Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Marking for e-mail.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Will the NKJV become the Next Version of the KJV?
- Thread starter Phillip
- Start date
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.
KJVBibleThumper
New Member
All I have to say on this subject is that Gods Word WILL NEVER PASS AWAY!! And the KJV is Gods Word, so it will never disappear!! Unlike the modern versions it has stood the test of time without being replaced and WILL NOT FALL BY THE WAYSIDE as every modern version that, because God is not behind them will vanish and be replaced by "new and improved" versions.
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.
Terry_Herrington
New Member
Amen! Preach it!
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
You are right - it will never totally pass away any more than the Vulgate has passed away. Sadly, however, it will just fade away into general disuse. Already here it is difficult to find a KJV.
Sadly, I don't think a solid translation like the NKJV will replace it. More and more "dynamic equivalance" will continue to water down future version
.Johnv wrote;
"The 1611 KJV was replaced by the 1629 KJV, which was a major revision involving updating of language. The 1629 KJV was replaced with the 1769 KJV, which, again, was a major revision in the updating of language. The 1769 edition was followed by the 1850 edition, again involving a language update. There were also minor revisions done in 1613, 1638, 1744, and 1762, involving mostly printing, spelling, and grammer issues.
The KJV translations used most often today are the 1769 edition and 1850 edition."
If I buy a Holman, Nelson, or Zonderman publishing version of the King James Bible how do I know which of the KJV (revision date) I am getting, does it say which one it is based on in the copywrite? My two copies, an A.J. Holman printing and a Regency/Nelson Family Bible (both over 25 years old) do not give a date.
Thanks, Bruce
"The 1611 KJV was replaced by the 1629 KJV, which was a major revision involving updating of language. The 1629 KJV was replaced with the 1769 KJV, which, again, was a major revision in the updating of language. The 1769 edition was followed by the 1850 edition, again involving a language update. There were also minor revisions done in 1613, 1638, 1744, and 1762, involving mostly printing, spelling, and grammer issues.
The KJV translations used most often today are the 1769 edition and 1850 edition."
If I buy a Holman, Nelson, or Zonderman publishing version of the King James Bible how do I know which of the KJV (revision date) I am getting, does it say which one it is based on in the copywrite? My two copies, an A.J. Holman printing and a Regency/Nelson Family Bible (both over 25 years old) do not give a date.
Thanks, Bruce
Bruce
From the brilliant Ed Edwards:
Simply compare Ruth 3:15 to the following table.
Ruth 3:15 (KJV1769):
... and she went into the city.
Ruth 3:15 (KJV1873):
... and he went into the city.
Ruth 3:15 (KJV1611);
... and he went into the citie.
9 out of 10 times it is a 1769 edition of the KJB.
From the brilliant Ed Edwards:
Simply compare Ruth 3:15 to the following table.
Ruth 3:15 (KJV1769):
... and she went into the city.
Ruth 3:15 (KJV1873):
... and he went into the city.
Ruth 3:15 (KJV1611);
... and he went into the citie.
9 out of 10 times it is a 1769 edition of the KJB.
manchester
New Member
No, the NKJV will not be the new KJV.
If there is one version that people will worship, and rebuke God for speaking through other translations, it will be the NIV. The NIV is the new standard in churches.
If there is one version that people will worship, and rebuke God for speaking through other translations, it will be the NIV. The NIV is the new standard in churches.
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?
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?
manchester
New Member
I went to a KJVO only church in the Bible Belt. Most of my family is KJVO. My mother liked the NKJV and when I brought it to church in the Bible Belt, the people told me it ain't the Bible. Things may have changed in the last 10 years.
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.)
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.)
Indeed, the English language changes every day but the not preserved Word of God in the Hebrew and Greek as the KJV translators themselves bore witness:
The NIV seems to be the version that is currently displacing the KJV.
I would have much rather seen the NKJV be the displacer seeing that is based upon the TR.
The NKJV does need work however (IMO).
I would like to see an NIV Edition based upon the TR.
HankD
Phillip said:
"In fact, I have never even seen KJVO until I came to this board."
That is pretty much my experience. A second cousin who was an IFB pastor sent us a newsletter blasting Good News for Modern Man back in the '70s; other than that, KJVO was totally beyond my experience.
I grew up in a small-town church and used the Living Bible (briefly) before moving on to the NASB (the one with the ugly soft orange cover.) I also carried the Phillips NT and, sometimes, the RSV. No one ever said a word of disapproval. My parallel NT went unremarked.
"In fact, I have never even seen KJVO until I came to this board."
That is pretty much my experience. A second cousin who was an IFB pastor sent us a newsletter blasting Good News for Modern Man back in the '70s; other than that, KJVO was totally beyond my experience.
I grew up in a small-town church and used the Living Bible (briefly) before moving on to the NASB (the one with the ugly soft orange cover.) I also carried the Phillips NT and, sometimes, the RSV. No one ever said a word of disapproval. My parallel NT went unremarked.
Terry_Herrington
New Member
I don't think you will ever see this happen. We will just continue to see new translations that water down God's Holy Word, and continue to put money in the pockets of publishers.