NKJV vs KJV accuracy

The reason that I didn't say "the KJV differs from the other vesions and that leads me to the to the conclusion that I can't trust the KJV" (other than that it would be a wrong statement) is because I trust the KJV 100 percent. The KJV is my point of reference. It is silly to be offended by that.

The reason I trust the KJV is in post #12 of this thread.

In order to convince me of your opinion you have to convince me to trust some other version more than I trust the KJV. That explains why some here are always looking to prove a fault in the KJV.

If you want to prove to me that the MV's are as good as the KJV then get crackin' bud. You have to prove they are 100 percent reliable.

The apples and oranges was from Amy.G's post prior to mine. I just went with it. The whole point is that the KJV is a distinct version by the definition used for Bibles*. The NKJV is a distinct translation by its own statement. Your objection is rejected.

..........
* Definition online at dictionary.com from American Heritage dictionary definition 2.b.

 

I am not offended by it. But you have no biblical reason to have the KJV as your point of reference. All of your reasons are extrabiblical, man-made reasons. The KJV is, in fact, a bad point of reference. The point of reference that should be used is the original language manuscripts that God has graciously preserved for us.

I have no interest in convincing you of my opinion. My challenge is to use the Bible as your point of reference. "Faults" in the KJV are a matter of public record and have been for years. That's not really the issue. All versions have "faults."

I am not sure you grasp my objection. Distinct versions are still versions of the Bible. They are, by definition, "apples." An orange would be to compare them to a novel, or a tree, or a car. Comparing a KJV to a NASB is an apple to apple comparison.

I personally don't care which version of the Bible you use so long as you actually use it. I do care when the doctrine of Scripture is distorted to favor a particular version to the exclusion of other good versions.

 

Hi C4K

You asked........

Here is a good one.......

Matthew 28:19 (KJV)
“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:”

Matthew 28:19 (NKJV)
“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”
--------------------------------------------------
Here the NKJV, makes no sense. A “disciple” is a “student”: (How can we “make” a student?”)
(I wish I could.)

But we can teach(if someone is willing to learn).
--------------------------------------------------
To my knowledge, the KJV, is the only English Bible, that correctly translates, this verse!

 

Good post down the trail laid.

Ed

 

If you will study what the Greek word translated as "make disciples" means, you will find that they mean exactly that (actually could be translated "make learners"). Years before such things as KJVO's were popular, preachers used to say things like, "the words translated here as 'teach all nations' mean 'make disciples' in the Greek" and everybody hollered and said "Amen!" now half the crowd says "my Bible already says that" and the other half hollers, "Bible Corrector!!"

 

Impossible. All translations fall short of perfection. The conversion process assures that fault can always be found with a translation. Some have legitimate errors, and some have made questionable interpretations.

But even if an MV could be proved 100% faithful in its translation of original text, it would be not be acceptable to you. Since your standard is based on the TR text, no version based on another Greek text will ever be considered fully reliable to you. You offered a nearly empty challenge (there are but a very few modern renderings of the TR).

But the real reason that there are 'attacks' on the KJV is because of the assertion that it is a perfect translation. No human effort could result in perfection; therefore, if the KJV text is perfect then it is only because of Divine intervention. If God has provided a perfect translation then it will successfully withstand the trials. KJVists should welcome these challenges as an opportunity to again prove God's supernatural direction over the AV text.

These questions often discussed on the BB are those that test that claim --

• what should be thought of the status of the Greek Bible quoted by apostles?
• what should be thought of the status of the pre-1611 English Bibles?
• what should be thought of the status of Bibles in other languages?
• what should be thought of later KJV editions based upon the original AV text?
• would God choose to act in this manner only once in all of history?
• what scripture passage(s), if any, supports this assertion?
• etc.

 

And that is exactly what happens at my church, which is by majority, KJVO. The pastor interprets what the KJV says and it is exactly what my NKJV says. So, how is that the NKJV is inaccurate?

In fact, the NKJV is so identical to the KJV that I use KJV study tools, like commentaries, concordances and dictionaries. If the NKJV was totally different from and inferior to the KJV, the study tools would conflict, but they don't.

 

A disciple is a learner and a follower. We can make those and do it by "baptizing and teaching" according to the verse.

Your knowledge is flawed since you have incorrectly understand what matheteuo means.

 

First, you do not seem to know all the ways the English word "make" can be used. Check a dictionary to find the many useages of this word (including the meaning of 'to bring about', and 'to prepare' as in make dinner).

Second, you conveniently do not apply your strictly literal method of interpretation on the KJV. If you had, you may have stumbled over its text as well. (How can we teach a 'nation'?)

 

Are you implying that you have checked the more than 200 English translations of the New Testament to arrive at your conclusion?

I didn't think so (because here are just a few others) --

Go ye therfore, & teache all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the sonne, and of the holye ghost (Bishop's)

Go you therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (AKJV)

Go ye youre waye therfore, and teach all nacions, and baptyse them in the name of the father, and of the sonne, and of the holy goost: (Coverdale)

Go therefore, & teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and the Sonne, and the holy Ghost, (Geneva)

Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Webster)​

 

No Biblical reason to have the KJV as a point of reference? I don't even think that makes sense.

When I compare things I can use whatever I like as a point of reference. The distance from Richmond to Washington is the same as the distance from Washington to Richmond.

Your problem in this conversation is that you read things into my statements that I do not say.

Please show me the original manuscript that I should use as a point of reference. You can't. I know because I have looked. None of them read like my copy of Nestle-Alland.

........

I grasp your objection perfectly. It is completely wrong. It is a meaningless semantic argument.

 

Amy, do you really mean KJP, instead of KJO?

Anyway, my pastor uses the KJV and his explanations usually match up with my NLTse.

I think the radical KJVO preachers are caught in a bind when actually preaching (not just ranting against MV's). When they try to expound a text they will use modern English which some modern version has for the same text.So their interpretation of the text will sound like the NLTse,TNIV,NASBU, NKJ etc. It's ironic and funny.

 

The KJV used some different words than those in the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision. At times, the KJV in effect says something different than they said at verses. At other times the KJV uses a different word that updates the word in one of the pre-1611 English Bibles. Sometimes the KJV followed the word used in the 1582 Rheims N. T. instead of one of the words used in the pre-1611 Protestant English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops).

You can find all the same type differences between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV as can be found between the KJV and the NKJV.

 

L1560, is it true that in Blayney's edition of 1769 he put some words in the text which were in the marginal notes of the 1611?

 

I don't know where biblegateway.com got their information, but here are some citations from the Preface of the New King James Bible (1982, as found in The Evangelical Parallel New Testament, edited by Kohlenberger my bold) --

In harmony with the purpose f the King James scholars, the translators and editors of the present work have not persued a goal of innovation. They have perceived the Holy Bible, New king James Version, as a continuation of the labors of the earlier translators,...

In light of these facts, and also because the New King James version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, ...​

 

Hmm. I woud say KJVO. But he (pastor) has said that it is his view. He does not say that we "can't" use another version, but he firmly believes that the KJV is the only trustworthy version. I'm not really sure how he feels about the NKJV, I'm afraid to ask. :laugh:

We do have several people at our church who are KJVO BIG TIME! Even to the point of saying other versions are of satan. But most are not like that at all.

 

That sounds like Kohlenberger's learned opinion.

I am pretty sure that the quote I posted is consistent with what is in my print copy of the NKJV. I will try to check that later.

 

This is the preface in my NKJV:

(bolding mine)

 

Can you tell us the edition information (particularly date) from the title page Amy.G?