NKJV vs KJV accuracy

[AntennaFarmer]

The question of the thread, and one we must stick to however, is this; which is more accurate? Are there any real reasons other than "It ain't the KJV?"

It is hard to define "accurate".

Most of the versions are "accurate" in some sense. The translators each used their own definition of accurate. For instance, I think the RSV New Testament is a pretty accurate rendition of the Revised Text using "modern" scholarship. And the NKJV New Testament is a pretty accurate translation of the TR using "modern" scholarship.

The KJV is (in my opinion) more accurate because it uses a traditional text base along with traditional scholarship.

By "traditional scholarship" I mean that body of knowledge that was passed down through the centuries by those who used and studied the Greek and Hebrew texts. That body of knowledge includes information on word usage and meanings.

"Modern" scholarship, however, has tended to replace some of that traditional understanding with new interpretations. It seems to rely heavily on archaeology and cognates from related languages. Our understanding of archaeology is limited even today. Cognate words from Arabic are often used to try and illuminate Hebrew word meanings. Since the same words may have entirely different meanings, even within a particular language, the use of cognates from differing languages is a tricky business at best.


Please don't get the idea that I am anti-scholar. I am pro-scholar. When scholars differ, however, one must make a choice.

 

[Rippon]

We all know that there is "the KJV". A few early errors corrected along the way, spellings and grammar updated, but that translation is still the KJV.

Rip : All revisions of the KJV since 1611 are still in the KJV family.

Now, even if we disagree, lets stick to the topic of the KJV (body if you will) vs. the NKJV as to their accuracy.

Rip : We can do that.


The "multiple KJV" concept is at best a red herring, IMHO.

I disagree. A red herring is "something that draws attention away from the central issue"according to my 4th edition ( all-new Fourth Edition) of the American Heritage dictionary.I have had no intention to mislead or divert attention away from the subject of the OP. I thought my posts were relevant. But, per your request, I will drop that line of questioning.

 

[Rippon]

So, AF, you are a staunch TR-person, right?

D.A. Carson put out a small book in 1979. It's called :The King James Version Debate : A Plea For Realism.( Published by Baker Books).

In fact, I cannot think of a single great theological writer who has given his energies to defend a high view of Scripture and who has adopted the TR, since the discovery of the great unicals and, later, the papyri and other finds.The theologically and biblically sensitive and precise writings of such men as Benjamin B.Warfield,James I.Packer,John W.Wenham, and others all defend "inspiration" in the classic sense, but none of them feels forced to follow the TR as a result.(Page 71)

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I disagree. A red herring is "something that draws attention away from the central issue"according to my 4th edition ( all-new Fourth Edition) of the American Heritage dictionary.I have had no intention to mislead or divert attention away from the subject of the OP. I thought my posts were relevant. But, per your request, I will drop that line of questioning.

Thanks Rip. I always appreciate your spirit . Thats why I used the "IMHO" regarding the supposed "red herring."

 

[AntennaFarmer]

So, AF, you are a staunch TR-person, right?

I am not trying to dodge that question Rippon. I was thinking over that exact question while I was working on my last reply. In fact a comment about it almost got into that post.

I don't think that I am actually a TR-only. I am KJV only. I am not a Ruckmanite, however.

It seems apparent that the KJV didn't slavishly follow the TR. But, the TR (as such) doesn't seem to have been used as "the Bible". The Greek manuscripts that were the basis for the TR were "the Bible" for Greek speakers for many centuries (if you follow my meaning). That leads me to think that the TR is based on the correct text type of the New Testament.

To tie this back to the OP, I am comfortable with the idea that both the KJV and the NKJV are based on the correct NT text type.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

It seems apparent that the KJV didn't slavishly follow the TR. But, the TR (as such) doesn't seem to have been used as "the Bible". The Greek manuscripts that were the basis for the TR were "the Bible" for Greek speakers for many centuries (if you follow my meaning). That leads me to think that the TR is based on the correct text type of the New Testament.

To tie this back to the OP, I am comfortable with the idea that both the KJV and the NKJV are based on the correct NT text type.

Neither the KJV or the NKJV slavishly stuck the the TR. Dr Price has a list of places where the KJV team diverted from the TR.

I am not sure about the word "correct." I would agree that, again, IMHO because that is all we have, they are both based on a superior text.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Antenna Farmer,
Thankyou for your input.The idea was not at all to start a debate but to hear first hand from those who study the KJO controversy and would keep themselves up to snuff on the new revisions and translations.

I personally own a copy of the KJ1611 Bible and certain things stick out to me. The 1611 has all kinds of notes in it included by the translators. This was done by committee so it seems important these notes remain for all to read. You don't see thes notes in the modern 1789 revisions, I think that is a huge error. Also now the dictionary of words that are outdated is over 800 some of the words are modern words with 1611 meanings , this leads us astray as we read. These two problems alone cry for help and revision. Did the translators of the NKJV do such a poor job that they made God's Word less accurate?

 

[Deacon]

I gave a quick look and don't see a NKJV in my printed library. Hummmm

NKJV:

• Broadened the field of manuscripts consulted.
• Minimized obsolete words
• Corrected improper translations, e.g. 1 Samuel 13:21

More usable, more reliable than the older version

Rob

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Antenna Farmer,
Thankyou for your input.The idea was not at all to start a debate but to hear first hand from those who study the KJO controversy and would keep themselves up to snuff on the new revisions and translations.

I personally own a copy of the KJ1611 Bible and certain things stick out to me. The 1611 has all kinds of notes in it included by the translators. This was done by committee so it seems important these notes remain for all to read. You don't see thes notes in the modern 1789 revisions, I think that is a huge error. Also now the dictionary of words that are outdated is over 800 some of the words are modern words with 1611 meanings , this leads us astray as we read. These two problems alone cry for help and revision. Did the translators of the NKJV do such a poor job that they made God's Word less accurate?

I have a copy of the 1611 edition too. I particularly like the spelling. I find it to be more phonetic than the "standard" spelling we get in school.

The translator notes are good as well. I would like to point out, however, that the translators put their primary choice of words in the text. The notes are for study and additional information. In my opinion the translation is complete even if the notes are removed.

In this forum there have been many discussions about "misunderstood", archaic and obsolete words in the KJV. I often find that the problem is actually an individual lack of vocabulary. I am not slamming anyone on that. I have the same limitation. The thing is that I have also run into a lot of words in the modern versions that I needed to look up.

By the way, a lot of those words (used in substantially the same way as in the KJV) are found in various modern non-Bible related works.

Even the unusual words are usually correctly understood when read in context. I suggest a closer look at that 800 word list. How many of those words do you correctly understand when you read them in context?

There are several (relatively recent) revisions of the KJV to update the language. They have not been popular, however. I think one reason is that those folks who feel that modern language is of utmost importance tend to go with the NIV or such. Those who prefer the KJV, however, tend to be comfortable with the language.

Perhaps another reason for the unpopularity of more recent KJV revisions is the tendency of the revisers to make more substantial changes than mere word substitutions. Not everyone will agree on the changes.

Consider how all words have both denotations and connotations. Changing one word to another word having the same denotation often results in a different set of connotations. So updating the language is not a simple or easy job.

I have complete confidence in the veracity of the KJV. Although the NKJV has many things in common with the KJV, the NKJV is still not the KJV. That seems to be the real problem.

That seems to be enough of my opinions!

God Bless.

 

[Rippon]

The thing is that I have also run into a lot of words in the modern versions that I needed to look up.

Rip : Come now. The percentage of obsolete words in the KJV's is substantially larger than the number of uncommon words in most MV's.

By the way, a lot of those words (used in substantially the same way as in the KJV) are found in various modern non-Bible related works.

Rip : You're going to have to prove that assertion.The English language has changed far more than that. How do you define "modern"? Do you mean since the late 19th century, or post 1950?

I have complete confidence in the veracity of the KJV.

Rip : No one has questioned that.

Although the NKJV has many things in common with the KJV, the NKJV is still not the KJV. That seems to be the real problem.

Rip : I'm sorry, but that is so funny!The NKJ is not the KJV. Well the 1611 N.T.KJV wasn't the Tyndale Translation either.

 

[Askjo]

Despite the name, the NKJV and the KJV are different versions. In other words, the NKJV is not a revision of the KJV because the NKJV is a new translation done from scratch.

However, the KJV 1769 is not a new version of the KJV 1611. It is a revision of the KJV 1611 because it changed spelling and made corrections but did not re-translate from the original languages.

Correct. I agree with your comment.

 

[Pastor Larry]

The distinction between a revision and a version is useless for those who are KJVO since "things that are different are not the same." We should abandon that attempt and address the facts as they lie. The differences between the 1611 and the 1769 KJV are as significant as the differences between the KJV and the NKJV.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Just exactly what is the KJO beef with the NKJV translation of the Bible? Please be specific.

Looks like we have the answer(s):

1. the nKJV is NOT one of the KJVs
2. TBD = to be determined

That isn't all that hard. It isn't like the Bible variants are something difficult like Rocket Surgery or Brain Science.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The differences between the 1611 and the 1769 KJV are as significant as the differences between the KJV and the NKJV.

Pastor Larry,

There is no comparison in the significance changes made in the NKJV and those made to the revisions of the various KJV editions. As pointed out earlier its own translators that that it is a totally new translation.

 

[Pastor Larry]

There is no comparison in the significance changes made in the NKJV and those made to the revisions of the various KJV editions. As pointed out earlier its own translators that that it is a totally new translation.

The reason the changes are as significant for the KJVOs is because if you believe that the 1611 or the 1769 is perfect right down to the words and punctuation, you can't change it regardless of whether it is a revision or a translation.

I would argue that for those who are KJVO, the intent of the translators is irrelevant. The fact is (for them) that things that are different are not the same. If you believe (as KJVOs do) that God directly superintended the word choice of the KJV, you can't change it in a revision without compromising the direct superintendence of word choice any more than you can change it in a translation. If you argue that God superintended the changes, then you introduce a whole host of other problems, not the least of which is that you have no reasonable argument why he would not have superintended another translation.

If on the other hand, you believe that the words were chosen by men to correctly translate the Word of God for their time, then you can change words in a revision or in a new translation with no damage done to the underlying doctrine.

So if we think through this carefully (something all too uncommon in the KJVO debate), we see that there is no functional difference between a revision and a translation. Both of them have different words from the 1611.

 

[Amy.G]

I have complete confidence in the veracity of the KJV. Although the NKJV has many things in common with the KJV, the NKJV is still not the KJV. That seems to be the real problem.

That seems to be enough of my opinions!

God Bless.

Yeah. We know that the NKJV is not the KJV. An apple is not an orange. That doesn't mean an orange is wrong and an apple is right.

Give us some specific reasons why the NKJV is not as accurate as the KJV.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

So if we think through this carefully (something all too uncommon in the KJVO debate), we see that there is no functional difference between a revision and a translation. Both of them have different words from the 1611.

It is obvious, however, that the changes in the KJV editions are trivial and minor. You are correct, things that are different are not the same, so for the strictest KJVO nothing but the 1611 should be acceptable.

However, the changes to the NKJV are massive comparatively.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I wonder if Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus would be 1611 KJV Only?

 

[EdSutton]

One has to understand all the rules and how this works, here.

Rule #1.) Things that are different are not the same.

Or phrased in terms of logic, A = A, or A < > non-A. (I do not have the ability to construct, nor did I find a "slashed equal sign" to represent this, FTR.)

I would argue that for those who are KJVO, the intent of the translators is irrelevant. The fact is (for them) that things that are different are not the same.

Exactly! Unless one is speaking of (some of) the different editions that carry the name KJV, that is. In which case, go to Rule #2.

Rule #2.) When dealing with various editions and/or revisions of the KJV, Rule #1 (or any other 'rule') does not necessarily apply.

If you believe (as KJVOs do) that God directly superintended the word choice of the KJV, you can't change it in a revision without compromising the direct superintendence of word choice any more than you can change it in a translation.

Not really. Since we are dealing with a 'KJV' here, Rule #2 overrides and supercedes Rule #1, if you recall, for a KJVO adherent.

If you argue that God superintended the changes, then you introduce a whole host of other problems, not the least of which is that you have no reasonable argument why he would not have superintended another translation.

Well, not exactly, for now we invoke Rules #3, #4, and #5.

Rule #3.) These changes are sometimes (but only sometimes) permissible.

Examples of permissible, and even 'preferred', changes include those primarily of Benjamin Blaney, and to a lesser extent, those of Francis Parris. 'Changes' far more impermissible include (in a general order of increasing 'impermissibility'), but are not necessarily limited to, those of Scrivener (1873 Cambridge), the KJ21, Jay Green in the KJII (aka MKJV) and KJIII, Webster (1833), Young (YLT), and English, et al. (1967 New Scofield Reference Bible).

('Americanized' changes in spelling in what is termed the AKJ may or may not be acceptable, just so you will be clear on this one.)

Rule #4.) Additional rules may be made up whenever necessary, in order to 'support' the KJV.



Rule #5.) The KJV is the only universally and completely acceptable Bible version.

Hence, 'rules' that apply to all versions (and editions) after the KJV, are not applicable when applied to the KJV from any and all previous English versions.

FTR, Rule #5 applies to any language, BTW, including the Biblical languages.

If on the other hand, you believe that the words were chosen by men to correctly translate the Word of God for their time, then you can change words in a revision or in a new translation with no damage done to the underlying doctrine.

Not necessarily. Even though at least one of the KJV translators also was available as a translator of the Douai-Reims Bible, as well (Have Quill, Will Travel!), Remember Rule #2, which along with Rule #5 make up the defining and overriding 'Rules'.

So if we think through this carefully (something all too uncommon in the KJVO debate),

Let me say that another way!

we see that there is no functional difference between a revision and a translation. Both of them have different words from the 1611.

Irrelevant! Since we are speaking of the KJV, here, facts and/or logic are not an issue.

Are we now clear, here?

{Ed rolls eyes, once again.}

FTR, I have always been a 'one version only' person.

I can only read in one copy of the Bible, in any one version, at any one time.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

I wonder if Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus would be 1611 KJV Only?

No, actually Erasmus was Novum Instrumentum omne.

Ed