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!
Ransom said:Yes, the NKJV is a very good English translation of the Bible. It is very readable and available in a number of formats/study editions.
NIV does not "change the meaning" or "leave out verses." You are working with faulty information from uninformed sources.
Askjo said:40% of 2,000 words in the NKJV is not TR.
Askjo said:The KJV and the NKJV are not same because they disagree each other 2,000 times! 40% of 2,000 words in the NKJV is not TR.
webdog said:I like it a lot. I have the John Macarthur study Bible NKJV.
Matthew 15:5 Textus Receptus Greek TextC4K said:Proof please?
PrimePower7 said:Well, the truth of the matter is it may not prove "one right and the other wrong", but it does prove they are not BOTH RIGHT! Things that are different are not the same. So which one is right? If that is not the question, this is, "Which one is closer to right"?
This is, of course, dependent on you view of Divine Preservation. The NKJV has not been around as long as KJV, so we have to talk "sources" for these two translations to see which has been around AND utilized by Christ's church (not Catholic) the most.
"I yield back the balance of my time"
Strouse is wrong. The NKJV is based on Scrivener's TR which was reconstructed in 1894 to reflect the Greek basis of the KJV. The NKJV is not based on the Majority Text. The ONLY English bible based on the Majority Text is the English Majority Text Version.PrimePower7 said:I was taught that there is approximately 1.4% difference between the TR and the NKJV's Majority text under Dr. Thomas Strouse. If that Majority is another version of the TR, I don't know.