KJV)
Jud. 9:34 So Abimelech (Geneva, NKJV) And Abimelech (KJV)
Jud. 9:36 tops of the mountains (Geneva, NKJV) top of the mountains (KJV)
Jud. 9:53 But a certain (Geneva, NKJV) And a certain (KJV)
Jud. 10:1 After Abimelech (Geneva, NKJV) And after Abimelech (KJV)
Jud. 11:10 said to (Geneva, NKJV) said unto (KJV)
Jud. 11:19 our place (Geneva, NKJV) my place (KJV)
Jud. 11:25 far better (Geneva) any thing better (KJV) any better (NKJV)
Jud. 12:3 So when (Geneva) And when (KJV)
Jud. 12:10 Then Ibzan died (Geneva, NKJV) Then died Ibzan (KJV)
Jud. 12:14 seventy (Geneva, NKJV) threescore and ten (KJV)
Jud. 13:8 prayed to (Geneva, NKJV) intreated (KJV)
Jud. 14:1 Now Samson (Geneva, NKJV) And Samson (KJV)
Jud. 14:12 Then Samson (Geneva, NKJV) And Samson (KJV)
Jud. 15:8 So he (Geneva, NKJV) And he (KJV)
Jud. 15:14 to Lehi (Geneva, NKJV) unto Lehi (KJV)
Jud. 15:14 from his hands (Geneva, NKJV) from off his hands (KJV)
Jud. 15:16 Then Samson (Geneva, NKJV) And Samson (KJV)
Jud. 16:7 cords (Geneva) withs (KJV) bowstrings (NKJV)
Jud. 16:13 to Samson (Geneva, NKJV) unto Samson (KJV)
Jud. 16:14 he awoke (Geneva, NKJV) he awaked (KJV)
Jud. 16:26 Then Samson (Geneva, NKJV) And Samson (KJV)
Jud. 16:28 Then Samson (Geneva, NKJV) And Samson (KJV)
Jud. 16:31 sepulchre (Geneva) buryingplace (KJV) tomb (NKJV)
Jud. 18:10 lack nothing (Geneva) no want (KJV) no lack (NKJV)
Jud. 19:4 young woman’s father (Geneva, NKJV) damsel’s father (KJV)
Jud. 19:5 young woman’s father (Geneva, NKJV) damsel’s father (KJV)
Jud. 19:6 young woman’s father (Geneva, NKJV) damsel’s father (KJV)
Jud. 19:9 young woman’s father (Geneva, NKJV) damsel’s father (KJV)
Jud. 19:21 fodder (Geneva, NKJV) provender (KJV)
Jud. 19:22 wicked men (Geneva) sons of Belial (KJV) perverted men (NKJV)
Jud. 19:24 virgin (Geneva, NKJV) maiden (KJV)
Jud. 19:30 consult (Geneva) take advice (KJV) take counsel (NKJV)
Jud. 20:13 wicked men (Geneva) men, the children of Belial (KJV) perverted men (NKJV)
Jud. 20:21 came out (Geneva, NKJV) came forth out (KJV)
Jud. 20:23 evening (Geneva, NKJV) even (KJV)
Jud. 20:26 evening (Geneva, NKJV) even (KJV)
Jud. 21:6 were sorry (Geneva) repented (KJV) grieved (NKJV)
Jud. 21:10 most valiant (Geneva, NKJV) valiantest (KJV)
Jud. 21:13 Then the (Geneva, NKJV) And the (KJV)
Jud. 21:24 So the (Geneva, NKJV) And the (KJV)
many have asked Trinitarian Bible Society, strong KJVO group, to get behind revising Kjv to modernize the grammar and vocabulary and take the KJV into now the 21 Century, but they keep refusing as Kjv somehow sacred and no need to do anything to it
Basically they could end up with the NKJV that would meet their standards