An Examination & Critique of The NEW KING JAMES VERSION.

[37818]

I see,

Though are there actual changes of meaning compared to the KJB? Is it just an update to the language?

A change in how the text is translated can be a problem. The NKJV followed the NIV in changing "of all" to "over all" in Colossians 1:15.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Is it just an update to the language?

When the NKJV came on the scene, I taught my church it was mostly updated language (still mostly using the poorer Byzantine text, like the AV). As an example, I asked what this verse taught of Paul's journey to Rome in the KJV1769 translation:

"And from thence we fetched a compass, and came to Rhegium" (Acts 28:13). All agreed that the ship needed a compass for navigation and fetched one to aim them correctly. Wrong.

NKJV clarified "From there we circled round and reached Rhegium" and corrected the evolution in our language of the words "fetch" and "compass". The magnetic compass for navigation did not exist in that era.

NKJV's purpose was to update and did a commendable job compared to horrible contemporary "so-called versions" like Living Bible or Good News for Modern Man

 

[Saved421]

I see, anyhow what should have been done is look at all the verses with that word and its cleary defined. Also, encompassed is quite clear and still used.

So, its just language updates? Is there any verses that did change due to manuscript differences?

Shawn

 

[Saved421]

A change in how the text is translated can be a problem. The NKJV followed the NIV in changing "of all" to "over all" in Colossians 1:15.

I see, though I was more referring to times when meaning is changed like sodomites to prositiues.

 

[37818]

I see, though I was more referring to times when meaning is changed like sodomites to prositiues.

In the Hebrew means male prostitute. But then in my NKJV has perverted persons. ?

 

[Nolan Stengel]

Though are there actual changes of meaning compared to the KJB? Is it just an update to the language?

The NKJV does update some of the archaic language to our more modern vernacular. It also makes some improvements on the translation.

You may not know this, but the word ‘prevent’ had different meaning in 1611 than it does today. A modern person reading the KJV would most likely miss that.

Scholarship since 1611 has learned more about how the Greek grammar is constructed. An example of this would be the Granville Sharp rule.

Titus 2:13

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ (KJV)

Looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ (NKJV)

Notice how the NKJV makes use of this by rendering the verse with more clarity on the deity of Christ.

We should study out these 'footnotes' in the NKJV.

Please share some, I should be willingly to look at them and give a fair opinion.

I think the included footnotes in the NKJV are excellent for examining basic textual criticism and offer alternate translations of a particular word.

Colossians 2:8

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. (KJV)

Beware lest anyone [a]cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. (NKJV)

a. Lit. plunder you or take you captive

The word “spoil” in the KJV is the more accurate translation. However, I think the NKJV does make this verse read more smoothly by changing it to “cheat” and does include a footnote for you to consider the literal definition of the word.

As far as I can tell, the only real advantage to using the KJV over modern translations is the distinction of singular and plural pronouns (the thees and thous).

 

[Saved421]

The NKJV does update some of the archaic language to our more modern vernacular. It also makes some improvements on the translation.

You may not know this, but the word ‘prevent’ had different meaning in 1611 than it does today. A modern person reading the KJV would most likely miss that.

Scholarship since 1611 has learned more about how the Greek grammar is constructed. An example of this would be the Granville Sharp rule.

Titus 2:13

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ (KJV)

Looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ (NKJV)

Notice how the NKJV makes use of this by rendering the verse with more clarity on the deity of Christ.



I think the included footnotes in the NKJV are excellent for examining basic textual criticism and offer alternate translations of a particular word.

Colossians 2:8

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. (KJV)

Beware lest anyone [a]cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. (NKJV)

a. Lit. plunder you or take you captive

The word “spoil” in the KJV is the more accurate translation. However, I think the NKJV does make this verse read more smoothly by changing it to “cheat” and does include a footnote for you to consider the literal definition of the word.

As far as I can tell, the only real advantage to using the KJV over modern translations is the distinction of singular and plural pronouns (the thees and thous).

No, there is nothing new to be learnt from the Hebrew/Greek or the Biblical English.

Prevent is pre-event, there us no issue, and so is spoil.

Please note, the KJB is not common English, probably will find less archiac words in pre-1611 versions.

The King's English is Bible English that is set higher than common English and should be studied. There is no book out there or anything from work/school/play that wouldn't need some researching into its jargon/terminology.

There are issues with the GS rule, and there is no need for it.

Can you all like actually give non-archaic change in the NKJV?

Shawn

 

[Saved421]

I would like to add the KJB is noted for its language style and wording according to the Greek/Hebrew.

I am pretty sure our is infront of Jesus Christ in Grk, and it still the same thing.

aAbout GS: www.bibleprotector.com/forum • View topic - The errors of the Granville Sharp rules

 

[Saved421]

In the Hebrew means male prostitute. But then in my NKJV has perverted persons. ?

Oh, my apologies, anyhow why did KJB have sodomites?

 

[JesusFan]

I have read the NIV/ESV when I was young and to be honest: most of my doctrinal learning was from the pastor.

Anyhow, I believe KJB only but anyone can be saved as long with right gospel from any version.

I do not trust the NKJV, its not a King James Version.

Also, alot of critical readings of new versions were already rejected by the king's translators.

Nkjv translators used the very same textual sources and basis as the 1611 translators did, its just that they also decided put on footnotes and margins the alternative renderings and variants , just was originally done by the 1611 team

 

[JesusFan]

I use the KJV as my primary Bible translation. But since I am not a KJB onlyist I try to be aware of textual issues.
The NKJV textual notes are typically good. The notes NU Nestle Aland/ United Bible Society versus M Majority texts. The KJV used a TR mix.
Where both the NU and M texts both different than the TR, the TR is usually not correct.
T

That is why the notes in the Nkjv are very good for textual studies

 

[JesusFan]

We should study out these 'footnotes' in the NKJV.

Please share some, I should be willingly to look at them and give a fair opinion.

I do understand that the KJB is not pure T.R.

Shawn

The basic problems are not sure at times where they even got some of their renderings from, as not found in any Greek text of Eramus, sometimes seems to be from latin, and even unknown sources such as in Revelation

 

[JesusFan]

I see,

Though are there actual changes of meaning compared to the KJB? Is it just an update to the language?

No, at times we simply have no source text basis to see where the 1611 translators based their renderings from, from what textual source, and they also had to use textual criticism to "make educated guess' which rendering of which variant was probably best to use now

 

[JesusFan]

I would like to add the KJB is noted for its language style and wording according to the Greek/Hebrew.

I am pretty sure our is infront of Jesus Christ in Grk, and it still the same thing.

aAbout GS: www.bibleprotector.com/forum • View topic - The errors of the Granville Sharp rules

When used properly, the Grandville Sharp rules has always proven correct

 

[JesusFan]

When the NKJV came on the scene, I taught my church it was mostly updated language (still mostly using the poorer Byzantine text, like the AV). As an example, I asked what this verse taught of Paul's journey to Rome in the KJV1769 translation:

"And from thence we fetched a compass, and came to Rhegium" (Acts 28:13). All agreed that the ship needed a compass for navigation and fetched one to aim them correctly. Wrong.

NKJV clarified "From there we circled round and reached Rhegium" and corrected the evolution in our language of the words "fetch" and "compass". The magnetic compass for navigation did not exist in that era.

NKJV's purpose was to update and did a commendable job compared to horrible contemporary "so-called versions" like Living Bible or Good News for Modern Man

They were just doing ewhat the Kjv already had been doing all along, such as in updating 1611 to 1769 kjv, as there NEVER was even one standard Kjv TR greek text nor english translation edition of it

 

[Nolan Stengel]

Prevent is pre-event, there is no issue, and so is spoil.

1828 Websters dictionary - Prevent - To go before; to precede.

2025 definition - Prevent - to keep (something) from happening or arising.

A modern reader is going to come to a different conclusion than what the passage is trying to communicate, whether you like it or not.

There are issues with the GS rule, and there is no need for it.

In other words, you’re saying that there is no need to be more clear about the deity of Christ.

 

[JesusFan]

1828 Websters dictionary - Prevent - To go before; to precede.

2025 definition - Prevent - to keep (something) from happening or arising.

A modern reader is going to come to a different conclusion than what the passage is trying to communicate, whether you like it or not.



In other words, you’re saying that there is no need to be more clear about the deity of Christ.

Just look at how let was used in 1611 Kjv, and what conversation meant?

And Grandville Sharp rule when correctly and applied always proves more clearly the Deity of Christ, as in Nas/esv regarding peter and Paul confession of jesus as Savor and God

 

[37818]

Oh, my apologies, anyhow why did KJB have sodomites?

Because it is a correct transaction.

 

[Deacon]

Long before the NKJV was published, F.H.A. Scrivener edited a comprehensive revision of the KJV in 1873.

In The Cambridge Paragraph Bible: Of the Authorized English Version 1873. Introduction (Section V) [LINK], Scrivener exhaustively listed
"orthography, grammatical peculiarities" found in the King James Version. Below is a short portion of the text.

Enough has been said of those variations in orthography which are due to accident or the caprice of fashion. Others, more interesting, spring from grammatical inflections common in the older stages of our language, which have been gradually withdrawn from later Bibles, wholly or in part, chiefly by those great modernisers, Dr Paris (1762) and Dr Blayney (1769), and have all been brought back again in the present volume. Yet it is not always easy to distinguish these from forms involving a mere change in spelling, and different persons will judge differently about them at times. Thus we cannot well retain growen 1 Kin. xii. 8, 10, while we alter knowen 1 Kin. xiv. 2, &c. To reject, however, such words as fet by substituting the modern fetched, is a liberty far beyond what an editor of our version ought ever to have assumed: we have restored fet in 2 Sam. ix. 5; xi. 27; 1 Kin. vii. 13; ix. 28; 2 Kin. xi. 4; 2 Chr. xii. 11; Jer. xxvi. 23; xxxvi. 21; Acts xxviii. 13: it is full as legitimate as fetcht of 2 Sam. xiv. 2; 2 Kin. iii. 9; 2 Chr. i. 17, and even of our latest Bibles in Gen. xviii. 7. The editors of 1762 and 1769 bestowed much evil diligence in clearing our English Translation of this participle in -t, Blayney following in the steps of Paris and supplying many of his deficiencies, yet, with characteristic negligence, leaving not a few untouched. Thus burned is substituted by them for burnt in some 93 places (burnt being left untouched in 2 Kin. xvi. 4; xvii. 11, &c.). For lift they put lifted 95 times, once (Dan. iv. 34, where lift is past tense indicative) with some show of reason; sometimes (e.g. Zech. i. 21, where lift up is present) to the detriment of the sense. Similar cases are built Neh. iii. 1 (builded ver. 2, 1611): clapt 2 Kin. xi. 12: clipt Jer. xlviii. 37: cropt Ezek. xvii. 4: crusht Num. xxii. 25: deckt Prov. vii. 16; 2 Esdr. xv. 47; 1 Macc. iv. 57: dipt Lev. ix. 9; 1 Sam. xiv. 27; 2 Kin. viii. 15; Rev. xix. 13 (dipped also in 1611 Gen. xxxvii. 31): girt 1 Sam. ii. 4 (girded ver. 18 in 1611): leapt 1 Kin. xviii. 26 (text, leaped marg.); Wisd. xviii. 15 (leaped 1611 in ch. xix. 9); 1 Macc. xiii. 44; Acts xix. 16: mixt Prov. xxiii. 30; Isai. i. 22; Dan. ii. 41 (sic 1611, not ver. 43, the second time); 2 Esdr. xiii. 11: past 2 Cor. v. 17 (so even moderns in 1 Pet. iv. 3; in Eph. ii. 11 we have passed in 1611, past 1769): pluckt 1 Chr. xi. 23; Ezra ix. 3; Neh. xiii. 25; Job xxix. 17; Prov. ii. 22 marg.; Dan. vii. 4, 8; xi. 4; Amos iv. 11; Zech. iii. 2; 2 Macc. xiv. 46 (plucked 1611 in Gal. iv. 15): puft Col. ii. 18: pusht Ezek. xxxiv. 21: ravisht Prov. v. 19, 20 (ravished 1611 in Zech. xiv. 2): ript 2 Kin. xv. 16; Hos. xiii. 16; Amos i. 13: slipt 1 Sam. xix. 10; Ps. lxxiii. 2; Ecclus. xiii. 22; xiv. 1: stampt 2 Kin. xxiii. 6, 15: start Tobit ii. 4 (started 1762, but it might be present, ἀναπηδήσας ἀνειλόμην): stopt 2 Chr. xxxii. 4 (stopped ver. 30; Zech. vii. 11 in 1611): stript Ex. xxxiii. 6; 1 Sam. xviii. 4; xix. 24; 2 Chr. xx. 25; Job xix. 9; Mic. i. 8: watcht Ps. lix. title: wrapt 1 Sam. xxi. 9; 2 Kin. ii. 8; Job xl. 17; Ezek. xxi. 15; Jonah ii. 5. These archaic preterites contribute to produce a pleasing variety in the style of our version, and are grammatically just as accurate as the modern forms; which is perhaps hardly the case with rent when it is used not as a preterite only, but as a present, as in Lev. xxi. 10 (sic, 1611); 2 Sam. iii. 31; 1 Kin. xi. 31; Eccles. iii. 7; Isai. lxiv. 1 (sic, 1611); Ezek. xiii. 11, 13; xxix. 7; Hos. xiii. 8; Joel ii. 13; Matt. vii. 6; John xix. 24. Other antiquated preterites are begun Num. xxv. 1 (began 1611 in Gen. iv. 26): drunk Gen. xliii. 34 (text not margin); Dan. v. 4: shaked Ecclus. xxix. 18; shined quite as often as shone; sprang Gen. xli. 6 (sprung ver. 23): stale Gen. xxxi. 20; 2 Kin. xi. 2 (stole 2 Sam. xv. 6; 2 Chr. xxii. 11 in 1611): strooke 1 Sam. ii. 14; 2 Chr. xiii. 20 (sic, 1611); 1 Esdr. iv. 30 (stroke 2 Macc. i. 16; Matt. xxvi. 51; Luke xxii. 64; John xviii. 22, also strake 2 Sam. xii. 15; xx. 10: never struck): stunk Ex. vii. 21 (stank ch. viii. 14 in 1611): sung Ezra iii. 11: swore 1 Macc. vii. 35: wan 1 Macc. i. 2; xii. 33 (sic, 1611); 2 Macc. x. 17; xii. 28 (won 2 Macc. xv. 9 in 1611). Among past participles may be noted (wast) begot Ecclus. vii. 28: (his) hid (things) Obad. 6: (have) sit Ecclus. xi. 5. It would have been well to have retained lien (which even modern Bibles keep in Ps. lxviii. 13) for lain in Num. v. 19, 20, as we have in the other places, Judg. xxi. 11; Job iii. 13; John xi. 17. Other verbal forms deserving notice are oweth Lev. xiv. 35; Acts xxi. 11, and ought Matt. xviii. 24, 28; Luke vii. 41, which were not changed into owneth and owed respectively till after 1638: leese (lose 1762) 1 Kin. xviii. 5. The noun flixe (flix 1629) was corrupted into flux in Acts xxviii. 8 as early as 1699.
The Cambridge Paragraph Bible: Of the Authorized English Version [Logos Link]. 1873. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

[Saved421]

There are alot of good articles that will explain all of the above.

The marginal notes in the 1611 was to shew that they knew the alternatives and rejected them.

I have seen many times when the previous versions had the same words used in the Modern Versions.

No, Revelation last six versions were from Greek.

Yes, they did use some Latin and other sources. Which have and will be proven correct in time.

The NKJV is a bridge to the new versions.

So, the NKJV is basically the same principle as the RSV?