NKJV vs KJV accuracy

I wouldn't agree. But even at that, a KJVO can't agree given his own standards.

 

He was the NT? Is that what KJO people are saying?

 

For God so loued ye world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life. (KJV 1611)

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (KJV 1769?)

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. (NKJV 1982)​

In this comparison of John 3:16 between the 'modern' KJV and NKJV there are just 7 differences: two of punctuation (both commas), three of capitalization (pronouns of Deity), one pronoun spelling, one verb suffix. Five of these would be completely undetectable by a listener. Are these really significant changes? Each text has 25 total words with the same individual meanings and in precisely the same word order, of which 23 of these words have exactly the same spelling. Does the NKJV text seem like a totally new translation of this verse?

Notice that between the 1611 and the 'modern' KJV there are at least 5 differences: two of punctuation (a colon instead of the comma, and an additional comma), and three spelling (ye/the, Sonne/Son, beleeveth/believeth). Four of these differences whould not be detected by a listener. The differences between the 1611 and the later version KJV at this verse is comparable in scope with the differences between later KJVs and the NKJV. Yet, later editions of the KJV are generally not considered 'different' from the original.

There are some passages where greater differences could be demonstrated. But given this particular KJV text, what ancient MSS would a modern translator need to have in hand in order to achieve the more contemporary rendering? None! Given the KJV text, what original language expertise would today's scholar require to arrive at the NKJV text? None!

I do not dispute Thomas Nelson's statement that they created "a completely new, modern translation of Scripture"; however, their original work as a whole does not seem to result in substantially different renderings from the KJV.

 

The KJV is more superior to the NKJV. The KJV is more accurate over to the NKJV. They differ each other 2,000+ times.

 

How about this one - similar, but a lot of differences: 1Peter 1v17


And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons iudgeth according to euery mans worke, passe the time of your soiourning here in feare: (KJV1611)

And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear (KJV1769)

And if you call on the Father, who without partiality judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves throughout the time of your stay here in fear; (NKJV)


I suspect that in your example John 3v16 was left alone because of its familiarity.

 

And you opinion is welcome to the conversation

 

Being different doesn't mean inaccurate.

How is the NKJV inaccurate, specifically? Do you have some examples?

 

When you computed that result, What were the subcategories of 'differences' and the count of each?

BTW, which KJV?

Anyway, if there were 20 changes of meaning between two version, I'd like to know what they were, cause it is hard to figure out which is 'superior' or 'more accurate'. If you didn't do the counts or research, I'd like the address (Internet preferred) of the person who did. In fact, it is considered polite among Bulletin Boards (bbs) and other actual discussion/debate bbs (and the educated folk from whom on-line bbs evolved) that one mention the source in the first post, instead of having to be asked.

If there was a comma (,) here or a semicolon ( there different, then that is about par for the course -- there are lot of those among the KJVs.

 

And you also, Sir C4K are welcome to your opinion.

Personallly I don't see any more difference in the MEANING here than in the John 3:16 example.

So, C4K if you call on the Father* act on this earth (for the time you are here) in fear. * BTW, recall that the Father judges each according to their own work.

Mentioned elsewhere: A person is saved by works: the completed works of Messiah Jesus.

 

For 36 of the last 40 years I've been an Altar Call Counselor: helping pastors who give Altar Calls to speak with people who have come forward seeking salvation, to re-dedicate their lives, for reassurance of Salvation, for Special Calls of God for service to the Lord. During that time I've heard some 280 people have a (near initial - I don't know the details, and really don't care) salvation experience. The number of times I had particular Bibles in my hand is approximately (within one order):

160 - NIV = New International Version
60 - NKJV = new King James Version
15 - KJV = King James Version
25 - others or none

Jesus saves; Bible version don't save, Ed don't save, prayer don't save; Jesus Saves.

Revelation 12:10b-11 (nKVJ)
... or the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down.
11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death.

Revelation 12:10b-11 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition)
... for the accuser of our brethren is cast downe, which accused them before our God day and night.
11 But they ouercame him by that blood of that Lambe, and by that worde of their testimonie, and they loued not their liues vnto the death.

My testimony is that the nKJV is the inerrant Written Word of God preserved for the last two decades (1981-2000) of the 20th Century (1901-2000). The nKJV is the very True Word(s) of God when understood in the power of the Holy Spirit.

written Word of God = written Words of God ​

The nKJV has the power to into the Salvation of the Lord. The Lord condemn anybody who condems the nKJV.

My testimony is that the Geneva Bible is the inerrant Written Word of God preserved for the last four decades (1981-2000) of the 16 century and the first four decades ot the 17th Century (1601-1640) throughout the British Empire and for all the 17th Century (1601-1700) and 18th Century (1701-1800) in the American Colonies of England. The Geneva Bible is the very True Word(s) of God when understood in the power of the Holy Spirit.

written Word of God = written Words of God​

The nKJV has the power to into the Salvation of the Lord. The Lord condemn anybody who condems the Geneva Bible

Edited to add Revelation 12:10b-11: It is the Blood of the Lamb and the testimony of the Saints which are the two tines of the fork upon which the accuser (Satan) is snared - I've born my testimony: Jesus Saves! Amen.

 

No agenda here Ed, just grabbed the first verse that popped up in e-sword. There is no doubt that the NKJV is vastly different than the minor differences in the main KJV family of editions.

 

Perhaps. The predecessor to the 1611 --

For God so loued the worlde, that he gaue his only begotten sonne, that whosoeuer beleueth in hym, shoulde not perishe, but haue euerlastyng lyfe. (Bishop's 1568)​

There are between the Bishop's Bible and the original AV nine differences: one of puncuation (comma/colon), one of capitalization (s/S), and seven of spelling (three words ending in additional 'e', three 'y' for 'i' substitutions, beleveth). The Tyndale rendering is much different. Yet, those early Bibles are generally considered faithful forerunners of the KJV text. I fail to see a substantial difference between those Bibles and the NKJV.

 

The NKJV is not a new translation done from scatch. The NKJV is both a revision of the KJV and a translation of the same underlying original language texts as the KJV just as the KJV was both a revision of the pre-1611 English Bibles and a translation of the original language texts.

 

The title page of the KJV suggested that it was an original new translation although compared to the pre-1611 English Bibles. However, the preface of the 1611 KJV confirms that the KJV was more a revision of the pre-1611 English Bibles as compared to the original language texts. The preface of the NKJV would also show that the NKJV was intended to be a revision of the KJV.

While there are more significant changes between the KJV and the NKJV than there are between the various editions of the KJV, there would be a valid comparison between the changes between the KJV and the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision and the changes between the KJV and the NKJV.

The NKJV can be accurately described as both a revision and a translation just as the KJV can be described as being both.

 

There's no difference at all there.

 

You are confusing things here. You cite differences of 2000+ times. But that is not helpful since we do not know what the differences are. Some changes are neither better nor worse. Some might be for the better. Some might be for the worse. But until we examine each change we cannot know. So you have provided no basis whatsoever for your assertion that the KJV is superior to the NKJV.

 

I like both versions the 1611 KJV (but man do they believe in the letter V?) and a lot of misspellings ending lots of words with the letter e to though I shouldn't criticize. I also like the NKJV to0. Spelling is alot better. Have you notice how KJO people speak english normally in the modern vernacular but when they pray it goes back to King James english? I always found this an interesting phenominon. I'm also partial the the KTSV (King Thinkingstuff Version):laugh:

 

Do you know where I can get a copy of that? :laugh:

 

OSE, Or, the OSV, Or, the OST,Or, The 1769

Those who prefer the KJV and those who are KJVO ought to refer to their translation as the 1769 Oxford Standard Edition.Benjamin Blayney ( with a little boost from Thomas Paris 7 years before) doesn't get the credit he deserves. ( William Tyndale should get some praise too).

So are we agreed that most KJV'ers are really OSE'ers?Of course the OSE has been modified to some degree in some editions. Whew! I can't keep up with all these changes and revisions in the Tyndale-line.It makes me yearn for a real original like the NET Bible.

 

I'm still waiting to find out what is inaccurate about the NKJV.

:sleeping_2: