Will the NKJV become the Next Version of the KJV?

She's right, they will never be replaced. Of course, the KJV will be replaced, but God's words won't be.

The KJV that we use today is around 200 years old. From the second century until today, God's Words have never been replaced (technically), but they have been retranslated many times.

 

It is possible that the NKJV could be considered to be just another edition in the long line of KJV revisions in the future. It may take longer than one generation though. I would like to see the NKJV revised to fix some of its shortcomings first. </font>[/QUOTE]I believe that I have heard that changes are already in effect. Everything requires some debugging (except for the originals). I think some revisions will occur, especially where tense problems in the epistles exist.

Then I think we will have another excellent revision. It may take more than one generation. I am just basing that on what people grow up with. If they grow up with their parents using an NKJV, there is a good chance it will be "their" KJV.

It would be interesting to know the REAL history about how long it took for acceptance of each major revision in the past.

 

Yep the Latin Vulgate stood the test of time, over 1000 years, far longer than the latest revision of the KJV.

No, God's Word will NEVER PASS AWAY, but the KJV will, if God does not return before. (No doubt copies will be found in museums).

We can be sure of two things, God never changes, but things on Earth (including language) WILL.

 

Manchester, you very well may be right that the "standard" becomes the NIV, BUT, I think due to people who LIKE the KJV (not KJVOnlyism), that it will continue, and to continue it must be upgraded.

Here in the Bible belt we are seeing MANY KJV preferred people accepting the NKJV without argument. Because of the difference in background texts (TR), people are accepting it.

Now, I realize the NKJV is using this as a marketing tool, no doubt about that, but will it replace the Oxford edition of the KJV?

 

Well, I understand we are part of the Bible belt, but I don't know what is really considered the Bible belt. I do know that the Southern Baptist Churches (with which I am affiliated.) are not KJVO.

In fact, I have never even seen KJVO until I came to this board.

Now, I do know a lot of older people in our own church that are KJV preferred. But, they never complain about the use of another translation. Our preacher, who now mostly uses his NKJV, would often use the words directly out of the NIV to explain words he read from the KJV. We both agreed this was a waste of valuable study time, so I think the move to the NKJV was a good one on his part.

My aunt used to belong to a little country church that was either Missionary or Independent Baptist (depending on what preacher they could get). I would not doubt that back then (30 years ago) that they were KJVO, but I don't know. I do know they "churched" my grandmother because she "visited" the First Baptist Church in town about three times. Her husband and daughter sat right there and helped vote her out.

Since she didn't have a car, she stayed at home and watched Billy Graham, when she couldn't get a ride. She sent her tithe to Billy Graham's organization. I am not saying this is right, but it shows some legalistic trends in some tiny groups.

Our local FBC uses the NIV from the pulpit exclusively. It gives an NIV to new visitors (or a copy of the Jesus film, whichever you choose.)

Our church members probably have six different active versions being studied by different people. They don't seem to have ANY problem following along.

Most tell me that it helps them understand it better by hearing it in two translations. I have found truth in this in studying my parallel Bible.

So, in answer to your question, I guess maybe parts of the Bible belt, but certainly not in SBC churches that I know of.

I think you will find this practice to occur more in small churches in rural areas. (And I do mean Rural, such as the back-roads of Arkansas.)