Is it okay to use the NKJV?

[Layman]

Just 2 days ago, KJV only David Brown uploaded a video teaching that the NKJV is "dangerous".

Anybody can nitpick and twist the scripture to make a translation look demonic and dangerous. I can do the same with the KJV. It’s simply ridiculous, and I wouldn’t listen to these folks.

 

[Conan]

Tyndale’s Bible is around 85-90% the same as the KJV and it did not include the Comma Johanneum.

The Comma is in Tyndale's Bible. But the Comma Johnneum is in parenthesis so the reader can read the text without the CJ.

From a 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.

 

[Layman]

The Comma is in Tyndale's Bible. But the Comma Johnneum is in parenthesis so the reader can read the text without the CJ.

From a 1534 facsimile.

Oh, I didn’t know that. I only looked it up on Bible Gateway and it wasn’t included.

 

[Logos1560]

I am troubled that you men conspire together to present such a weak and pathetic god as if he is the true God of the Bible who has invested all that he had, his own son, in our salvation, and yet cannot give an accurate record of him and is still trying after nearly 2000 years. Is he the God who admonished us all to speak the same things lest there be divisions and offenses when he comes.

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.

 

[KJB1611reader]

The Comma is in Tyndale's Bible. But the Comma Johnneum is in parenthesis so the reader can read the text without the CJ.

From a 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.

Source for parenthesis is mean its doubted?

 

[KJB1611reader]

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.

This is a very bad argument Do realize in translation, some languages have reduncted parts of a word that isn't necessary in the language that is going into?

 

[KJB1611reader]

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.

Do realize every modern version rejects the Hebrew in many places for the lxx?

 

[Logos1560]

Do realize every modern version rejects the Hebrew in many places for the lxx?

You do not prove the accusation in your question to be true.

The KJV is a modern version so are you suggesting that it rejects the Hebrew in many places?

Dr. James D. Price identified and listed what he asserted are “82 justifiable emendations to the Masoretic text” in the Second Rabbinic Bible made by the KJV translators along with “146 unjustifiable emendations” (King James Onlyism, pp. 561-590).

At Judges 10:4, James D. Price maintained that the Masoretic Text “reads ‘they had thirty donkeys,’ whereas the King James Version reads ‘they had thirty cities,’ following the Aramaic Targum and the other ancient versions” (p. 284). Price suggested that “apparently the Masoretes erroneously supplied the consonants for the word for ‘cities’ with the vowels for the word for ‘donkeys’ as found in the preceding line--a slip of the copyist’s eye” (Ibid.). At Psalm 143:9, Price asserted that the KJV “conflated” or combined the reading of the Masoretic Text with the reading of the Latin Vulgate and Greek LXX (p. 294).

KJV defender Edward F. Hills acknowledged that “sometimes also the influence of the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate is discernible in the King James Old Testament” (KJV Defended, p. 223). Edward F. Hills asserted: “In Jeremiah 3:9, the King James margin reads fame (qol) along with the Hebrew kethibh, but the King James text reads lightness (qal) in agreement with the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate (Ibid.).

 

[KJB1611reader]

You do not prove the accusation in your question to be true.

The KJV is a modern version so are you suggesting that it rejects the Hebrew in many places?

Dr. James D. Price identified and listed what he asserted are “82 justifiable emendations to the Masoretic text” in the Second Rabbinic Bible made by the KJV translators along with “146 unjustifiable emendations” (King James Onlyism, pp. 561-590).

At Judges 10:4, James D. Price maintained that the Masoretic Text “reads ‘they had thirty donkeys,’ whereas the King James Version reads ‘they had thirty cities,’ following the Aramaic Targum and the other ancient versions” (p. 284). Price suggested that “apparently the Masoretes erroneously supplied the consonants for the word for ‘cities’ with the vowels for the word for ‘donkeys’ as found in the preceding line--a slip of the copyist’s eye” (Ibid.). At Psalm 143:9, Price asserted that the KJV “conflated” or combined the reading of the Masoretic Text with the reading of the Latin Vulgate and Greek LXX (p. 294).

KJV defender Edward F. Hills acknowledged that “sometimes also the influence of the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate is discernible in the King James Old Testament” (KJV Defended, p. 223). Edward F. Hills asserted: “In Jeremiah 3:9, the King James margin reads fame (qol) along with the Hebrew kethibh, but the King James text reads lightness (qal) in agreement with the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate (Ibid.).

Thanks for this list.

 

[Logos1560]

Why using an archaic word?

Are you objecting to the KJV's archaic rendering "divers measures"? Is the NKJV's rendering "diverse measures" better?

 

[KJB1611reader]

Judges 10:4 is like that in other versions like the niv.

Also, cities make sense as in Deuteronomy 3:14

You do not prove the accusation in your question to be true.

The KJV is a modern version so are you suggesting that it rejects the Hebrew in many places?

Dr. James D. Price identified and listed what he asserted are “82 justifiable emendations to the Masoretic text” in the Second Rabbinic Bible made by the KJV translators along with “146 unjustifiable emendations” (King James Onlyism, pp. 561-590).

At Judges 10:4, James D. Price maintained that the Masoretic Text “reads ‘they had thirty donkeys,’ whereas the King James Version reads ‘they had thirty cities,’ following the Aramaic Targum and the other ancient versions” (p. 284). Price suggested that “apparently the Masoretes erroneously supplied the consonants for the word for ‘cities’ with the vowels for the word for ‘donkeys’ as found in the preceding line--a slip of the copyist’s eye” (Ibid.). At Psalm 143:9, Price asserted that the KJV “conflated” or combined the reading of the Masoretic Text with the reading of the Latin Vulgate and Greek LXX (p. 294).

KJV defender Edward F. Hills acknowledged that “sometimes also the influence of the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate is discernible in the King James Old Testament” (KJV Defended, p. 223). Edward F. Hills asserted: “In Jeremiah 3:9, the King James margin reads fame (qol) along with the Hebrew kethibh, but the King James text reads lightness (qal) in agreement with the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate (Ibid.).

 

[KJB1611reader]

Are you objecting to the KJV's archaic rendering "divers measures"? Is the NKJV's rendering "diverse measures" better?

No.

 

[KJB1611reader]

Please provide link to Second Rabbinic Bible.

 

[KJB1611reader]

I can't do this anymore; Rick isn't wanting the Bible to be perfect. He always hath a way to attack it. The KJB is perfect whether Rick think so or not. God didn't lose it, and neither did we. If the humor was kept, there will be no end of translating.

 

[Conan]

Source for parenthesis is mean its doubted?

It's a no brainer for the time period. Erasmus didn't have the Comma Johanneum in his first or second edition. But under pressure from the Roman Catholic Church put it in his 3rd edition. Tyndale used Erasmus's 3rd edition for his 1526. I didn't check that edition, but a facsimile of his most important 1534 revision. He would not have used (parenthesis) if it was not for doubt as well. He was already condemned as a heretic for daring to translate the Bible into English, the very first from Greek and Hebrew . So naturally he would not leave them totally out.

 

[KJB1611reader]

It's a no brainer for the time period. Erasmus didn't have the Comma Johanneum in his first or second edition. But under pressure from the Roman Catholic Church put it in his 3rd edition. Tyndale used Erasmus's 3rd edition for his 1526. I didn't check that edition, but a facsimile of his most important 1534 revision. He would not have used (parenthesis) if it was not for doubt as well. He was already condemned as a heretic for daring to translate the Bible into English, the very first from Greek and Hebrew . So naturally he would not leave them totally out.

Parenthesis don't automatically mean 'disputed.' Please provide source and no, that myth is mot true.

 

[KJB1611reader]

So, 1 John 5:7 isn't real??? Seriously, I am done with this conversation.

 

[KJB1611reader]

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.

 

[Conan]

So, 1 John 5:7 isn't real??? Seriously, I am done with this conversation.

Read the chapter with, and then without the words in (parenthesis) . Then you will have looked at the evidence for yourself. You can believe whatever you want. But don't be afraid to look at both readings.

 

[KJB1611reader]

Read the chapter with, and then without the words in (parenthesis) . Then you will have looked at the evidence for yourself. You can believe whatever you want. But don't be afraid to look at both readings.

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.