Will the NKJV become the Next Version of the KJV?

[Phillip]

I would like to propose that after one generation (assuming we are still here), that the NKJV will be the next accepted version of the KJV, since the last, which I believe was the Oxford edition.

Any thoughts?

 

[gb93433]

I don't think so. Perhaps in the south, but I doubt elsewhere.

 

[pastorjeff]

Why the south gb93433?

 

[gb93433]

From my experience there are a number of folks who like the KJV now. I also saw more people who liked the NKJV there too. But in other areas of the U.S. where I have lived I hardly see a KJV. Most of my friends either use the NASB or the NIV. My daughter uses the NLT and NIV.

But either way I like it when I see them wearing them out by reading them.

 

[pastorjeff]

I prefer to preach from the KJV. I grew up with it and have memorized much of it so it throws me off when the words are different. I am reading alot from the NASB and like to read the OT in the NIV. But I still don't see what the South has to do with KJV or NKJV.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by gb93433:
From my experience there are a number of folks who like the KJV now. I also saw more people who liked the NKJV there too. But in other areas of the U.S. where I have lived I hardly see a KJV. Most of my friends either use the NASB or the NIV. My daughter uses the NLT and NIV.

But either way I like it when I see them wearing them out by reading them.

gb you are correct because I am looking at the world from a southwestern viewpoint. We are practically in Texas, so we are about as south as you can get when looking at the entire US. Therefore, what I see around me, may be completely different where you live.

I think what you are saying applies to what was called the "Bible belt" area where the KJV was used for so many years that older folks have more trouble letting it go.

Be careful, though, my question WAS whether or not it would become the NEXT KJV, not the next important MV. So, it is my opinion that many KJV preferreds are accepting the NKJV much easier than they would the NIV, for example. So, would you think that wherever the KJV is used--primarily--that it would become that next KJV?

 

[pastorjeff]

I don't see it happening. I think some KJV people have accepted it over the KJV, but not most. I like it, but still do the majority of all my Bible work in the KJV. I am one of the few people who can say I prefer the KJV not because it's better, but just because I prefer it. Sounds shallow, but I don't try to defend it biblically.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by pastorjeff:
I prefer to preach from the KJV. I grew up with it and have memorized much of it so it throws me off when the words are different. I am reading alot from the NASB and like to read the OT in the NIV. But I still don't see what the South has to do with KJV or NKJV.

I think a lot of people are KJV preferred, simply because it is either the Bible they grew up with or their long experience with it.

No problems there. It is also a very beautiful language and flows well.

I have heard new Christians really complain that they cannot understand the Bible in the KJV form. They really start reading their Bible when they get a newer version.

I read voraciously, but I have to be interested in what I read. With the KJV, I just cannot seem to get lost in the story and not be thinking about the wording. I can pick up an NIV and read for hours, whole books at a time, paying strict attention to the story and none to the "wording". And, I usually walk away with a lot more understanding, especially in the Old Testament prophecies, New Testament epistles and Revelation.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Originally posted by Phillip:
I would like to propose that after one generation (assuming we are still here), that the NKJV will be the next accepted version of the KJV, since the last, which I believe was the Oxford edition.

Any thoughts?

I certainly hope not. All of the churches I associate with use the KJV exclusively. I do not thing that the KJV will be replaced period.

 

[Phillip]

Terry, how many times were KJ versions replaced in the past?

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Phillip:
I would like to propose that after one generation (assuming we are still here), that the NKJV will be the next accepted version of the KJV, since the last, which I believe was the Oxford edition.

Any thoughts?

Never!

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Originally posted by Phillip:
Terry, how many times were KJ versions replaced in the past?

I don't know, nor do I care. It's kind of like "Goldilocks and the Three Bears," this time it's "just right."

 

[natters]

In other words, a fairy tale.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Terry, how many times were KJ versions replaced in the past?
--------------------------------------------------


Gods true words - the scriptures - have NEVER, nor EVER will be replaced. God has and will preserve them forever and are not replaced with something else by his faithful believers.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[natters]

michelle said "Gods true words - the scriptures - have NEVER, nor EVER will be replaced. "

Earlier you said that God replaced the scriptures they had before 1611 (i.e. the Geneva, etc.) with the KJV.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by michelle:
Gods true words - the scriptures - have NEVER, nor EVER will be replaced. God has and will preserve them forever and are not replaced with something else by his faithful believers.

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.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Earlier you said that God replaced the scriptures they had before 1611 (i.e. the Geneva, etc.) with the KJV.
--------------------------------------------------


Go back and read those posts again and with the desire to understand what it is I said, instead of assuming. I have NEVER said that God "replaced" the scriptures with something else. If he did, then they wouldn't be his scriptures, but something else. God's word does not change, just as He does not change. Many of you have a very hard time understanding what people write/say/believe, because I think you don't make any efforts to try to understand what is actually being said because of the false man made label slapped onto the truth that you vainly fight, and to which blinds you and causes you to make these false accusations and assumptions. This is your folly.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[natters]

Michelle said "and to which blinds you and causes you to make these false accusations and assumptions."

Ah, irony.

God replaced the earlier Bibles with the KJV. Were any/some of the earlier Bibles "scripture"? If so, God replaced it. If they weren't, what did they have?

 

[Johnv]

So, Michelle, was it wrong for the Puritans to continue using the Geneva Bible after the issuance of the AV 1611? Was it wrong for them to being the Geneva Bible to the US with them in 1620?

 

[michelle]

I guess it depends upon what you understand as the definition of "replace" and whether you look solely at the scriptures - the words of God - in this issue, or solely as versions or labels attached to them.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle