Is it okay to use the NKJV?

[Conan]

You guys make me very sad, there are many people out there without a Bible, those who believe its perfect. Please, just accept its perfect and get it out to other countries that need it. We don't need constant updating.

Wasn't the KJV constantly updated? Had they not done much updating there would not be a PCE KJV now would there?

 

[KJB1611reader]

Is 'in earth' also not in the text as is in brackets in verse 8?

 

[KJB1611reader]

Wasn't the KJV constantly updated? Had they not done much updating there would not be a PCE KJV now would there?

Printer errors.

 

[Conan]

Let's get rid of all parenthesis in the Bible then. Let's even more get rid of all disputed verses and words that aren't in the critical text.

This has nothing to do with the Critical Text or modern Bible translation. This all happened in the early 1500s. I will give you a picture of the facsimile so you may see for yourself.

 

[Conan]

Is 'in earth' also not in the text as is in brackets in verse 8?

Correct. You can read the verses however you want. With, and without the words. The best of both ways to read. If you think the words are original and belong you can read every word right in the Text. If you think they don't belong do not read the words in (parenthesis). The best printed Bible ever in history!

 

[Conan]

Printer errors.

But those printer errors had to be updated to get them out. Also there were textual changes, for good and/or ill. Updating in many ways. I would say for the better. But not always perhaps.

 

[KJB1611reader]

Correct. You can read the verses however you want. With, and without the words. The best of both ways to read. If you think the words are original and belong you can read every word right in the Text. If you think they don't belong do not read the words in (parenthesis). The best printed Bible ever in history!

Do realize there is tons of parenthesis in the Bible now? Should I skip those too??????

 

[KJB1611reader]

But those printer errors had to be updated to get them out. Also there were textual changes, for good and/or ill. Updating in many ways. I would say for the better. But not always perhaps.

Lies.

 

[Conan]

Do realize there is tons of parenthesis in the Bible now? Should I skip those too??????

No. They have modern meanings now. They are used for a totally different purpose than in 1534. Changes. Updating.

 

[Conan]

Lies.

They are not lies. You are rather in denial that they happened. Here is one source you can see some changes in.

Changes in the King James version

 

[Conan]

F.H.A. Scrivener, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), its subsequent Reprints and modern Representatives. Cambridge: University Press, 1884. This is the definitive work on the textual sources and history of the Authorized Version

 

[Logos1560]

Printer errors.

You fail to prove your opinion to be true. The over 2,000 changes, revisions, and corrections made to the 1611 edition of the KJV involved more than just correction of printer errors.

 

[Logos1560]

Rick isn't wanting the Bible to be perfect.

That assertion is not true. You bear false witness. I believe that all Scripture given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles is 100% absolutely pure and perfect.

The KJV was not given by a direct miracle of inspiration of God as proven by the actual proven errors in the 1611 edition of the KJV. The errors introduced by fallible men in the 1611 edition and in other KJV editions were not perfect regardless of your human opinions or claims concerning the KJV.

There would be the same problems with inconsistent human KJV-only reasoning/teaching as you allege concerning my consistent, scripturally-based view concerning Bible translations. Human KJV-only reasoning adds to the Scriptures opinions of men not stated nor taught in it.

 

[Conan]

Tyndale 1534 facsimile.

This Jesus Christ cam by water and blood. And it is the sprete that beareth witness / because the sprete ys truth. (for there are thre which beare recorde in heaven / the father / the word / and the holy goost. And these thre are one) for there are thre which beare recorde (in erth: ) the sprete / and water / and bloud: and these thre are one.

OR

This Jesus Christ cam by water and blood. And it is the sprete that beareth witness / because the sprete ys truth. for there are thre which beare recorde : the sprete / and water / and bloud: and these thre are one.

 

[Marooncat79]

Many modern versions of the Bible, such as the NIV, the ESV, the NLT, etc, detract from the proper doctrines of scripture, as they are translated from tainted manuscripts, and as in many places, where proper doctrine is found in the texts from which those versions are translated, they are translated wrong.

But is it okay to use the NKJV, based on the majority texts, which faithalone.org claim is the Word of God, rather than the received text? On that site, they say that, although it is not as smooth as the KJV, it is more accurate than the KJV.

I apologize for not planning this post out before writing it.

I don’t know, what manuscripts are weighted the heaviest with them?

 

[Conan]

Many modern versions of the Bible, such as the NIV, the ESV, the NLT, etc, detract from the proper doctrines of scripture, as they are translated from tainted manuscripts, and as in many places, where proper doctrine is found in the texts from which those versions are translated, they are translated wrong.

But is it okay to use the NKJV, based on the majority texts, which faithalone.org claim is the Word of God, rather than the received text? On that site, they say that, although it is not as smooth as the KJV, it is more accurate than the KJV.

I apologize for not planning this post out before writing it.

The NKJV is based on the Textus Receptus just like the KJV is. It has some Majority Text readings in the footnotes when they differ, as well as Critical Text footnotes when they differ.

 

[JD731]

Most of us here will not use the AV or the NKJV. Problems with language evolution and with biased/slanted word choices of the Anglican and Geneva crowds are evident. Remember God did NOT reach down in the past few hundred years and re-inspire new language. Translation into ANY receptor language is slow and painstaking to take HIS God-breathed words in Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek into ANY tongue.

God has supernaturally preserved every word. The problem, of course, are the minor errors of pious additions or deletions or simple man-made errors of scribes. We have wonderful translations. Don't you think of attacking US because there are small differences in this script from that script (there are 5500). God's Words have not been lost.

I am for the missionaries translating the Bible into other languages and made available to the churches who speak those languages, but that is not what you are defending. If you cannot be confident you have gotten your own language right after all the failed attempts, you should just give up. You are making God look like you and me, weak and pathetic.

 

[JD731]

You misrepresent and distort the view of believers who disagree with human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning. We do not at all present "a weak and pathetic god" as you falsely allege. I believe God was just as faithful to keep all His promises concerning His words before 1611 as afterwards.

The four gospels with their actual differences in parallel cases would provide evidence that would refute your misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the verse concerning speaking the same things.

The KJV itself also has the same type differences between it and the preserved Scriptures in the original languages as the NKJV would have. The KJV omits giving any English word/rendering for many preserved original-language words of Scriptures in its underlying texts, and the KJV adds many words in English for which it has no preserved original-language words of Scripture.

Modern, non-scriptural KJV-only teaching creates divisions in the body of Christ.

Your preaching does not include a" biblical" argument but an intellectual one. You rarely have first hand quotes from any Bibles but constantly quote men who you think are expert and smarter than you. Even as you have titled yourself after the Geneva Bible I can't remember you ever quoting it. In the rare instances when you quote a Bible it is the KJV. You don't seem to be emotionally involved with the faith.

My conclusion and opinion; Christians should not take you serious. Your error is dealt with in first Corinthians under the warnings of the "wisdom of the world."

 

[KJB1611reader]

Correct. You can read the verses however you want. With, and without the words. The best of both ways to read. If you think the words are original and belong you can read every word right in the Text. If you think they don't belong do not read the words in (parenthesis). The best printed Bible ever in history!

F.H.A. Scrivener, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), its subsequent Reprints and modern Representatives. Cambridge: University Press, 1884. This is the definitive work on the textual sources and history of the Authorized Version

I don't trust him, he is a a.v. bible corrector.

 

[KJB1611reader]

The NKJV is based on the Textus Receptus just like the KJV is. It has some Majority Text readings in the footnotes when they differ, as well as Critical Text footnotes when they differ.

But there is times they remove stuff based on c.t. and stuff....