What About NKJV?

I use the NKJV and have for the past year and a half. Our pastor uses the KJV and I have never seen any difference in meaning between the two other than the NKJV is much easier to understand, especially for me since I was not raised reading any Bible. The KJV is like reading greek to me. (no pun intended :laugh: )
I used the NIV for years because that's what most people used at our previous church. But, I never did care for it and can't really tell you why. I feel that God led me to change to the NKJV. I really do love it. And as I said, as I am following along with the pastor as he teaches from the KJV, there has been no difference so far as I've seen between the two. Many times he will give the definition of a difficult word and it is always the same word as is in the NKJV. Example:
2 Tim. 3:3 KJV
Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce despisers of those that are good,

NKJV
unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good,

Of course, I can only speak as just a regular ol' Bible reading Christian. You will get lots of comments from the resident experts.

 

I know a preacher who was asked about the NKJV and instead of presenting a thoughtful argument about why the KJV is a better translation, his response was, "You mean the New Queen James?" I don't particularly care for this kind of response and would rather have heard a thoughtful, rational argument than a sound bite. Rather than discouraging me from the NKJV, it makes me wonder what the KJV defenders are afraid of.

 

CHANGE!:saint:

 

That's sickening.:tear:

 

"My son, fear thou the LORD and the king: and meddle not with them that are given to change:" - Proverbs 24:21​

 

I hope you change underwear, Rufus

 

If it's all the same to you, I'd rather not bring up my underwear on the Baptist Board. You can hear all about it in my next music video though. :thumbsup:

 

I have begun using the KKJV for all but preaching and teaching. It is from the same underlying text body as the KJV and uses the same philosophy of translation.

 

1 Peter 2:21 (KJV1611 Edition):
For euen hereunto were ye called:
because Christ also suffered for ||vs,
leauing vs an example,
that yee should follow his steps.

Margin note:
||Some reade, for you.

1 Peter 2:21 (nKJV):
For to this you were called,
because Christ also suffered for us*,
leaving us* and exampe,
that you should follow His steps:

Footnote:
* NU-Text reads you

(NU = Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies text
of the Greek New Testament)

This happens frequently, the nKJV follows
the Majority Text as does the KJV1611 Edition.

[ BTW, one of the major arguments against the
nKJV is that it doesn't use the Majority Text as often
as the KJVs do - but here the KJVCs
and the nKJV use the Majority Text. ]

 

consider the term 'CORRUPT' which in English
means ' 'spoiled'. This is a poor word which the KJVs
use:

2 Co 2:17 (KJV1611 Edition):
For wee are not as many which corrupt the word of God:
but as of sinceritie, but as of God, in the sight of God
speake we in Christ.

G2585
καπηλεύω
kapēleuō
kap-ale-yoo'-o
From κάπηλος kapēlos (a huckster); to retail,
that is, (by implication) to adulterate (figuratively):
- corrupt.


As usual, Strong's lists what the KJVs use, not what makes the
most sense. But why do the KJVs use 'corrupt'? Here is
a text that preceeds the KJVs:

2 Co 2:17 (Geneva Bible, 1587):
For wee are not as many, which
make marchandise of the woorde of God:
but as of sinceritie, but as of God in ye sight of God
speake we in Christ.

The nKJV reads at 2 Co 2:17:
For we are not,
as so many* peddling the word of
God; but as of sincerity, but as
from God, we speak in the sight of God
in Christ.

Footnote:
* M-Text reads the rest

M = The Majority Text of the Greek New Testament

The nKJV parts with the KJVs on the matter
of 'corrupt' but follows the KJVs and
does NOT use the Majority Text here.

[BTW, one of the major arguments against the
nKJV /which frequently gets lumped together with
the other Modern Translations (MTs) /]
is that it doesn't use the Majority Text as often
as the KJVs do - but here is the KJVs
doesn't use the Majority Text either.]

 

Hmmm... let's read in context, shall we?

Pr 24:21 My son, fear thou the LORD and the king: and meddle not with them that are given to change:
22 For their calamity shall rise suddenly; and who knoweth the ruin of them both?

It isn't speaking about Bible versions, music trends, or fashion styles, it is speaking of respect for governors- both Divine and human.

See, it is SO easy to understand your Bible when you read it in contineo contigi.

 

The word of a King established a Bible translation, the word of Thomas Nelson meddled and changed that translation.

 

You are missing what the BIBLE says. Those verses are NOT talking about Bible versions. To imply that they are is at the least poor homiletical interpretation, and at the worst, dishonest .

 

Nkjv

I'll trust a person educated in Greek and Hebrew before I would a king that simply did what he did for political advantage and to simply make exceedingly angry the Catholic establishment.

The NKJV and the KJV are one in the same, they are preservations of God's Word and not a reinspiration that many heritics claim it to be.

 

That's an easy one for anyone that works in the health care field.

INCONTENENT: not having control over urination and defecation.

Rob

 

Amy, I suspect you're referring to the "Queen James" comment. Is that right? Just wanting to make sure I'm understanding your statement correctly.

 

Making the Catholic establishment exceedingly angry should be considered a good thing amongst Baptists. Are you Baptist or Catholic?

King James spoke Greek, Latin, English, Scots, French, Italian and at least one or two more. Should we disqualify him from our trust because he didn't speak Hebrew?

Do you suppose that the KJV translators were not proficient in Greek and Hebrew? Will you trust this guy...

"Lancelot Andrews, a leader of the Old Testament translators, had been chaplain to Queen Elizabeth. He was fluent in fifteen modern languages, as well as Hebrew, Greek, and the cognate Biblical languages. He served as Dean of Westminster and later as Bishop of Winchester." (Source: http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_kjv/)​

Both of those Bibles suggest you should fear the King. If you were a subject of King James would you pay him honor or would you criticize him for making the Pope mad?

 

INCON'TINENT, a. [L. incontinens.] Not restraining the passions or appetites, particularly the sexual appetite; indulging lust without restraint or in violation of law; unchaste; lewd. (Source: Webster's 1828)​

 

If the only argument for using the KJV is that it was commissioned by a secular governing authority we are walking a some pretty thin ice.

I think I would sooner trust a Christian publishing company than a secular king.

Course, none of that has anything to do with choosing a Bible translation