NKJV vs KJV accuracy

Answer : Since any one of the KJV family members are perfect ( even if they differ considerably from one another)-- then it certainly follows that anything not identified as a KJV will be imperfect and hence inaccurate.

 

To follow-up still more on Amy's question : The NKJ comes closer than many other translations to the purity level of the KJV. However, it's not allowed to join the club.It's much like conservative Presbyterians not allowing Calvinistic Baptists to use the term "Reformed" because the RB's differ ever so slightly, but do in fact differ nonetheless from the truly Reformed.

The NKJ is not allowed to join the KJV party.Tis a pity the latter isn't more inclusive in its membership practices.

 

In other words, "It ain't the KJV."

Not a good argument to oppose something, IMHO.

 

Well then, I have a few questions along that line.

If I like apples but don't like oranges then why am I wrong for saying that I don't want an orange?

Why would you think that I want an orange when I ask for an apple?

And, why would you ask someone who only eats apples "what is wrong with oranges?".

Why not let apple eaters continue to eat their apples?

Why do some folks keep telling apple eaters that "oranges are better because apples have worms?"

And finally, why do some folks keep insisting that oranges are the same as apples?


.............
Folks, I know that a Granny Smith apple ain't quite the same as a Fuji apple. That doesn't mean, however, that I can't tell apples from oranges.

Translation: I know that the 1769 edition of the KJV isn't exactly like the 1611. That doesn't mean, however, that I can't tell the KJV from the NKJV.
.............

 

Not a bad analogy.

I really don't think anyone would criticise you for eating your apple. That is a choice based on what you prefer.

The problem is that so many apple eaters want everyone else to eat apples.

On this issue, while the NKJV is quite different I do see it as still being an apple. In your analogy I would see the KJV 1611/1769 etc as red apples with the KJV being the Granny Smith. A Granny Smith, while still an apple, is noticeably different. When I bite into an apple I can tell whether or not is a Granny Smith or some other type.

Apples and oranges? - perhaps if you applied this to the Byzantine vs Alexandrian texts based translations.

The New King James may not be from the same tree, but it is the same fruit.

 

Quote:
.................
Originally Posted by Amy.G
Give us some specific reasons why the NKJV is not as accurate as the KJV.
..................


For my part I don't choose to rail against the NKJV. I used it for YEARS.

I arrived at my position by a long route through the modern versions. I spent a lot of time studying and comparing versions. I can tell the difference.

My reasoning is quite simple. I trust the KJV 100 percent. Other versions differ from the KJV in detail. That leads me to the conclusion that I can trust other versions less than 100 percent. Since there is no compelling reason for me to use a version that I trust less than 100 percent (say 98 percent for the NKJV) then I will stick with the KJV.

That kind of reasoning doesn't work for you? I don't actually expect it does. That doesn't bother me at all. It is my specific reason though.

If you want someone to tell you their particular gripes against the NKJV then a quick google search will turn them up. I am not endorsing those pages though.

 

I guess we will have to differ as to what constitutes an apple then C4K.

 

Still Missing Specifics

 

AF, back to the apple analogy.

What makes you think that your particular kind of apple is the legit one? Perhaps another kind of fruit is the more definitive one.You might have been shaking your apple tree in vain.

 

Re: The Apple analogy

The NKJV merely removed a few worms from it's predecessor.

Some people like worms.

I've never developed a taste for them.

Rob

 

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the marginal notes commonly found in the NKJV that mention Greek text variants. I've heard the NKJV reviled for these because they "cast doubt on what God's word actually says."

 

That has more or less been debunked since the 1611 became commonly available and folks saw that the translators there did the same thing.

 

Careful Rob, or you may open a can of ...

 

Being debunked hardly excludes arguments from the KJVO debate.

 

Good post. There are so many, many verses that are exactly the same or where the NKJV is extremely close to the KJV that it has to be based on the KJV. It's entirely possible to look at the originals, revise an existing translation and call it both a revision and an original translation.

 

The significance of saying, “"It ain't the KJV”, is that “the words are different”!

Different words are used!

It says something different!

The message is lost because the words have been changed!

Etc, etc, etc........

 

Exactly what I said, all the way back in post # 2.

Eight pages of posts have yet to offer any substantive examples of supposed inaccuracy, from what I have seen.

The whole 'argument' for a KJO really rests on a basis that the suposed texts used to translate from are 'perfect' texts of the Majority or Byzantine types, at least in in the NT. It matters little as to any reasoning behind this supposed text, however, as to whether or not there is a genuine basis for accepting it for the purposes of translation. When even the majority of texts diiffer, and they do in places, this is merely glossed over with words to the effect of "Well if it wasn't 'supposed to be in the BIble', it would not be found in the KJV."

In other words, "circular reasoning" of the most extreme sort!

Ed

 

An example please?

 

Why didn't you say that the KJV differs from the other versions, and that leads you to the conclusion that you can't trust the KJV? This seems an admission that you have no real basis for your view.

As for eating apples, they are all apples. The word of God is the Word of God, regardless of what translation it is in. Your apples and oranges comparison only works if you are comparing two different things -- like the Bible and a John Grisham novel.

 

I figured someone would come along and say this, and Brother Roger would see that I was not making up the earlier point about the differences in words (though I imagine Roger understands my point anyway).

This is my point about using the 1769. It is a revision with different words. Using your logic, you can't use the KJV that most people have today. When people say they are contending for the old KJV, they don't really mean that. They mean they are contending for a later revision with changed words. Therefore, the difference between the 1611 and the 1769 and the difference between the 1769 and the NKJV is one of degree, not of substance. The exact same problem exists with either ... different words.