KJV vs. NKJV

Status
Not open for further replies.

Josh Williamson

Puritan Board Freshman
Help me understand. For those who believe that the manuscripts that underly the KJV / AV are the best, what is your objection to the NKJV?

I've seen some people argue very strongly against the NKJV due to the notes in the margins, but is that grounds for not using it? Is there any other argument against it apart from this one?

Thanks in advance.

Josh
 

Bill The Baptist

Puritan Board Graduate
I personally love the NKJV, however most of the KJV nuts reject it. The NT is based on the same text as the KJV, albeit with copious footnotes and an occasional correction. The OT is not based on the same texts as the KJV, and that could be part of the objection. Other than that, the main objection would be that the NKJV, like all other modern versions, was not produced under any ecclesiastical authority.
 

JimmyH

Puritan Board Senior
Here is an interesting, to me, account of the genesis of the TR ..... from which all the fuss is about ... For what it's worth, I like the NKJV and read it as much, but not more, than the AV.

Textus Receptus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think anyone concerned with this AV superiority debate should read David Norton's history of the KJV and the 1611 "Translators To The Reader", for a better perspective.
 

Peairtach

Puritan Board Doctor
I think anyone concerned with this AV superiority debate should read David Norton's history of the KJV and the 1611 "Translators To The Reader", for a better perspective.

I don't know why the Translators' Preface isn't published with every KJV or indeed any KJV ? It's much more important than the Epistle Dedicatory.


Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 

PaulMc

Puritan Board Freshman
I've seen some people argue very strongly against the NKJV due to the notes in the margins, but is that grounds for not using it? Is there any other argument against it apart from this one?

One advantage of the AV over the NKJV would be the distinction between singular and plural personal pronouns.
 

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Professor
Hi Josh,

I for one much appreciate the marginal notes of the NKJV – it is the first go-to resource I have to see what and from whence the variant readings are in the other versions – they are very helpful. One could google for sites which find fault in the NKJV to see criticisms. It is a far better Bible than many others in my view, as it represents the Byzantine text. Still and all, for accuracy I stand by the AV.
 

CJW

Puritan Board Freshman
I've seen some people argue very strongly against the NKJV due to the notes in the margins, but is that grounds for not using it? Is there any other argument against it apart from this one?

One advantage of the AV over the NKJV would be the distinction between singular and plural personal pronouns.

This would be my main reason for using the AV over the NKJV.
 

Bill The Baptist

Puritan Board Graduate
I think most of us agree that the AV is a wonderful version of the Bible that will likely never be surpassed in terms of accuracy, beauty, and scholarship. That being said, we must make allowance for the fact that language has changed. Those of us who grew up on the KJV have no problem with it, but the fact is that many people today simply do not understand the language of the KJV, and thus it is useless to them. I understand the argument about plural pronouns, but again this is simply lost on most people and there is no acceptable modern equivalent, unless we employ such colloquialisms as "yall" or "you guys." The truth is that there is no good reason to reject the NKJV. It is an excellent translation from the best texts. Even Jesus understood that language moves on as evidenced by his frequent quotation of the Septuagint.
 

Dearly Bought

Puritan Board Junior
...the fact is that many people today simply do not understand the language of the KJV, and thus it is useless to them.
I continue to be rather flummoxed by this sort of assertion every time I see it. If you mean to say that your average man on the street will not necessarily follow every sentence in the Authorised Version upon first glance, then that is one thing. However, the language above suggests much more. I would suggest that the vast majority of the Authorised Version is readily accessible to the average reader without additional aid. I would also suggest that the addition of the normal footnotes/glosses which one finds in many TBS editions of the Authorised Version resolves most of the remaining barriers to understanding.

I understand the argument about plural pronouns, but again this is simply lost on most people
I find that the vast majority of people find the distinction between singular and plural pronouns easy to understand if a very, very brief and simple explanation is provided. If it starts with "th," there is only one person. If it starts with "y," it refers to multiple persons.

Even Jesus understood that language moves on as evidenced by his frequent quotation of the Septuagint.
Actually, this would be quotation of a translation in another language. This has nothing to do with the historical development of a language, but instead relates to the need for translation.
 
Last edited:

One Little Nail

Puritan Board Sophomore
I personally love the NKJV, however most of the KJV nuts reject it. The NT is based on the same text as the KJV, albeit with copious footnotes and an occasional correction. The OT is not based on the same texts as the KJV, and that could be part of the objection. Other than that, the main objection would be that the NKJV, like all other modern versions, was not produced under any ecclesiastical authority.

hello Bill, it's not helpful to the conversation if you refer to people who hold to The King James Bible (not Version) as
nuts,should I refer to you & others who like the NKJV as fruity, would you not be miffed,upset or outraged.

yes there are people who hold to the KJB who are extreme like Riplinger & Ruckman who hold erronous views but
they don't represent the whole broad spectrum of people who use the KJB, they are on the extreme right of the
spectrum holding to things like that KJB Inspiration, while others use it cause of its accuracy,Texts or the Fact that
God has had his hand on it Providentially.

I use the KJB & am abit nutty but Im not nutty because I use the KJB.

One of the problems with the NKJV is like youv'e said its departure in the Old Testament
from the Masoretic Text, also in the New I believe it departs from TR Readings & follows
the Majority Text readings which shows a level of Dishonesty from Nelson & all involved
in the Translation, that if it is not a mere update of Archaic Words then it has NO RIGHT
to be called a NEW "King James" Bible & also you'll find that as Nelson originally had
exclusive rights to print the notoriously Liberal Revised Standard Version has slipped in
RSV readings into the Translation of the NKJV, should I say Jesuitically?
 
Last edited:

JimmyH

Puritan Board Senior
...the fact is that many people today simply do not understand the language of the KJV, and thus it is useless to them.
I continue to be rather flummoxed by this sort of assertion every time I see it. If you mean to say that your average man on the street will not necessarily follow every sentence in the Authorised Version upon first glance, then that is one thing. However, the language above suggests much more. I would suggest that the vast majority of the Authorised Version is readily accessible to the average reader without additional aid. I would also suggest that the addition of the normal footnotes/glosses which one finds in many TBS editions of the Authorised Version resolves most of the remaining barriers to understanding.

I understand the argument about plural pronouns, but again this is simply lost on most people
I find that the vast majority of people find the distinction between singular and plural pronouns easy to understand if a very, very brief and simple explanation is provided. If it starts with "th," there is only one person. If it starts with "y," it refers to multiple persons.

Even Jesus understood that language moves on as evidenced by his frequent quotation of the Septuagint.
Actually, this would be quotation of a translation in another language. This has nothing to do with the historical development of a language, but instead relates to the need for translation.
Really ? Hang out with English majors do you ? It never ceases to amaze me that threads on the AV and/or translations in general, always deteriorate into a defense of the AV-TR by people who are offended if you suggest they are KJVO. CT texts need not apply.

So "And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins, wherein time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past" is comprehensible to the average guy on the street ?

Not on the street where I live. If a person really wants to learn to understand it they can, but it is much more difficult than picking up an NKJV, NASB or ESV, among others. In my humble opinion.
 

Dearly Bought

Puritan Board Junior
...the fact is that many people today simply do not understand the language of the KJV, and thus it is useless to them.
I continue to be rather flummoxed by this sort of assertion every time I see it. If you mean to say that your average man on the street will not necessarily follow every sentence in the Authorised Version upon first glance, then that is one thing. However, the language above suggests much more. I would suggest that the vast majority of the Authorised Version is readily accessible to the average reader without additional aid. I would also suggest that the addition of the normal footnotes/glosses which one finds in many TBS editions of the Authorised Version resolves most of the remaining barriers to understanding.

I understand the argument about plural pronouns, but again this is simply lost on most people
I find that the vast majority of people find the distinction between singular and plural pronouns easy to understand if a very, very brief and simple explanation is provided. If it starts with "th," there is only one person. If it starts with "y," it refers to multiple persons.

Even Jesus understood that language moves on as evidenced by his frequent quotation of the Septuagint.
Actually, this would be quotation of a translation in another language. This has nothing to do with the historical development of a language, but instead relates to the need for translation.
Really ? Hang out with English majors do you ? It never ceases to amaze me that threads on the AV and/or translations in general, always deteriorate into a defense of the AV-TR by people who are offended if you suggest they are KJVO. CT texts need not apply.

So "And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins, wherein time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past" is comprehensible to the average guy on the street ?

Not on the street where I live. If a person really wants to learn to understand it they can, but it is much more difficult than picking up an NKJV, NASB or ESV, among others. In my humble opinion.
Sir, I do not mean to be combative nor do I hang out with English majors. While I am a student of theology, I am employed full-time in secular work which occupies the majority of my daily life in close proximity to people of many varied backgrounds. I genuinely believe that the majority of the people I encounter would be able to understand what I am saying if I ask, "Who art thou?" They might look at me funny, but I bet they would know what I meant.
 

JimmyH

Puritan Board Senior
...the fact is that many people today simply do not understand the language of the KJV, and thus it is useless to them.
I continue to be rather flummoxed by this sort of assertion every time I see it. If you mean to say that your average man on the street will not necessarily follow every sentence in the Authorised Version upon first glance, then that is one thing. However, the language above suggests much more. I would suggest that the vast majority of the Authorised Version is readily accessible to the average reader without additional aid. I would also suggest that the addition of the normal footnotes/glosses which one finds in many TBS editions of the Authorised Version resolves most of the remaining barriers to understanding.

I understand the argument about plural pronouns, but again this is simply lost on most people
I find that the vast majority of people find the distinction between singular and plural pronouns easy to understand if a very, very brief and simple explanation is provided. If it starts with "th," there is only one person. If it starts with "y," it refers to multiple persons.

Even Jesus understood that language moves on as evidenced by his frequent quotation of the Septuagint.
Actually, this would be quotation of a translation in another language. This has nothing to do with the historical development of a language, but instead relates to the need for translation.
Really ? Hang out with English majors do you ? It never ceases to amaze me that threads on the AV and/or translations in general, always deteriorate into a defense of the AV-TR by people who are offended if you suggest they are KJVO. CT texts need not apply.

So "And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins, wherein time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past" is comprehensible to the average guy on the street ?

Not on the street where I live. If a person really wants to learn to understand it they can, but it is much more difficult than picking up an NKJV, NASB or ESV, among others. In my humble opinion.
Sir, I do not mean to be combative nor do I hang out with English majors. While I am a student of theology, I am employed full-time in secular work which occupies the majority of my daily life in close proximity to people of many varied backgrounds. I genuinely believe that the majority of the people I encounter would be able to understand what I am saying if I ask, "Who art thou?" They might look at me funny, but I bet they would know what I meant.

Forgive me for being combative. These threads get my goat and I allowed that to overcome my discretion.
 

Bill The Baptist

Puritan Board Graduate
I personally love the NKJV, however most of the KJV nuts reject it. The NT is based on the same text as the KJV, albeit with copious footnotes and an occasional correction. The OT is not based on the same texts as the KJV, and that could be part of the objection. Other than that, the main objection would be that the NKJV, like all other modern versions, was not produced under any ecclesiastical authority.

hello Bill, it's not helpful to the conversation if you refer to people who hold to The King James Bible (not Version) as
nuts,should I refer to you & others who like the NKJV as fruity, would you not be miffed,upset or outraged.

yes there are people who hold to the KJB who are extreme like Riplinger & Ruckman who hold erronous views but
they don't represent the whole broad spectrum of people who use the KJB, they are on the extreme right of the
spectrum holding to things like that KJB Inspiration, while others use it cause of its accuracy,Texts or the Fact that
God has had his hand on it Providentially.

I use the KJB & am abit nutty but Im not nutty because I use the KJB.

One of the problems with the NKJV is like youv'e said its departure in the Old Testament
from the Masoretic Text, also in the New I believe it departs from TR Readings & follows
the Majority Text readings which shows a level of Dishonesty from Nelson & all involved
in the Translation, that if it is not a mere update of Archaic Words then it has NO RIGHT
to be called a NEW "King James" Bible & also you'll find that as Nelson originally had
exclusive rights to print the notoriously Liberal Revised Standard Version has slipped in
RSV readings into the Translation of the NKJV, should I say Jesuitically?

First of all, I did not say that everyone who prefers the AV is nuts, I was simply pointing out that there are in fact some people who have made the AV an idol, and they are in fact nuts. As for the rest of your post, I cannot begin to address it because for some reason you have a tendency to post unintelligible walls of words, and your latest post is no exception.
 

Free Christian

Puritan Board Sophomore
I was a bit disturbed by the Logo used on the NKJV that I saw! I did a search and found the exact same logo used by a rap/metal band called Pod on an album cover. Also the same logo used on a book "The Craft" A witches book of shadows by Dorothy Morrison. It is the same symbol used by many in witch craft and Pagan practices!
I know that the NKJV says it is to represent the Trinity but to use one, exactly the same, that is used by Witches, Pagans and Devil worshippers has me really puzzled!
Now Im not saying its demonic, the NKJV, no way, but the use of it really puzzles me! Anyone else notice it?
One more thing with it. Is God not to be represented by anything, images?
If that is a representation of the Holy Trinity then isn't it breaking that commandment?
 
Last edited:

One Little Nail

Puritan Board Sophomore
I personally love the NKJV, however most of the KJV nuts reject it. The NT is based on the same text as the KJV, albeit with copious footnotes and an occasional correction. The OT is not based on the same texts as the KJV, and that could be part of the objection. Other than that, the main objection would be that the NKJV, like all other modern versions, was not produced under any ecclesiastical authority.

hello Bill, it's not helpful to the conversation if you refer to people who hold to The King James Bible (not Version) as
nuts,should I refer to you & others who like the NKJV as fruity, would you not be miffed,upset or outraged.

yes there are people who hold to the KJB who are extreme like Riplinger & Ruckman who hold erronous views but
they don't represent the whole broad spectrum of people who use the KJB, they are on the extreme right of the
spectrum holding to things like that KJB Inspiration, while others use it cause of its accuracy,Texts or the Fact that
God has had his hand on it Providentially.

I use the KJB & am abit nutty but Im not nutty because I use the KJB.

One of the problems with the NKJV is like youv'e said its departure in the Old Testament
from the Masoretic Text, also in the New I believe it departs from TR Readings & follows
the Majority Text readings which shows a level of Dishonesty from Nelson & all involved
in the Translation, that if it is not a mere update of Archaic Words then it has NO RIGHT
to be called a NEW "King James" Bible & also you'll find that as Nelson originally had
exclusive rights to print the notoriously Liberal Revised Standard Version has slipped in
RSV readings into the Translation of the NKJV, should I say Jesuitically?

First of all, I did not say that everyone who prefers the AV is nuts, I was simply pointing out that there are in fact some people who have made the AV an idol, and they are in fact nuts. As for the rest of your post, I cannot begin to address it because for some reason you have a tendency to post unintelligible walls of words, and your latest post is no exception.

why Billy Boy I only posted 4 Paragraphs consisting of 1st Paragraph of 2 lines, 2nd Paragraph of 3 &1/2 lines,
3rd Paragraph of 1 line & 4th Paragraph of 7 shortened lines & used no Archaic words whatsoever. :duh:
 

One Little Nail

Puritan Board Sophomore
Other than that, the main objection would be that the NKJV, like all other modern versions, was not produced under any ecclesiastical authority.

Is this an objection KJV-only folks would raise? My understanding is most of them are Baptists.

aren't most of the Translators Dispensationalist Baptists which would make your above statement even more Ironic.

In Theory this would influence the text as no Translation is Neutral, an example would be 2 Thess 2:7 the he that now restrains is a capitalised "He" inferring that it is The Holy Spirit that restrains the rise of the lawless one(Wicked,KJB). thereby giving support to the Pre-Tribulation Dispensationalism Rapture Theory of the Modified Jesuit Futurism Scheme!

We should remember that both The Westminster & London Confessions teach The Protestant Historicist
Doctrine that the Bishop of Rome is that Wicked, Man of Sin or more plainly if you will, Anti-Christ.

Which brings us to see that The Confessions & Historical Protestant Translations go hand in hand. :married:
 

kainos01

Puritan Board Senior
Not on the street where I live.
Amen. The assumption that most people can "get" the language of the AV is based on the premise that most people are relatively familiar with basic principles of grammar, have a fairly comprehensive vocabulary, etc. While it is true that most do, it is also true that about 20% of Americans are functionally illiterate (that is, read at below a 5th grade level). For such as these (and the myriad I work with around the world for whom English is a second language), I am grateful that the Word of God has been made more accessible by versions such as the NKJV, NASB, ESV, etc.
 

One Little Nail

Puritan Board Sophomore
I was a bit disturbed by the Logo used on the NKJV that I saw! I did a search and found the exact same logo used by a rap/metal band called Pod on an album cover. Also the same logo used on a book "The Craft" A witches book of shadows by Dorothy Morrison. It is the same symbol used by many in witch craft and Pagan practices!
I know that the NKJV says it is to represent the Trinity but to use one, exactly the same, that is used by Witches, Pagans and Devil worshippers has me really puzzled!
Now Im not saying its demonic, the NKJV, no way, but the use of it really puzzles me! Anyone else notice it?
One more thing with it. Is God not to be represented by anything, images?
If that is a representation of the Holy Trinity then isn't it breaking that commandment?

Sure is brother, Acts 17:29 we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold,
or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
 

Dearly Bought

Puritan Board Junior
Not on the street where I live.
Amen. The assumption that most people can "get" the language of the AV is based on the premise that most people are relatively familiar with basic principles of grammar, have a fairly comprehensive vocabulary, etc. While it is true that most do, it is also true that about 20% of Americans are functionally illiterate (that is, read at below a 5th grade level). For such as these (and the myriad I work with around the world for whom English is a second language), I am grateful that the Word of God has been made more accessible by versions such as the NKJV, NASB, ESV, etc.
I would point out that grade-level charts for Bible translations pretty universally rank the ESV and NASB at a high school reading level and the NKJV at least somewhere in middle school (generally high school as well). If you're trying to argue against a Bible translation based on illiteracy statistics, it would appear that you'll have to also exclude the very versions which you have referenced.
 

kainos01

Puritan Board Senior
I would point out that grade-level charts for Bible translations pretty universally rank the ESV and NASB at a high school reading level and the NKJV at least somewhere in middle school (generally high school as well). If you're trying to argue against a Bible translation based on illiteracy statistics, it would appear that you'll have to also exclude the very versions which you have referenced.

That may well be the case (I haven't seen such charts, but don't challenge your statement); still, whatever the "grade-level" one would assign to those translations would assuredly be lower than that assigned to the AV. It may well be a "reach" for someone with a 5th grade reading level to grasp the language of, say, the NKJV, but it would be a greater leap to grasp the language of the AV. At any rate, I am less inclined to consider these things theoretically (though, admittedly, I first introduced the illiteracy statistics); I speak, first and foremost, from a practical standpoint: on numerous occasions, I have had folks (in the USA and elsewhere) tell me that they found other translations to be more easily understood than the AV. That is a point of fact, as attested in many, many places on the globe, including America.

As is typical of these endless discussions, however, I doubt that anyone's mind will be changed. Thus, I bow out, noting that I, for one, rejoice in the several theologically-faithful translations available to the English-speaking world (and, yes, I believe that there are a number which are, in fact, faithful theologically). As others have said in other threads, I believe that the best version is the one that people actually read, and it has been my experience that more people are able (and willing) to read the Bible in language that better reflects the modern vernacular. I have witnessed the Lord convert many souls through the use of these other versions. If that is in spite of them, I cannot honestly say. Nonetheless, my conscious is clear using them and so, unless and until that changes, I shall continue to do so.
 

Bill The Baptist

Puritan Board Graduate
I personally love the NKJV, however most of the KJV nuts reject it. The NT is based on the same text as the KJV, albeit with copious footnotes and an occasional correction. The OT is not based on the same texts as the KJV, and that could be part of the objection. Other than that, the main objection would be that the NKJV, like all other modern versions, was not produced under any ecclesiastical authority.

hello Bill, it's not helpful to the conversation if you refer to people who hold to The King James Bible (not Version) as
nuts,should I refer to you & others who like the NKJV as fruity, would you not be miffed,upset or outraged.

yes there are people who hold to the KJB who are extreme like Riplinger & Ruckman who hold erronous views but
they don't represent the whole broad spectrum of people who use the KJB, they are on the extreme right of the
spectrum holding to things like that KJB Inspiration, while others use it cause of its accuracy,Texts or the Fact that
God has had his hand on it Providentially.

I use the KJB & am abit nutty but Im not nutty because I use the KJB.

One of the problems with the NKJV is like youv'e said its departure in the Old Testament
from the Masoretic Text, also in the New I believe it departs from TR Readings & follows
the Majority Text readings which shows a level of Dishonesty from Nelson & all involved
in the Translation, that if it is not a mere update of Archaic Words then it has NO RIGHT
to be called a NEW "King James" Bible & also you'll find that as Nelson originally had
exclusive rights to print the notoriously Liberal Revised Standard Version has slipped in
RSV readings into the Translation of the NKJV, should I say Jesuitically?

First of all, I did not say that everyone who prefers the AV is nuts, I was simply pointing out that there are in fact some people who have made the AV an idol, and they are in fact nuts. As for the rest of your post, I cannot begin to address it because for some reason you have a tendency to post unintelligible walls of words, and your latest post is no exception.

why Billy Boy I only posted 4 Paragraphs consisting of 1st Paragraph of 2 lines, 2nd Paragraph of 3 &1/2 lines,
3rd Paragraph of 1 line & 4th Paragraph of 7 shortened lines & used no Archaic words whatsoever. :duh:

Grammar and style aside, your assertion that it is improper to follow the Majority text rather than the TR is where I would differ from most of those who prefer the AV. I believe that the Byzantine text type is superior to the Alexandrian text type, and I also believe that the Byzantine text type is best represented by the Majority text, and not the TR. I personally would like to see a modern translation based on the MT, which was what the HCSB was originally supposed to be. Those who would hold to a TR reading despite thousands of texts from the same family that disagree are in my mind no better than those who hold to the readings from a few Alexandrian texts over and against the vast majority of textual evidence.
 

ZackF

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I was a bit disturbed by the Logo used on the NKJV that I saw!

What are you talking about? Mine has a logo based on the burning bush. Are you suggesting that Satan, not God, spoke from the burning bush?


He may be thinking the BB is a 2nd Commandment violation. It cross my mind too but I thought I was just crazy. Anyway, I am at home sick instead of worshipping with the saints so my mind is wandering in between coughing fits.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top