-
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!
KJV vs. NKJV: which do you prefer?
- Thread starter alexander284
- Start date
- Status
37818
Well-Known Member
The TR more often than not follows the truly better NT Greek text which is better than most modern Bibles. The constant text is always the 100% text. The TR readings more often than not follow 90+% readings were most of the modern often <1% text reading. Yes, there are issues.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Based on what?
37818
Well-Known Member
That the TR more often than not agrees with family 35 of NT manuscript readings.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
I meant based on what is it the "truly better" etc..
37818
Well-Known Member
The NT text of family 35.
But is not Family 35 only about 250 or so manuscripts? Isn't it only a sub group of Byzantine manuscripts? Why not use them all? Please do not get me wrong I have become to believe the Byzantine Text is very accurate as well. But what about the fewer times when the KJV agrees with Critical Texts against the Byzantine or Majority Texts?
37818
Well-Known Member
A good example, I think, is where f35 omits ". . . and fire," in Matthew 3:11, being 80%.of the readings. 20% of the Matthew texts have it, as does the TR.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
I don't think you understand my question. What makes them BETTER?
37818
Well-Known Member
Understand a textual reading is either the same as the God given text or not. The constant witness is always the 100% reading across all manuscript types. So what would be the actual better reading? There are different causes for varant readings. The two main camps, one camp the identified correct readings are mostly very small percentages of all the witness texts. The other camp the identified correct readings mostly approach the constant witness, typically a majority text.
Last edited:
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
I understand textual criticism. What makes your view BETTER?
37818
Well-Known Member
My view wants what is actually God's word, not the corrupted reading. My view would only be better if you do not think identifying the correct reading matters.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
That's my point. Both camps want that so what determines a corrupted reading in your view and WHY?
37818
Well-Known Member
Pick one variant to look at. You understand textual criticism. What is believed to be the reason(s) for said variant?
[Remember the constant witness is the 100% reading where manuscripts agree.]
NKJB
Timothy Jason
New Member
Yep, I got one, my brother and I call it the crazy man's bible.
Timothy Jason
New Member
Galatians 1:8-9KJV... The only one I read, study and quote from... Its been serving me well for over 50 years, I'm old also and don't like change, why change and no one has given me a reason to change?... Brother Glen
Timothy Jason
New Member
King James Bible, born and raised. The fact that I am an avid reader of classical literature, Authurian tales, the language fits me well. Admittedly I have not had the opportunity to read a NKJV but it wouldn't matter. I stick with what I know, Galatians 1:8-9. I am not hardcore about other people's preferences though, whatever brings you closer to Christ.
NKJV beyond a doubt. I am a supporter of the Byzantine Text and of Formal equivalence translations. I am also not unacquainted with Shakespearean English, but I see no reason to read my Bible in such language.
I wrote this on my blog about ten years ago. The NIV i refer to is the 1984 version. Where I write A.V., Amercican readers should read KJV.
I could easily be persuaded to join a campaign to promote the Traditional Text, and I would gladly give financial support to a new Bible translation using that text if it is felt that the N.K.J.V. is not good enough. What I will not do is try to foist a 500 year-old translation with archaic language on the churches; firstly, because it’s a lost cause, and secondly because even if it succeeded it would be a retrograde step. The A.V. shares one feature with every other translation: it was made by fallible, sinful men. Infallibility does not rest with the translators, it rests in the original Greek and Hebrew texts. That is why it is helpful to have someone who knows those languages in every congregation. The A.V. falls short on three counts:-
1. The English language, like every other, has changed over the past four hundred years. Words alter their meanings over time. In 2Thes 2:7, the A.V. translates, ‘Only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.’ The word ‘let’ in the 17th Century, meant to restrain or hinder; today, of course, it means ‘allow.’ Therefore the verse means the exact opposite of what the A.V. says it means. The N.I.V. (and other modern versions) translate correctly, ‘But the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way.’
2. Some of the language in the A.V. is scarcely comprehensible even allowing for the archaic language. Consider Ezek 41:7. ‘And there was an enlarging, and a winding about still upward to the side chambers; for the winding about of the house went still upward round about the house: therefore the breadth of the house was still upward, and so increased from the lowest chamber to the highest by the midst.’ This may be a word-for-word translation, but what on earth does it mean? A translation that is so literal that no one can understand it is of limited use.
3. Supporters of the A.V. make great play on the fact that some modern translations omit references to the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ (3), as indeed they do (except the N.K.J.V.). The most frequently cited verse is 1Tim 3:16, though there are several others. Less well known is that there are two places where all the modern translations affirm the deity of our Lord, but the A.V. does not.
Titus 2:13, A.V. Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’
Titus 2:13, N.I.V. ‘While we wait for the blessed hope- the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ’ (other modern versions are similar).
2Peter 1:1b, A.V. ‘…..To them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’
2Peter 1:1b, N.I.V. ‘….To those who through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ have obtained a faith as precious as ours’ (other modern versions are similar).
The only modern translation that supports the A.V. in these two texts is the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses! Just in case it might be thought that the A.V. is right in these instances, let the reader look at 2Peter 1:11. Here the A.V. rightly translates, ‘….our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.’ Yet the Greek construction here is exactly the same as in 1:1. I have no doubt that all the translators of the A.V. were staunch Trinitarians, but it ill behoves A.V. supporters to sneer at the N.I.V. while the A.V. contains such serious errors.
There is also another place where the A.V. finds itself in agreement with the J.W.s. In John 1:32, it denies the personality of the Holy Spirit, referring to Him as ‘it.’ If a new Bible version appeared today with a similar error in it, the supporters of the Affirmation would be the first to pillory both the version and its translators .
Let me be clear once again. I am not saying that the A.V. is a bad translation or that it is worse than the N.I.V. The N.I.V. falls short on numerous occasions. What I am saying is that the question of Bible translations should not be made an excuse for separation. Let discussion continue by all means, but in a spirit of love while we contend for the Gospel of Christ. I repeat, if the N.K.J.V. is not acceptable, let us have a new version based on the traditional texts, produced by a Christian organization. I can think of no one better to do it that the Trinitarian Bible Society. There is a Spanish Bible version, the Reina Valera, that is even older than the A.V., and based upon the same texts. Yet this version has been regularly updated as the Spanish language has changed. Revisions were made in 1909, in 1960, and now I understand that the T.B.S. is undertaking a new revision. Quite right! If the A.V. had been carefully revised every 50 years or so, there might not have been the need for the plethora of new versions.
[From my blog post:Affirmation 2010- A Reluctant Critique.]
I wrote this on my blog about ten years ago. The NIV i refer to is the 1984 version. Where I write A.V., Amercican readers should read KJV.
I could easily be persuaded to join a campaign to promote the Traditional Text, and I would gladly give financial support to a new Bible translation using that text if it is felt that the N.K.J.V. is not good enough. What I will not do is try to foist a 500 year-old translation with archaic language on the churches; firstly, because it’s a lost cause, and secondly because even if it succeeded it would be a retrograde step. The A.V. shares one feature with every other translation: it was made by fallible, sinful men. Infallibility does not rest with the translators, it rests in the original Greek and Hebrew texts. That is why it is helpful to have someone who knows those languages in every congregation. The A.V. falls short on three counts:-
1. The English language, like every other, has changed over the past four hundred years. Words alter their meanings over time. In 2Thes 2:7, the A.V. translates, ‘Only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.’ The word ‘let’ in the 17th Century, meant to restrain or hinder; today, of course, it means ‘allow.’ Therefore the verse means the exact opposite of what the A.V. says it means. The N.I.V. (and other modern versions) translate correctly, ‘But the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way.’
2. Some of the language in the A.V. is scarcely comprehensible even allowing for the archaic language. Consider Ezek 41:7. ‘And there was an enlarging, and a winding about still upward to the side chambers; for the winding about of the house went still upward round about the house: therefore the breadth of the house was still upward, and so increased from the lowest chamber to the highest by the midst.’ This may be a word-for-word translation, but what on earth does it mean? A translation that is so literal that no one can understand it is of limited use.
3. Supporters of the A.V. make great play on the fact that some modern translations omit references to the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ (3), as indeed they do (except the N.K.J.V.). The most frequently cited verse is 1Tim 3:16, though there are several others. Less well known is that there are two places where all the modern translations affirm the deity of our Lord, but the A.V. does not.
Titus 2:13, A.V. Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’
Titus 2:13, N.I.V. ‘While we wait for the blessed hope- the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ’ (other modern versions are similar).
2Peter 1:1b, A.V. ‘…..To them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’
2Peter 1:1b, N.I.V. ‘….To those who through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ have obtained a faith as precious as ours’ (other modern versions are similar).
The only modern translation that supports the A.V. in these two texts is the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses! Just in case it might be thought that the A.V. is right in these instances, let the reader look at 2Peter 1:11. Here the A.V. rightly translates, ‘….our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.’ Yet the Greek construction here is exactly the same as in 1:1. I have no doubt that all the translators of the A.V. were staunch Trinitarians, but it ill behoves A.V. supporters to sneer at the N.I.V. while the A.V. contains such serious errors.
There is also another place where the A.V. finds itself in agreement with the J.W.s. In John 1:32, it denies the personality of the Holy Spirit, referring to Him as ‘it.’ If a new Bible version appeared today with a similar error in it, the supporters of the Affirmation would be the first to pillory both the version and its translators .
Let me be clear once again. I am not saying that the A.V. is a bad translation or that it is worse than the N.I.V. The N.I.V. falls short on numerous occasions. What I am saying is that the question of Bible translations should not be made an excuse for separation. Let discussion continue by all means, but in a spirit of love while we contend for the Gospel of Christ. I repeat, if the N.K.J.V. is not acceptable, let us have a new version based on the traditional texts, produced by a Christian organization. I can think of no one better to do it that the Trinitarian Bible Society. There is a Spanish Bible version, the Reina Valera, that is even older than the A.V., and based upon the same texts. Yet this version has been regularly updated as the Spanish language has changed. Revisions were made in 1909, in 1960, and now I understand that the T.B.S. is undertaking a new revision. Quite right! If the A.V. had been carefully revised every 50 years or so, there might not have been the need for the plethora of new versions.
[From my blog post:Affirmation 2010- A Reluctant Critique.]
Last edited:
- Status