The NKJV

[Trust & Obey]

I would agree.  The NKJV is a very good translation as far as the actual translation goes.  It mostly agrees with the Byzantine/Textus Receptus roots.  However, the purpose of the NewKJV was to bring strong KJV-only believers a little bit to the left/right. 

It was a tactic meant to sway these fundamentalists.  The thinking is simple: get KJV readers to read the NewKJV and they will subconciously, if nothing else, accept and/or be more sympathetic to the other modern versions and their manuscripts. 

If you read the NewKJV and have a moderately, if not excellent, translation...but are attacked by nagging and doubting footnotes and marginal references which question this verse and second-guess that word, etc...what can be the outcome but a compromise???  And that is the NewKJV's reason for being...watering down the hardliners until there are none left.  They've done a good job.

After all...if you'll read the NewKJV...why not the NIV??? Where does one draw the line...???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

halifax, don't even start.

Regarding your last comment of "After all...if you'll read the NewKJV...why not the NIV??? Where does one draw the line...???"

The answer is simple: There are many mistranslations in the NIV that can easily be pointed out... errors of commission and omission. The same CANNOT be said of the NKJV.

That is the difference.

[Trust & Obey]

This site ( if you haven't been there already yomo) shows the differences in the translations, side by side examples of how TNP changed the wording and thus changed the meaning.  http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/scriptur...mes-version.htm

Here are two examples, one example from the OT and one from the new testement :

KJV:Proverbs 11:16

A gracious woman retaineth honour: and strong men retain riches.

NewKJV: Proverbs 11:16

A gracious woman retains honor, but ruthless men retain riches.

Here we go again. Before posting "differences" as evidence of error it would be wise to go to the root language and see what the difference is for.

In this case of Prov 11:16 the Hebrew root word is ariyts and it means "mighty, oppressor, strong, terrible, and violent."

The word "strong" in the days of the KJV gave this meaning. However, in modern usage today the world "strong" does not imply, by itself, "terrible, violent, etc." Hence this verse has been improved for today by the NKJV.

KJV: Hebrews 2:16

For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

New KJV:  Hebrews 2:16

For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham.

As you can see clearly by these two examples the meaning is completly changed.

Here's the problem. In the Greek the words "him the nature of" are not even in the original language. It was added by the KJV translators. This is a poor example of a "mistranslation," seeing as it is not a "translation" at all in dispute, but rather the validity of the KJV translators adding the words that they chose to add.

I'll go through the rest of these a little later when I have time, but I suspect they will all be easily explained.

[hopper]

Edited April 17, 2008 by hopper

[Trust & Obey]

Some things I don't like are ( and I started a post on this )

2Timothy 2:15 in the NEW KJV says to "Be diligent to present yourself approved to G-d, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

The KJV says: Study to show thyself approved untio G-d , a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

To me, being diligent can mean many things, on the other hand study is self apparent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is "self-apparent" in today's usage, but that is because it has taken on a different meaning than it had in the days of the KJV.

The word "study" means "diligence." When someone "studies" for a test" they are being dilligent in learning the material.

A "studious person" is a 'diligent and hard-working person."

Here is Webster's definition for "studious." Notice how many times the word "diligent," or variations thereof, are used.

3 a : diligent or earnest in intent <made a studious effort> b : marked by or suggesting purposefulness or diligence <a studious expression on his face> c : deliberately or consciously planned <spoke with a studious

In modern usage the word "study" has come to mean "reading or laboring for the purpose of learning." That is NOT what it meant in the days of the KJV.

The Greek word for study/diligent is spoudazo and it means "diligent, be diligent, labour, study, endeavor."

Clearly, the meaning of the word spoudazo does not mean "study" as it is used today.

It is simply a verb used to imply diligence and labour... hard work, in other words.

So, the NKJV has, once again, improved the wording of this passage for our modern form of english.

Now, it is important to study the Bible... but, the issue here is "has the NKJV perverted this passage? The answer is "no, it hasn't."

[Guest Zayit]

In modern usage the word "study" has come to mean "reading or laboring for the purpose of learning." That is NOT what it meant in the days of the KJV.

The word "strong" in the days of the KJV gave this meaning. However, in modern usage today the world "strong" does not imply, by itself, "terrible, violent, etc." Hence this verse has been improved for today by the NKJV.

How about what it meant in the day it was written?

I still understand what study means, you don't need a college degree to read this and understand that.

:What about the arguement that L-RD and G-d have actually been taken out?

You are correct in that it is written of today, and it is "New" for those not looking for the truth, but of a New World Order.

[Trust & Obey]

In modern usage the word "study" has come to mean "reading or laboring for the purpose of learning." That is NOT what it meant in the days of the KJV.

The word "strong" in the days of the KJV gave this meaning. However, in modern usage today the world "strong" does not imply, by itself, "terrible, violent, etc." Hence this verse has been improved for today by the NKJV.

How about what it meant in the day it was written?

I think I covered that above.

I still understand what study means, you don't need a college degree to read this and understand that.

It appears as though you are not considering the Greek word that was translated "study." I covered that, too.

:What about the arguement that L-RD and G-d have actually been taken out?

Please list some examples and I'll look into those. It's hard for me to comment on "hundreds of verses" without some specificity and research.

You are correct in that it is written of today, and it is "New" for those not looking for the  truth, but of a New World Order.

This is propaganda that is not substantiated by anything more than a "conspiracy-theory" accusation. If you have some evidence for this please present it. Otherwise, you are simply spreading unsubstantiated "conspiracy-theory" rumors and doing a disservice to the body of Christ.

[serotta]

I just don't understand how people can take one english translation and hold it up as so much better than any others. And to say that any translation other than KJV is somehow helping to bring about a NWO is just ludicrous. The KJV needed to be revised almost as soon as it was released, over 500 errors were corrected. We've shown in posts above that the wording does not really follow the intent of the original transcripts for today's readers. Please give this up! If you're happy reading the KJV, that's great. But please quit trying to shove it down everyone else's throats.

[Guest Zayit]

I never tried to shove anything down anyones throat , your accusation is unfounded. In fact I have just about every modern version there is, and almost 50 different Bibles, I don't use only one, each has its own agenda, that is why I look up the original language. But regardless I would never recommend the NKJV to anyone. I bought one myself years ago and was so happy when I did, you know because it was touted as an "easier read". I found that I really have no trouble with the old english, I have memorized scripture from the KJ but when I think of the verses, I don't think in Old English. I think it is best to have the grammer properly transliterated to get full understandning as to who is being spoken to and who is being spoken about.

[yomotalking]

Oh boy.

I love the NKJV, but if it's all wrong......

Where am I going to get an ACCURATE translation????

[halifaxchristian]

The NKJV is a terrific translation of the Bible and is much improved over the KJV. The differences" in the NKJV vs. the KJV are merited by the original languages and improve the understanding of the text.

There is no validity to the "the NKJV is of the devil" accusation. I've gone through this at length with halifaxchristian in another thread located here:

http://www.worthyboards.com/forums/index.p...pic=25946&st=10

The discussion of the KJV vs. the NKJV starts at the bottom of that page and goes throughout the rest of the thread, albeit off-topic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To assume that you "won" the debate and, thus, the NKJV is not satanic...is a misinterpretation of the facts. I do not believe that my arguments were proven wrong in any way, shape, or form. I believe that I presented my case fully and effectively and have shown that the NKJV is in fact Satanic in origin.

Praise the Lord God!