NKJV vs KJV accuracy

[Amy.G]

I have yet to see anything in this thread that proves that the NKJV is less accurate than the KJV. :sleeping_2:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I have yet to see anything in this thread that proves that the NKJV is less accurate than the KJV. :sleeping_2:

Here is proof. The 1611 KJV spells words like old - olde and the NKJV spells it old. Or does it spell it Aulde?:laugh:

 

[Amy.G]

Here is proof. The 1611 KJV spells words like old - olde and the NKJV spells it old. Or does it spell it Aulde?:laugh:

Ok. Now I'm convinced. :laugh:

 

[HankD]

Which is superior and why?

KJV 1 Chronicles 26

12 Among these were the divisions of the porters, even among the chief men, having wards one against another, to minister in the house of the LORD.
13 And they cast lots, as well the small as the great, according to the house of their fathers, for every gate.
14 And the lot eastward fell to Shelemiah. Then for Zechariah his son, a wise counsellor, they cast lots; and his lot came out northward.
15 To Obededom southward; and to his sons the house of Asuppim.
16 To Shuppim and Hosah the lot came forth westward, with the gate Shallecheth, by the causeway of the going up, ward against ward.
17 Eastward were six Levites, northward four a day, southward four a day, and toward Asuppim two and two.
18 At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar.
19 These are the divisions of the porters among the sons of Kore, and among the sons of Merari.

NKJV
12 Among these were the divisions of the gatekeepers, among the chief men, having duties just like their brethren, to serve in the house of the LORD.
13 And they cast lots for each gate, the small as well as the great, according to their father's house.
14 The lot for the East Gate fell to Shelemiah. Then they cast lots for his son Zechariah, a wise counselor, and his lot came out for the North Gate;
15 to Obed-Edom the South Gate, and to his sons the storehouse.
16 To Shuppim and Hosah the lot came out for the West Gate, with the Shallecheth Gate on the ascending highway -- watchman opposite watchman.
17 On the east were six Levites, on the north four each day, on the south four each day, and for the storehouse two by two.
18 As for the Parbar on the west, there were four on the highway and two at the Parbar.
19 These were the divisions of the gatekeepers among the sons of Korah and among the sons of Merari.

NIV
12 These divisions of the gatekeepers, through their chief men, had duties for ministering in the temple of the LORD, just as their relatives had.
13 Lots were cast for each gate, according to their families, young and old alike.
14 The lot for the East Gate fell to Shelemiah. Then lots were cast for his son Zechariah, a wise counselor, and the lot for the North Gate fell to him.
15 The lot for the South Gate fell to Obed-Edom, and the lot for the storehouse fell to his sons.
16 The lots for the West Gate and the Shalleketh Gate on the upper road fell to Shuppim and Hosah. Guard was alongside of guard:
17 There were six Levites a day on the east, four a day on the north, four a day on the south and two at a time at the storehouse.
18 As for the court to the west, there were four at the road and two at the court itself.
19 These were the divisions of the gatekeepers who were descendants of Korah and Merari.​

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Which is superior and why?

I don't get your point. Sorry. How I see it kind of like this:

Chaucer: Tales of Caunterbury
Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote
And bathed every veyne in swich licour,
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
5 Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the Ram his halfe cours yronne,
And smale foweles maken melodye,
10 That slepen al the nyght with open eye-
(So priketh hem Nature in hir corages);
Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages
And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes
To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes;
15 And specially from every shires ende
Of Engelond, to Caunterbury they wende,
The hooly blisful martir for to seke
That hem hath holpen, whan that they were seeke.
Bifil that in that seson, on a day,

Modern translation:

When in April the sweet showers fall
That pierce March's drought to the root and all
And bathed every vein in liquor that has power
To generate therein and sire the flower;
5 When Zephyr also has with his sweet breath,
Filled again, in every holt and heath,
The tender shoots and leaves, and the young sun
His half-course in the sign of the Ram has run,

And many little birds make melody
10 That sleep through all the night with open eye
(So Nature pricks them on to ramp and rage)
Then folk do long to go on pilgrimage,
And palmers to go seeking out strange strands,
To distant shrines well known in distant lands.
15 And specially from every shire's end
Of England they to Canterbury went,
The holy blessed martyr there to seek
Who helped them when

 

[Amy.G]

I don't get your point. Sorry. How I see it kind of like this:

Precisely.

 

[Deacon]

Various OT texts emended in the NKJV

Deuteronomy 33:28
Israel then shall dwell in safety alone:
The fountain of Jacob shall be upon a land of corn and wine;
AV 1873

Then Israel shall dwell in safety,
The fountain of Jacob alone,
NKJV



1 Chronicles 20:3
and cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes.
AV 1873

and put them to work with saws, with iron picks, and with axes.
NKJV



Job 11:17
Thou shalt shine forth, thou shalt be as the morning.
AV 1873

Though you were dark, you would be like the morning.
NKJV



Job 15:29
Neither shall he prolong the perfection thereof upon the earth.
AV 1873

Nor will his possessions overspread the earth.
NKJV



Micah 2:6
Prophesy ye not, say they to them that prophesy:
They shall not prophesy to them, that they shall not take shame.
AV 1873

Do not prattle,” you say to those who prophesy.
So they shall not prophesy to you;
They shall not return insult for insult.
NKJV



Nahum 1:5
And the earth is burnt at his presence,
AV 1873

And the earth heaves at His presence,
NKJV



Nahum 2:7
And Huzzab shall be led away captive,
AV 1873

It is decreed:
She shall be led away captive,
NKJV

Rob

 

[franklinmonroe]

... As for why, all of us should use the KJV as a point of reference...... (Here is a good reason!)

Hey stilllearning,
I have reviewed the assertions presented in that video, and at this link you can read my explanations of many significant errors of fact, history, and logic contained in that video (I recommend clicking on the 'View Full Version' link because the formating will be most helpful)--
http://www.baptistboard.com/archive/index.php/t-44214.html

 

[Askjo]

Is that accusation based on D. A. Waite's misleading claims? It is not been proven that the NKJV used any non-TR text in the New Testament.

The differences can be differences in the translating of the same underlying texts. There are the same type differences between the KJV and the pre-1611 English Bibles that were all based on the same texts. The early English translators and the KJV translators probably had as many differences in translating as you can find between the KJV translators and the NKJV translators.

I found the quotation from a source. The KJV and the NKJV used a same Greek text. That is not completely true.

 

[Askjo]

The Hebrew reading is 'sold'. The “which hath been sold unto thee” is a way we could say it in English. The nKJV is the superior English usage in the 20th century (1901-2000) saying “which hath been sold to him”

To change from a word to a different word. That is D.E. Reverence God? Absolutely NOT!

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Have a look at the oed.com entry under helpmeet (one word) for some interesting perspective...

Interesting entries in the online American Heritage Dictionary under first "helpmeet" and then "helpmate"(my bold)--

n.
A helpmate.

[From misunderstanding of the phrase an help meet for him, a helper suitable for him (Adam), in Genesis 2:18, referring to Eve.]
_____

n.
A helper and companion, especially a spouse.

[Probably alteration of HELPMEET (influenced by MATE1).]

WORD HISTORY The existence of the synonyms helpmeet and helpmate is the result of an error compounded. God's promise to Adam in Genesis 2:18, as rendered in the King James version of the Bible (1611), was to give him “an help [helper] meet [fit or suitable] for him.” The poet John Dryden's 1673 use of the phrase “help-meet for man,” with a hyphen between help and meet, was one step on the way toward the establishment of the phrase “help meet” as an independent word. Another was the use of “help meet” without “for man” to mean a suitable helper, usually a spouse, as Eve had been to Adam. Despite such usages, helpmeet was not usually thought of as a word in its own right until the 19th century. Nonetheless, the phrase “help meet” probably played a role in the creation of helpmate, from help and mate, first recorded in 1715.

​

I did not find "helpmeet", "help meet", or "helpmate" in the 1828 Webster.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Would you like to take a stab at how the KJV ends up with "help meet"?

It seems the AV may have followed the Geneva construction at Genesis 2:18 --

Tyndale
And the LORDE God sayd: it is not good that man shulde be alone I will make hym an helper to beare him company:

Coverdale
And the LORDE God sayde: It is not good yt ma shulde be alone. I wil make him an helpe, to beare him copany.

Bishop's
And the Lord God sayde: It is not good yt the man should be alone, I wyll make hym an helpe lyke vnto hym.

Geneva
Also the Lorde God saide, It is not good that the man should be himself alone: I wil make him an helpe meete for him.​

 

[Logos1560]

Arthur L. Farstad, who was executive editor for the NKJV, wrote: "The New King James Version, as the name implies, is not a completely new translation, but a conservative and careful revision of that most influential Bible translation in any modern language, the Authorized or King james Version" (The New King James Version In the Great Tradition, p. 9).

Farstad wrote: "The NKJV is an update of an historic version translated from a specific type of text" (p. 110).

 

[Ed Edwards]

The Hebrew reading is 'sold'. The “which hath been sold unto thee” is a way we could say it in English. The nKJV is the superior English usage in the 20th century (1901-2000) saying “which hath been sold to him”

To change from a word to a different word. That is D.E. Reverence God? Absolutely NOT!


Let me try it again:

1. The KJV changes the Hebrew world 'sold' unto English "which hath been sold unto him" - using D.E. = dynamic equivalence

2. The nKJV changes the Hebrew word 'sold' unto English "which hath been sold unto thee" - using D.E. = dynamic equivalence

Both the KJV and the nKJV changed the Hebrew into English -- this is called 'translation'. Why would one claim that the D.E. in the KJV reverences God while the D.E. in the nKJV shows lack of reverence? That is called 'Double Standard': what the KJV does is alright; what the nKJV does is not alright. Sorry, that isn't a logical argument because the 'Double Standard' logical error is made. In this verse, as I showed earlier, the nKJV used the same translation method as the KJV and also the nKJV is superior to the KJV.

 

[HankD]

I don't get your point. Sorry. How I see it kind of like this:

Why do you need to "get the point". I asked for an assessment.

OK though I'll explain the point since it seems to have gotten buried in the responses:

I answered a question with a question.

askjo claimed the KJV translation was "superior" to the NKJV.

I was trying to determine his criteria.

One of them must surely be understandability.

I was trying to get him to admit that the NKJV is more understandable than the KJV in many places.

Through no fault of the KJV translators.

The passage of time brings with it changes of syntax, grammar and spelling in any living language, nonetheless the differences are there.

Therefore "Understandability" is a factor. Whether it makes the NKJV superior to the KJV is debatable.

That is the point as this is a debate forum.

askjo claims that the KJV is superior to the NKJV and I provided places where it is just the opposite in terms of understandability.


HankD

 

[Rippon]

HankD makes a good point about understandability being a criteria of a superior translation. The KJV comes up short on that factor as compared with the KJV.The NKJ is also more readable,which ties in with it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Why do you need to "get the point". I asked for an assessment.

OK though I'll explain the point since it seems to have gotten buried in the responses:

I answered a question with a question.

askjo claimed the KJV translation was "superior" to the NKJV.

I was trying to determine his criteria.

One of them must surely be understandability.

I was trying to get him to admit that the NKJV is more understandable than the KJV in many places.

Through no fault of the KJV translators.

The passage of time brings with it changes of syntax, grammar and spelling in any living language, nonetheless the differences are there.

Therefore "Understandability" is a factor. Whether it makes the NKJV superior to the KJV is debatable.

That is the point as this is a debate forum.

askjo claims that the KJV is superior to the NKJV and I provided places where it is just the opposite in terms of understandability.


HankD

Ok I get it and I agree the NKJV is more readable becuase of the current vernacular. The truth is I like both versions. I like the Old KJV because use of the english language was such that there was a slew of conotations with one word. In the modern world we've become more exacting or techincal with our language and so words have lost their fullest meanings. This is why I like Shakespear as well. For instance "oh for a muse of fire" Simply said but a modern equivelant may be like this "I would greatly like to have the insperation of thought that allowed to have a world changing discovery that is fire." Or to say something similiar and probably close to the intent of Shakespear "I would like to have the inspiration that befell Promethius in giving fire to mankind." I also like the NKJB readability.

 

[Amy.G]

Which is more accurate?

KJV
Act 7:45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;

NKJV
Act 7:45 "which our fathers, having received it in turn, also brought with Joshua into the land possessed by the Gentiles, whom God drove out before the face of our fathers until the days of David,




KJV
Hbr 4:8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

NKJV
Hbr 4:8 For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Which is more accurate?

KJV
Act 7:45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;

NKJV
Act 7:45 "which our fathers, having received it in turn, also brought with Joshua into the land possessed by the Gentiles, whom God drove out before the face of our fathers until the days of David,




KJV
Hbr 4:8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

NKJV
Hbr 4:8 For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day.

Actually the name Jesus and Joshua are interchangable. In hebrew Joshua is Yeshua which is also the name of Jesus. Yeshua Ha Meshiach. Or Joshua the Messiah or Jesus the Messiah. Yeshua was a popular name as Cameron discovered recently on his attempt to claim Jesus was still in his grave. I don't have a problem it put either way.

 

[Amy.G]

Actually the name Jesus and Joshua are interchangable. In hebrew Joshua is Yeshua which is also the name of Jesus. Yeshua Ha Meshiach. Or Joshua the Messiah or Jesus the Messiah. Yeshua was a popular name as Cameron discovered recently on his attempt to claim Jesus was still in his grave. I don't have a problem it put either way.

Yes. I realize that, but taken in context, the two verses I posted are speaking of the person, "Joshua" from the OT, not Jesus the Messiah. It should read "Joshua".