• 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!

What about the New King James?

D

Dale-c

Active Member
One thing that always bothered me growing up around King James Only doctrine was why the NKJ was not accepted as valid.

It is based on the same texts as the KJV. It has all those missing places that the others don't like 1 John 5:7 etc.

I have even seen people say that since "and these Three are One" is left out of all other versions then that makes the KJV the right version.

But of course it is not left out of the NKJ. All of these arguments simply do not hold up across the board.

One like Virginia Mollencott.
Just what did she have to do with the ESV or the NKJ?

I have never once seen a promotion of the KJV as the only valid version that would be honest enough to show you where some modern did not differ from the KJV.

The selective spinning of the facts is almost comical. It would be if it was not deceiving people. distracting people from the gospel and splitting churches.
 
J

Johnv

New Member
The whole "Virginia Mollencott" claim is ridiculous anyway. She was not a translator, and had nothing to do with the NIV translation. She served on the literary (stylistic) committee of the NIV for a few months. Once her sexual views were known, she was promptly asked to resign.

The whole argument in absent from the NKJV anyway. But you're correct. the NKJV and KJV use the same scriptural source texts.
 
F

FlyForFun

New Member
C4K said:
Can you give us an example where the NKJV opted for a critical text choice in translation?
Click to expand...

I'm not KJVO, have a copy of the NKJV, but prefer NIV for just reading, and ESV for reading/studying.

The KJVO folks have scads of reasons why the NKJV isn't merely "new."

It bores the snot out of me.
 
F

FlyForFun

New Member
C4K said:
Their reasons are fallacious.
Click to expand...

All I know is they have a point that the NKJV was not simply a revision of the KJV.

The NKJV is a translation based on additional manuscripts not available to the KJV team that used a few less KJ-era words.
 
NaasPreacher (C4K)

NaasPreacher (C4K)

Well-Known Member
FlyForFun said:
All I know is they have a point that the NKJV was not simply a revision of the KJV.

The NKJV is a translation based on additional manuscripts not available to the KJV team that used a few less KJ-era words.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone contends that this was just another revision fo the KJV like the myriad of other revisions.

That was not the point. The point was that it uses the same body of manuscripts, which it does.

I have yet to see one instance where it follow the critical text body.
 
F

FlyForFun

New Member
C4K said:
I don't think anyone contends that this was just another revision fo the KJV like the myriad of other revisions.

That was not the point. The point was that it uses the same body of manuscripts, which it does.

I have yet to see one instance where it follow the critical text body.
Click to expand...

So the NKJV uses only the texts available to the Authorised Version Translation Commitee??
 
F

FlyForFun

New Member
C4K said:
That is not what I said.

Sorry mate, you said this bores the snot out of you, so I am not going to debate it any more.
Click to expand...

It certainly does -- but I replied to the OP that the manuscripts are not the same in the KJV and NKJV.

You contradicted that and I'm not sure why.

The KJVO argument is that the KJV source manuscripts and the resultant translation is the Word of God. They reject the NKJV as an imposter.

It's not fair to counter the KJVO argument by insisting the only difference is word use.

It's not -- the NKJV is a new translation, based on additional manuscripts, and is therefore not merely a "new" KJV.

My suspicion is that the NKJV label was driven more by the marketing department than by some KJV Superiority Committee.

:rolleyes:
 
NaasPreacher (C4K)

NaasPreacher (C4K)

Well-Known Member
FlyForFun said:
It certainly does -- but I replied to the OP that the manuscripts are not the same in the KJV and NKJV.

You contradicted that and I'm not sure why.

The KJVO argument is that the KJV source manuscripts and the resultant translation is the Word of God. They reject the NKJV as an imposter.

It's not fair to counter the KJVO argument by insisting the only difference is word use.

It's not -- the NKJV is a new translation, based on additional manuscripts, and is therefore not merely a "new" KJV.

My suspicion is that the NKJV label was driven more by the marketing department than by some KJV Superiority Committee.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I disagree - the original preface was very clear and succint. My problem is the unfair charges made when the NKJV is lumped in with all the Critical Text based version.

It may not be exactly the KJV, but it is not a critical text translation.

I am going to withdraw, I pulled out of these debates a long time ago and don't want to get dragged back in.
 
HankD

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
FlyForFun said:
Not exactly -- this KJVO site lays out the differences: http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/nkjv_trans_bridge_modern.html
Click to expand...

I went to this site and a major reason they say that the NKJV is "false" is because of the copyright.

Copyright Law Necessitates Substantial Changes​


In spite of the fact that the derivative copyright law requires that a derivative work (in this case the NKJV) must be different enough from the original (the King James Bible) to be regarded as a 'new work' or must contain a substantial amount of new material, the publisher's use of the term, "Textus Receptus" has deceived many former King James Bible Christians into accepting the NKJV.
Click to expand...
I have a Nelson KJV (Not a NKJV) which is copyrighted 1974. So I guess it must be corrupt because it has so much "new material".

No doubt some KJVO would think so. However they never tell us which family is the real thing, the Oxford, the Cambridge or the Nelson or which of the revisions to each of the above is the real thing, all of which have differences in the English wording.

Probably because they are unaware of the historical facts.

What ever happened to the mantra, "there can only be one Bible - things which are different are not the same".

I also and only checked the 1 Timothy 3:10 passage (why waste time?). The derivative word is the same in all texts: Traditional (Stephanus, Beza, etc), W&H, GNM, Byzantine Majority, etc.

"heretick" in the AV is a transliterated word from the koine (hairetikos, hairetikon). The NKJV uses it's actual meaning.


HankD

 
Last edited:
Deacon

Deacon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
HankD said:
... a major reason they say that the NKJV is "false" is because of the copyright.
Click to expand...

From J. Mark Bertrand's Bible Design and Binding website [August 25, 2009]:

News from R. L. Allan

"R L Allan have just been granted the Royal Licence under Letters Patent by Queen Elizabeth to publish the KJV in Scotland.
Cambridge hold this privilege in England. Queen Victoria set this up in 1839 to protect the KJV text from bad editions, and in Scotland the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General act on the Queen's behalf to ensure that her Bible is properly printed and published -- by us!
So this royal 'imprimatur' will appear on future Allan editions of the KJV and it will start with the reprint of the Lonprimer edition towards the end of this year."

With the 400th anniversary of the KJV's first printing in 1611 less than eighteen months away, it will be interesting to see how many new editions of the Authorized Version see the light of day.
Click to expand...

Rob
 
L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
FlyForFun said:
All I know is they have a point that the NKJV was not simply a revision of the KJV.

.
Click to expand...

The NKJV is both a revision of the KJV and a translation of the same original language texts on which the KJV was based just as the KJV is both a revision of the pre-1611 English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops') and a translation of those original language texts.
 
L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Many KJV-only advocates will say that the 1560 Geneva Bible was translated from the same original language texts as the KJV, and yet there are the same-type differences between them as those found between the KJV and the NKJV. The NKJV actually even agrees with many renderings in the 1560 Geneva Bible.


Matt. 1:18 betrothed (Geneva, NKJV) espoused (KJV)
Matt. 1:19 secretly (Geneva, NKJV) privily (KJV)
Matt. 2:3 heard this (Geneva, NKJV) heard these things (KJV)
Matt. 2:4 asked (Geneva) demanded (KJV) inquired (NKJV)
Matt. 2:6 feed (Geneva) rule (KJV) shepherd (NKJV)
Matt. 2:9 they had seen (Geneva, NKJV) they saw (KJV)
Matt. 2:16 all the male children (Geneva, NKJV) all the children (KJV)
Matt. 3:2 Repent (Geneva, NKJV) Repent ye (KJV)
Matt. 3:13 came (Geneva, NKJV) cometh (KJV)
Matt. 4:2 hungry (Geneva, NKJV) an hungred (KJV)
Matt. 4:6 and said (Geneva, NKJV) And saith (KJV)
Matt. 4:8 devil took (Geneva, NKJV) devil taketh (KJV)
Matt. 4:8 and shewed (Geneva) and sheweth (KJV) and showed (NKJV)
Matt. 4:9 said (Geneva, NKJV) saith (KJV)
Matt. 4:10 said (Geneva, NKJV) saith (KJV)
Matt. 4:19 said (Geneva, NKJV) saith (KJV)
Matt. 5:21 said unto (Geneva) said by (KJV) said to (NKJV)
Matt. 5:27 said to (Geneva, NKJV) said by (KJV)
Matt. 5:29 cause thee to offend (Geneva) offend thee (KJV) causes you to sin (NKJV)
Matt. 5:33 said to (Geneva, NKJV) said by (KJV)
Matt. 7:5 Hypocrite (Geneva, NKJV) Thou hypocrite (KJV)
Matt. 8:4 Jesus said (Geneva, NKJV) Jesus saith (KJV)
Matt. 8:7 Jesus said (Geneva, NKJV) Jesus saith (KJV)
Matt. 8:13 Then Jesus (Geneva, NKJV) And Jesus (KJV)
Matt. 8:17 He took (Geneva) Himself took (KJV) He Himself took (NKJV)
Matt. 8:18 And when (Geneva, NKJV) Now when (KJV)
Matt. 8:25 Then (Geneva, NKJV) And (KJV)
Matt. 8:26 said (Geneva, NKJV) saith (KJV)
Matt. 8:33 Then (Geneva, NKJV) And (KJV)
Matt. 9:2 sins are forgiven (Geneva, NKJV) sins be forgiven (KJV)
Matt. 9:5 sins are forgiven (Geneva, NKJV) sins be forgiven (KJV)
Matt. 9:6 go to (Geneva, NKJV) go unto (KJV)
Matt. 9:8 to men (Geneva, NKJV) unto men (KJV)
Matt. 9:9 said to (Geneva, NKJV) saith unto (KJV)
Matt. 9:11 said to (Geneva, NKJV) said unto (KJV)
Matt. 9:17 do they (Geneva, NKJV) do men (KJV)
Matt. 9:28 Jesus said (Geneva, NKJV) Jesus saith (KJV)
Matt. 9:31 But when they were departed, they (Geneva, NKJV) But they, when they were departed (KJV)
Matt. 9:37 said he to (Geneva) saith he unto (KJV) He said to (NKJV)
Matt. 10:18 to them (Geneva, NKJV) against them (KJV)
Matt. 10:36 enemies (Geneva, NKJV) foes (KJV)
Matt. 11:8 to see (Geneva, NKJV) for to see (KJV)
Matt. 11:9 to see (Geneva, NKJV) for to see (KJV)
Matt. 11:14 to come (Geneva, NKJV) for to come (KJV)
Matt. 11:22 say to you (Geneva, NKJV) say unto you (KJV)
Matt. 12:2 And when (Geneva, NKJV) But when (KJV)
Matt. 12:8 of the Sabbath (Geneva, NKJV) of the Sabbath day (KJV)
Matt. 12:25 But Jesus (Geneva, NKJV) And Jesus (KJV)
Matt. 12:39 said to them (Geneva, NKJV) said unto them (KJV)
Matt. 13:3 Then he (Geneva) And he (KJV) Then He (NKJV)
Matt. 13:5 no depth (Geneva, NKJV) no deepness (KJV)
Matt. 13:10 said to (Geneva, NKJV) said unto (KJV)
Matt. 13:28 to them (Geneva, NKJV) unto them (KJV)
Matt. 13:33 to them (Geneva, NKJV) unto them (KJV)
Matt. 13:34 to them (Geneva, NKJV) unto them (KJV)
Matt. 13:37 to them (Geneva, NKJV) unto them (KJV)
Matt. 13:51 Jesus said (Geneva, NKJV) Jesus saith (KJV)
Matt. 13:57 to them (Geneva, NKJV) unto them (KJV)
Matt. 14:8 platter (Geneva, NKJV) charger (KJV)
Matt. 14:9 because of (Geneva, NKJV) for (KJV)
Matt. 14:11 platter (Geneva, NKJV) charger (KJV)
Matt. 14:16 to them (Geneva, NKJV) unto them (KJV)
Matt. 14:16 to go away (Geneva, NKJV) depart (KJV)
Matt. 14:31 said to him (Geneva, NKJV) said unto him (KJV)
Matt. 14:35 were sick (Geneva, NKJV) were diseased (KJV)
Matt. 15:8 near (Geneva, NKJV) nigh (KJV)
Matt. 15:10 said to them (Geneva, NKJV) said unto them (KJV)
Matt. 15:26 good (Geneva, NKJV) meet (KJV)
Matt. 16:12 of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Geneva, NKJV) of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees (KJV)
Matt. 16:17 said to him (Geneva, NKJV) said unto him (KJV)
Matt. 16:22 took him aside (Geneva) took him (KJV) took Him aside (NKJV)
Matt. 16:23 but the things (Geneva, NKJV) but those (KJV)
Matt. 17:1 Jesus took (Geneva, NKJV) Jesus taketh (KJV)
Matt. 17:2 clothes (Geneva, NKJV) raiment (KJV)
Matt. 17:4 said to Jesus (Geneva, NKJV) said unto Jesus (KJV)
Matt. 18:12 go (Geneva, NKJV) goeth (KJV)
Matt. 18:12 seek (Geneva, NKJV) seeketh (KJV)
Matt. 18:16 by the mouth (Geneva, NKJV) in the mouth (KJV)
Matt. 18:17 refuse (Geneva) neglect (KJV) refuses (NKJV)
Matt. 18:22 Jesus said (Geneva, NKJV) Jesus saith (KJV)
Matt. 18:26 Master (Geneva, NKJV) Lord (KJV)
Matt. 19:18 He said (Geneva, NKJV) He saith (KJV)
Matt. 19:27 said to him (Geneva) said unto him (KJV) said to Him (NKJV)
Matt. 20:33 said to him (Geneva) say unto him (KJV) said to Him (NKJV)
Matt. 21:1 near (Geneva, NKJV) nigh (KJV)
Matt. 21:2 to them (Geneva, NKJV) unto them (KJV)
Matt. 21:13 to them (Geneva, NKJV) unto them (KJV)
Matt. 21:18 was hungry (Geneva, NKJV) hungered (KJV)
Matt. 21:19 said to it (Geneva, NKJV) said unto it (KJV)
Matt. 22:8 said (Geneva, NKJV) saith (KJV)
Matt. 22:12 said (Geneva, NKJV) saith (KJV)
Matt. 22:20 said (Geneva, NKJV) saith (KJV)
Matt. 22:21 They said (Geneva, NKJV) They say (KJV)
Matt. 22:21 to Caesar (Geneva, NKJV) unto Caesar (KJV)
Matt. 22:31 concerning (Geneva, NKJV) touching (KJV)
Matt. 22:37 to him (Geneva, NKJV) unto him (KJV)
Matt. 22:42 They said (Geneva, NKJV) They say (KJV)
Matt. 23:16 blind guides (Geneva, NKJV) ye blind guides (KJV)
Matt. 23:24 strain out (Geneva, NKJV) strain at (KJV)
Matt. 23:27 tombs (Geneva, NKJV) sepulchres (KJV)
Matt. 24:1 to shew (Geneva) for to shew (KJV) to show (NKJV)
Matt. 24:32 is near (Geneva, NKJV) is nigh (KJV)
Matt. 24:46 master (Geneva, NKJV) lord (KJV)
Matt. 24:48 But if (Geneva, NKJV) But and if (KJV)
Matt. 24:48 master (Geneva, NKJV) lord (KJV)
Matt. 25:8 to the wise (Geneva, NKJV) unto the wise (KJV)
Matt. 25:10 wedding (Geneva, NKJV) marriage (KJV)
Matt. 26:7 very costly (Geneva, NKJV) very precious (KJV)
Matt. 26:7 at the table (Geneva, NKJV) at meat (KJV)
Matt. 26:15 and said (Geneva, NKJV) And said unto them (KJV)
Matt. 26:31 said (Geneva, NKJV) saith (KJV)
Matt. 26:38 said (Geneva, NKJV) saith (KJV)
Matt. 26:40 came (Geneva, NKJV) cometh (KJV)
Matt. 26:44 So he (Geneva) And he (KJV) So He (NKJV)
Matt. 26:45 came (Geneva, NKJV) cometh (KJV)
Matt. 26:48 had given (Geneva, NKJV) gave (KJV)
Matt. 26:55 to take (Geneva, NKJV) for to take (KJV)
Matt. 26:66 worthy to die (Geneva) guilty of death (KJV) deserving of death (NKJV)
Matt. 27:14 But he (Geneva) And he (KJV) But He (NKJV)
Matt. 27:19 sent to him (Geneva, NKJV) sent unto him (KJV)
Matt. 27:22 Pilate said (Geneva, NKJV) Pilate saith (KJV)
Matt. 27:22 They all said to him (Geneva, NKJV) They all say unto him (KJV)
Matt. 27:56 sons (Geneva, NKJV) children (KJV)
Matt. 28:5 But the angel (Geneva, NKJV) And the angel (KJV)
Matt. 28:5 said to (Geneva, NKJV) said unto (KJV)
Matt. 28:8 So they (Geneva, NKJV) And they (KJV)
Matt. 28:19 Go therefore (Geneva, NKJV) Go ye therefore (KJV)
 
R

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Logos1560, I only looked at your first 29 examples.(Up through 8:33) William Tyndale's New Testament matched the NKJ renderings 21 times.

In Matthew 8:18 W.T. had simply "when" while the Gen and NKJ had "and when" and the KJV had "now when". I didn't count that in my 29 matches.

Tyndale's work was much more contemporary-sounding than the KJV wording of 85 years later.
 
W

wfdfiremedic

New Member
I think one of the neat things about the NKJV is that it shows where the major texts differ in the margins. |For instance, it will state if the critical text omits certain words etc.
 
robycop3

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
ya gotta remember that the criticisms of the NKJV are made by KJVOs who simply will not accept ANY other version, despite whatever credentials it may have. Since KJVO itself, as well as all its excuses are MAN-MADE & not found in Scripture, all their stuff should be taken with a grain of salt anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top