Why I love the King James

[Amy.G]

what are they?

NKJV based upon same Greek text, TR, as the KJV was, so what problems?

I would like to know that as well.

 

[Mark_13]

what are they?

NKJV based upon same Greek text, TR, as the KJV was, so what problems?

I'll give three different examples I've encountered in my own study. (There were also 1 or 2 others I can't think of now.) And what is noteworthy about the following three is that they are all different. To me it has to be emblematic of the disparate types of liberties that the NKJV is taking with the text in an apparent effort to make it "clearer". For the following I will also provide the KJV and NASB which are both in agreement in opposition to what it says in the NKJV.

-----------------

(Ezek 28:3 NKJV) Are you wiser than Daniel? Is no secret hidden from you?

(Ezek 28:3 KJV) Behold, thou [art] wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee:

(Ezek 28:3 NASB) Behold, you are wiser than Daniel; There is no secret that is a match for you.


Ironically, this address to the King of Tyre, that the NKJV is taking the liberty to change around, is a direct quote from God himself. Evidently the thinking of the NKJV translators is that God is making a sarcastic taunt, which might not be clear to the modern reader, so they change it to a rhetorical question instead.

There could be a sarcastic element in that statement by God, but what the NKJV translators fail to understand is that prophetic literature in the Bible often has far-ranging applications beyond the immediate one. This is a well-known principle actually, wherein for example some prophecy may be made regarding ancient Israel, but at the same time is referring to the end of the world. So even if the above statement is sarcastic, the passage probably has other disparate applications for which it is important to preserve the exact wording. (And I don't know God was being sarcastic there, in even the immediate context, and if he were what right does the NKJV have to change God's tone.) Later on, the King of Tyre is pictured as Satan himself. Is Satan wiser than Daniel.

-----------------

(Dan 5:21 NKJV) He was driven away from people and given the mind of an animal; he lived with the wild donkeys and ate grass like cattle; and his body was drenched with the dew of heaven, until he acknowledged that the Most High God is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and sets over them anyone he wishes.

(Dan 5:21 KJV) And he was driven from the sons of men; and his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling [was] with the wild asses: they fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and [that] he appointeth over it whomsoever he will.

(Dan 5:21 NASB) "He was also driven away from mankind, and his heart was made like beasts, and his dwelling place with the wild donkeys. He was given grass to eat like cattle, and his body was drenched with the dew of heaven until he recognized that the Most High God is ruler over the realm of mankind and He sets over it whomever He wishes.


So the NKJV says Nebuchadnezzar's mind was made like that of beasts. The KJV and NASB both say heart. Now, if the NKJV had gone through the Bible and changed every reference to heart to read "mind" instead, I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with that. But they don't do that, they use heart throughout, just like the other versions, but changed it in the above verse for only one apparent reason - they thought that modern readers would be uncomfortable with the idea of animals having spiritual "hearts". There is a way we use that term among Christians in the modern era, e.g. "Let Jesus come into your heart" that presumes it to be some spiritual concept unique to man and making him unique among the animals. That is not what the Ancient Hebrews were perceiving in that term. They envisioned thought taking place literally in the human heart (i.e. the organ that pumps blood). So the concept of the heart as it exists today results from our knowledge that that is not what the heart does. But the question remains, is there even such a thing as a spiritual "heart". At any rate, solely for the purposes of not offending the sensibilities of modern readers, the NKJV translators decided to change that around.

The term usually translated as "mind" in modern versions, is intestines - The ancient Hebrews thought that certain attributes of cognition took place there as well. So even something like the NASB (and the NKJV as well) translate that as mind, because evidently there's no way a modern reader could attempt to spiritualize "intestines". And for the record, the actual KJV does not translate intestines as mind, they keep it as is (i.e. either "bowels" or "reins").

----------------------------------

(Rev 11:1 NKJV) I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, "Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, and count the worshipers there.

(Rev 11:1 KJV) And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.

(Rev 11:1 NASB) Then there was given me a measuring rod like a staff; and someone said, "Get up and measure the temple of God and the altar, and those who worship in it.


So the KJV translators though "measuring" people sounded a little obscure, so decided it must just mean to count heads. This is just incredibly cavalier and oblivious to the deep meaning inherent in prophetic literature. Throughout the New Testament, Christians both individually and collectively are referred to repeatedly as the temple of God. This is a concept absolutely unique to the Christian era. What is being alluded to in Revelation 11:1 is the last 8 chapters of Ezekiel, which is an incredibly long list of measurements, a detailed dissection of an idealized temple that Ezekiel sees in a vision. Well, the obvious allusion being made there in Rev 11:1, is that somehow the redeemed will also be subjected to the same sort of detailed dissection. And there are ominous and sinister overtones to it. And for the NKJV to come along and say, "Oh, it just means to count heads" is laughable and pathetic.

I discovered all the above some time ago. Only recently I just briefly perused something that said that many of the original parties involved with the NKJV project distanced themselves from it, and that the label "New King James Version" is essentially just for marketing purposes.

I'm telling you the truth, I read it for years, I'm not using it again. If you're doing any study pertaining to prophecy or the like where the exact wording is crucial, use the NKJV at your own risk.

(Psalms 12:6 KJV) The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

 

[Amy.G]

(Ezek 28:3 NKJV) Are you wiser than Daniel? Is no secret hidden from you?

(Ezek 28:3 KJV) Behold, thou [art] wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee:

(Ezek 28:3 NASB) Behold, you are wiser than Daniel; There is no secret that is a match for you.

I just started reading your post and had to stop here.

What have quoted as the NKJV is actually the NIV

The NKJV reads this way:
3 (Behold, you are wiser than Daniel!
There is no secret that can be hidden from you!

 

[Amy.G]

Your second reference is also not the NKJV. It's NIV.

Your third reference is also the NIV NOT the NKJV.


You have your versions confused. Your problem is with the NIV, not the NKJV.

 

[Mark_13]

Your second reference is also not the NKJV. It's NIV.

Your third reference is also the NIV NOT the NKJV.


You have your versions confused. Your problem is with the NIV, not the NKJV.

I apologize - here's what happened. I have this Bible search program that I wrote myself, and have used a whole multitude of different versions with it. The version I finally used for returned text I thought was NKJV, and in using that I started encountering all these questionable translations that I could not believe was coming from a Bible claiming to be associated with the KJV. But evidently, the final version I left in there was the NIV not the NKJV. So I am very sorry.

Evidently my beef is with the NIV.

 

[Amy.G]

I

Evidently my beef is with the NIV.

:laugh: That's ok. Now you can love the NKJV too!

 

[franklinmonroe]

... I'm telling you the truth, I read it for years, I'm not using it again. ...

So, which is it? Did you read the NKJV for years, or the NIV?

 

[Mark_13]

So, which is it? Did you read the NKJV for years, or the NIV?

I've read both at some point or another for years - not to the point of necessarily being able to conclusively identify one or the other just being shown a selection of text with no attribution (this is evident as the program I wrote was returning NIV and I thought it was NKJV, as that's what had been in there at one point before I evidently changed it). Hopefully that's clear now.

-------------

Actually though, the other problem is, that I set it up to always say "NKJV" even though I had tested with a multitude of different versions. So when it was spitting out NIV but "NKJV" next to each verse, it certainly looked plausible.

 

[Mark_13]

Quick, which is NIV, which is NKJV (no checking).

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 

[Amy.G]

Quick, which is NIV, which is NKJV (no checking).

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (KJV)



They're all the same.

 

[Oldtimer]

Originally Posted by DaChaser1
what are they?

NKJV based upon same Greek text, TR, as the KJV was, so what problems?

I would like to know that as well.

Prior discussion here at BB.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1674055&postcount=2

Below: Presented for debate about sources used by the NKJV and not an arguement of terms like "pre-version".

A Mixture of Perversion

The New King James Version is not a true King James Bible. It mixes some true King James accuracy with a lot of Alexandrian and "new version" errors. We know this because the NKJV tells us which ancient texts they used when they made up their Bible. Don't be fooled by the clever names and symbols. Here is what they say they really used: http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/nkjvtext.asp?FROM=biblecenter

Note the cited verse comparisons following the discussion of the manuscripts used.

NKJV: Theological Changes to the TextThe New King James translators, following the lead of modern Bible versions such as the New International Version, the Amplified Bible, the Message, the American Standard and the New American Standard, virtually censored the proper name, "Belial" from the NKJV text. They retained the proper name, "Belial" only once in the main body of the translation and included footnotes that reveal they are aware that the removal of "Belial" is not in keeping with a literal translation.

Below are the sixteen verses in the King James Bible that contain phrases containing the word, "Belial." Notice that the New King James Version translators censored the word, "Belial" fifteen times and inserted phrases that are clearly dynamic equivalents. http://libertytothecaptives.net/nkjv_theol_changes_belial.html

One word can make a difference...............

Revelation 13:16 New King James Version (NKJV)
16 He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads,

Revelation 13:16 King James Version (KJV)
16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

#75 [Rev. 13:16] On the hand?
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/hinton_rev_13_16.html

This link doesn't mean that I necessarily agree. Used to show the possibility of a seemingly minor change between the KJV and the NKJV can be material.

 

[glfredrick]

And the original Greek is not "in" or "on." It is "epi".

1) upon, on, at, by, before

2) of position, on, at, by, over, against

3) to, over, on, at, across, against

Also noted is that both the Alland and the TR have "epi" as the Greek word, so there is no underlying difference in the Greek that would have driven the difference in the translations.

Texus Receptus:

13:16 καὶ ποιεῖ πάντας τοὺς μικροὺς καὶ τοὺς μεγάλους καὶ τοὺς πλουσίους καὶ τοὺς πτωχούς καὶ τοὺς ἐλευθέρους καὶ τοὺς δούλους ἵνα δώσῃ αὐτοῖς χάραγμα ἐπὶ τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῶν τῆς δεξιᾶς ἢ ἐπὶ τῶν μέτωπων αὐτῶν

Alland:

13:16 καὶ ποιεῖ πάντας τοὺς μικροὺς καὶ τοὺς μεγάλους καὶ τοὺς πλουσίους καὶ τοὺς πτωχούς καὶ τοὺς ἐλευθέρους καὶ τοὺς δούλους ἵνα δῶσιν αὐτοῖς χάραγμα ἐπὶ τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῶν τῆς δεξιᾶς ἢ ἐπὶ τὸ μέτωπον αὐτῶν

I've checked both sources for a LOT of verses. Rarely is there the sort of difference that KJVO folks would have us believe.

 

[Amy.G]

Posted by Oldtimer

Below are the sixteen verses in the King James Bible that contain phrases containing the word, "Belial." Notice that the New King James Version translators censored the word, "Belial" fifteen times and inserted phrases that are clearly dynamic equivalents. http://libertytothecaptives.net/nkjv...es_belial.html

You can't compare the two versions to know what word is correct. You must go back to the original language.

That is something KJVO's do all the time. They start with the KJV as the standard instead of the original language. Even the KJV translators made mistakes. Example, the word Easter is not in original Greek, or "God forbid".

Although having a working knowledge of the Hebrew would settle this, even the lay person can do just a little research and discover truth.

Without even going to the original language and just using Strongs we can see that the NKJV is accurate.

Strong's Hebrew Dictionary
1100. b@liya`al
leylb b@liya`al bel-e-yah'-al
from 1097 and 3276; without profit, worthlessness; by extension, destruction, wickedness (often in connection with 376, 802, 1121, etc.):--Belial, evil, naughty, ungodly (men), wicked.

 

[glfredrick]

You can't compare the two versions to know what word is correct. You must go back to the original language.

That is something KJVO's do all the time. They start with the KJV as the standard instead of the original language.

Precisely... Well said.

We take the words of the ones who insist that the KJV IS the only possible text, then fall into their framing of the argument by allowing them to force the rest of us into comparing whether a word is used the same way (or at all) in another text without going back to the originals -- something even the KJV translators did to the best of their ability and utilizing the only original text manuscripts that they had to use.

Fortunately we now have TONS more manuscript evidence and TONS more scholarship, not to mention computer aids for the process of translation whereby we can derive a more accurate and readable translation from the original language manuscripts.

 

[Logos1560]

The New King James Version is not a true King James Bible. It mixes some true King James accuracy with a lot of Alexandrian and "new version" errors. We know this because the NKJV tells us which ancient texts they used when they made up their Bible. Don't be fooled by the clever names and symbols. Here is what they say they really used


.

The above accusations are not correct. The NKJV does not follow or translate from the so-called Alexandrian New Testament Text [Critical Text] in its translating.

The NKJV does not claim to be the KJV, but the NKJV is a revision of the KJV and a translation of the same original language texts as the KJV.

 

[Logos1560]

incorrect accusation about Belial

Note the cited verse comparisons following the discussion of the manuscripts used.

NKJV: Theological Changes to the TextThe New King James translators, following the lead of modern Bible versions such as the New International Version, the Amplified Bible, the Message, the American Standard and the New American Standard, virtually censored the proper name, "Belial" from the NKJV text. They retained the proper name, "Belial" only once in the main body of the translation and included footnotes that reveal they are aware that the removal of "Belial" is not in keeping with a literal translation.


.

The above claims are misleading and inaccurate. It was not proven that the NKJV followed the lead of modern Bible versions, but it was only assumed or speculated. The NKJV could have followed the lead of the 1560 Geneva Bible or the lead of the KJV itself in other places.

Jud. 19:22 wicked men (Geneva) sons of Belial (KJV) perverted men (NKJV)
1 Sam. 1:16 a wicked woman (Geneva, NKJV) a daughter of Belial (KJV)

Translating the Hebrew word literally instead of transliterating it as a proper name is still keeping with a literal translation. The KJV translators sometimes did the same thing. The KJV translators translated the same Hebrew word as "wicked" 5 times, "ungodly men" 2 times, "ungodly" 1 time, "evil" 1 time, and "naughty" 1 time.

Does a consistent application of the above faulty arguments assert that the KJV did not keep with a literal translation these other ten times?

 

[DaChaser1]

And the original Greek is not "in" or "on." It is "epi".

1) upon, on, at, by, before

2) of position, on, at, by, over, against

3) to, over, on, at, across, against

Also noted is that both the Alland and the TR have "epi" as the Greek word, so there is no underlying difference in the Greek that would have driven the difference in the translations.

Texus Receptus:

13:16 καὶ ποιεῖ πάντας τοὺς μικροὺς καὶ τοὺς μεγάλους καὶ τοὺς πλουσίους καὶ τοὺς πτωχούς καὶ τοὺς ἐλευθέρους καὶ τοὺς δούλους ἵνα δώσῃ αὐτοῖς χάραγμα ἐπὶ τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῶν τῆς δεξιᾶς ἢ ἐπὶ τῶν μέτωπων αὐτῶν

Alland:

13:16 καὶ ποιεῖ πάντας τοὺς μικροὺς καὶ τοὺς μεγάλους καὶ τοὺς πλουσίους καὶ τοὺς πτωχούς καὶ τοὺς ἐλευθέρους καὶ τοὺς δούλους ἵνα δῶσιν αὐτοῖς χάραγμα ἐπὶ τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῶν τῆς δεξιᾶς ἢ ἐπὶ τὸ μέτωπον αὐτῶν

I've checked both sources for a LOT of verses. Rarely is there the sort of difference that KJVO folks would have us believe.

isn't the truth that regardless if one studies off/from the TR/MT/CT, that they are all substantially in agreement with each other, and more important, all are very close to the original manuscripts

Differrence between them are low, as probably roughly 97% + agreement, and NONE of the variations would include having major doctrines changed!

Even when comparing NIV/NSB/KJV/NKJV all still reaffirm all major doctrines, and just a matter to me mainly of "sematics!"

 

[glfredrick]

isn't the truth that regardless if one studies off/from the TR/MT/CT, that they are all substantially in agreement with each other, and more important, all are very close to the original manuscripts

Differrence between them are low, as probably roughly 97% + agreement, and NONE of the variations would include having major doctrines changed!

Even when comparing NIV/NSB/KJV/NKJV all still reaffirm all major doctrines, and just a matter to me mainly of "sematics!"

No, it isn't even semantics. It is a bunch of stubborn blockheads who love to argue out of ignorance. You are correct about the lack of doctrinal issues, etc.

What is happening is a SUPERNATURAL tag is being applied to a CERTAIN text as if God sent it directly to men akin to the way Moses recieved the tablets with the 10 Commandments. Problem is, it never happened that way.

One might almost think that the practice was akin to gnosticism -- special knowledge -- instead of realizing that God has used His inspired Word even though it has far too many human finger prints upon it. That's why He is God and we are not... He can do what seems impossible for man. But He never said that He would only give us ONE recieved text that was in a gnostic sense THE only possible text. References to the Word within the Word are all over the map, indicating that God was good with men using the LXX, the Hebrew text, the Aramaic texts, texts of earthly philosophers, etc. Hard to get around that and yet hold that only ONE particular text that came about 1500 years into this thing we call Christianity is THE text.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Oldtimer included this quote in his post (from a website) --

The New King James Version is not a true King James Bible. It mixes some true King James accuracy with a lot of Alexandrian and "new version" errors. We know this because the NKJV tells us which ancient texts they used when they made up their Bible. Don't be fooled by the clever names and symbols. Here is what they say they really used: ...

The website then goes on to make statements about the sources. To some extent "we know" the sources of the NKJV, but we really do NOT know what the sources of the KJV were with certainty. For example, there were (relatively) few printed Hebrew texts published before 1611; but there were several, and it is very likely that the king's revisers utilized almost all that they had acquired. Determined to convince readers (even if they have to repeat it), here is some of the misleading misinformation found at that link about the OT sources (my underline) --

God preserved the words of the Old Testament by the Levitical priests, who faithfully copied them through the centuries. The best manuscript, used by the King James Bible, was the Ben Chayyim, also called the "Bomberg Text." This faithful Rabbinic Old Testament, used for the King James Bible, was rejected by the NKJV committee in favor of a Vatican-published text. But it still takes a careful eye (and a parallel Bible) to spot the differences. ​

First, a reader may get the impression that Ben Chayyim was a Levitical priest perhaps living many centuries before Christ; actually, Ben Chayyim is the name of one school of Masoretic scribes that functioned in the 7-10th century AD (others are Ben Asher, and Ben Naphtali). Second, the singular word form "manuscript" misleads the reader into thinking that there is just one Ben Chayyim document; in fact, there were many copies in the Ben Chayyim tradition. How "best" was determined is not explained. Third, the "Bomberg Text" is not a manuscript, but rather a printed edition. It is properly referred to as a Rabbinic Bible (Jews do not recognize an "Old Testament"). Fourth, a reader might conclude that there are many significant discrepancies in these Hebraic textual traditions, when there really are few differences in base scripture text (most Masoretic textual differences result from the extra-biblical consonants, spelling, and accents). Fifth, the Hebrew text Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia is not "Vatican-published"; it is produced by a Protestant German Bible society (online it is © Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart 1967/77). I could make more of the inaccuracies found just in these 3 sentences from the website but I will conclude finally by saying that it is unlikely that a layperson could detect differences in English translations arising from variations of underlying Hebrew; the majority of differences between English translations of the Old Testament in particular are not textual.

 

[DaChaser1]

Oldtimer included this quote in his post (from a website) -- The website then goes on to make statements about the sources. To some extent "we know" the sources of the NKJV, but we really do NOT know what the sources of the KJV were with certainty. For example, there were (relatively) few printed Hebrew texts published before 1611; but there were several, and it is very likely that the king's revisers utilized almost all that they had acquired. Determined to convince readers (even if they have to repeat it), here is some of the misleading misinformation found at that link about the OT sources (my underline) --

God preserved the words of the Old Testament by the Levitical priests, who faithfully copied them through the centuries. The best manuscript, used by the King James Bible, was the Ben Chayyim, also called the "Bomberg Text." This faithful Rabbinic Old Testament, used for the King James Bible, was rejected by the NKJV committee in favor of a Vatican-published text. But it still takes a careful eye (and a parallel Bible) to spot the differences. ​

First, a reader may get the impression that Ben Chayyim was a Levitical priest perhaps living many centuries before Christ; actually, Ben Chayyim is the name of one school of Masoretic scribes that functioned in the 7-10th century AD (others are Ben Asher, and Ben Naphtali). Second, the singular word form "manuscript" misleads the reader into thinking that there is just one Ben Chayyim document; in fact, there were many copies in the Ben Chayyim tradition. How "best" was determined is not explained. Third, the "Bomberg Text" is not a manuscript, but rather a printed edition. It is properly referred to as a Rabbinic Bible (Jews do not recognize an "Old Testament"). Fourth, a reader might conclude that there are many significant discrepancies in these Hebraic textual traditions, when there really are few differences in base scripture text (most Masoretic textual differences result from the extra-biblical consonants, spelling, and accents). Fifth, the Hebrew text Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia is not "Vatican-published"; it is produced by a Protestant German Bible society (online it is © Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart 1967/77). I could make more of the inaccuracies found just in these 3 sentences from the website but I will conclude finally by saying that it is unlikely that a layperson could detect differences in English translations arising from variations of underlying Hebrew; the majority of differences between English translations of the Old Testament in particular are not textual.

to me, bottom line with the whole KJVO position is that IF one holds that the KJV is more accurate then the current Greek/Hebrew texts available, would be "bogus!"

And to me, they are doing a "work of satan" in casting doubts int o sincere Christians as regarding the validity on modern english versions!