KJV and NKJ Sometimes Not On Same Page

Personally, I like NIV1984 the best...

 

[

[/QUOTE]

i use and like nasv/Esv/Niv 2011!

But to OP, didn't the NKJV intionally use SAME Greek texts as KJV, just updated the English word usuage/vocabulary?

 

This verse has a true variant. But actually, neither the NKJ nor the KJV follow either the TR or the CT exactly. The TR has 4 words: τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ (but notice the definite article "the" is before "God" with only "and" between "God" and "Father"); while the CT has just 3 words: τῷ θεῷ πατρὶ ("the" is also before "God" but there is no "and"). It is not uncommon for the Greek article to be dropped out in English translations (it sounds odd to read "the God"); but moving the article to follow "and" as the KJV did gives the impression of two persons in modern ears which may explain the reason the NKJ has elected to leave it out. IMO, the difference is not a textual one.

This does not prove a textual difference. The Greek verb is in the Aorist tense (expressing action but without indicating completion or continuation). This verb tense is difficult to express with one English verb. Thus, we see here two approaches to convey the same Greek word.

This is not a textual difference, but rather a rendering difference. The Greek word here is a form of paraptōma (Strong's #3900) which indicates a deviation or a lapse. It is not the primary Greek word for sin. Therefore, the two versions simply chose different English words to approximate the same meaning.

 

Again, this is not textual. The Greek phrase Ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι (literally: is-greeting you the in Babylon) actually has no noun (like "church") or pronoun (like "she") at the beginning; it is implied by the context and each translation has supplied its own choice. The KJV indicates this by having the words "church that is" in italic typsetting.

This difference is not textual either. All three Greek words τῆς κοινῆς σωτηρίας are in the Genitive (possessive) case. The definite article is usually "the" but here also carries the idea of 'belonging to' (ownership), and could legitimately be rendered as "our".

There is no textual variation between the TR and the CT at this verse, so there cannot be a translational difference caused by the underlying text.

 

There is a variant at this verse: the TR has the adverb hos (Strong's #5613) which is often rendered "as"; the CT has a different (but similarly spelled) conjunction heos (Strong's #2193) which is usually rendered "until". The KJV has produced a very literal rendering. But since the NKJ does not include any word that might represent heos (something like "until") it is still unproven and unlikely that this was an attempt at following the CT here; rather it would seem that the NKJ has merely dropped out what reads like an unnecessary and confusing adverb in contemporary English.

There is a variant here. But in what seems like an ironic turnabout the TR actually has the definite article between "Jesus" and "Christ", while the CT does not have the definite article. Therefore the NKJ has more strictly followed the TR than the KJV. I wouldn't accuse the KJV of following the CT here; it is merely another case of the translators' choice of including or excluding somewhat superfuluous words to benefit the resulting English.

This is not the result of a textual variant. Again, the NKJ has strictly followed the Greek (the word order is the same in both the TR and CT: "Christ Jesus"), while the KJV has elected to reverse the order of the words from the way they are actually found in the Greek. The KJV probably chose to repeat the same order of the name and title "Jesus Christ" that is found in the early portion of this same verse (which does follow the proper Greek word order). That is, in the Greek of this verse the first mention is "Jesus Christ" and the second mention is reversed as "Christ Jesus".