Kjv or nkjv which is better

Their mission to get the Bible to the nations is all-important. But slander and untruth will not serve that mission; they will only hamper it. One of the major purposes of my work on the King James Version is to encourage my brothers who prefer the Textus Receptus to make or use a translation of it into contemporary English. I end each decidedly unpersuaded by their arguments.

The New King James is weighed in the balances and found wanting. After years of careful work in the text of the KJV, I cannot support this advice. He wrote only about a century after the KJV. Edification requires intelligibility. They wrote,. As nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the latter thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being helped by their labours, do endeavour to make that better which they left so good, no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us.

I am certain that they would agree with me that, because of language change and other factors, the time for revision or replacement of the KJV has come. Too many plow boys around the English-speaking world, from Singapore to Canada to Kenya, are—because of language change—reading and memorizing KJV words that are unintelligible to them when contemporary equivalents are available.

The KJV is not entirely unintelligible , but it is sufficiently unintelligible to trip up even its most skillful defenders see no. Paul the apostle tells us in 1 Corinthians 14 that edification requires intelligibility. First Name. Last Name. I've been using this book as my main helper while preaching very slowly because very occasionally through the Sermon on the Mount Carson Grand Rapids: Baker, Don Carson's prose is elegant, and his pace is perfect. He briskly moves the reader through a narrative of the conflict among evangelical Christians over so-called I appreciated your statement re.

Does Hembd discuss at all Exodus ? For me this is the example par excellence where nobody in their right mind could possibly say the KJV is superior. I pray you, too, are safe. Mark, I have enjoyed the comments between you and Paul. Good and helpful stuff. Just one comment.

If they think the KJV is better, I would not expect them to use something else in public ministry. I totally get this, Robert. As far as my experience can tell me, and there are no Gallup polls available to correct me here, every last man who prefers the TR also prefers the KJV. Is the text really the issue? I do disagree with his position on the KJV, but I took note that he used 1 Cor 14 as an argument for having the Bible in vernacular languages. Brother, to be a little clearer, hopefully, what I meant about the disconnect is in applying your reasoning about TR defenders wanting an updated English translation.

Is there any evidence that this is the reasoning of any TR defenders? It seems your search has turned up none, even though you expect there should be some. Really, I am not saying you are unreasonable to think that way, just questioning whether that it is appropriate to project on to TR defenders since they themselves have not. Now I can see why you think that way. I have not done any extensive searching, but trust yours. The little searching I have done has turned up nothing.

So, for him, it was a compromise. Just throwing this out, but it seems a likely possibility. Possibilities, all of which I think get a piece of the pie but leave room for other answers as well. I hope this comes through more focused than my mind is right now, having several distractions flitting about. Excellent contributions, Robert. Would he be willing to contact me and tell me more? Mark, I appreciate this article. However, a light revision, fewer synonyms in the same passage for a single Greek word, etc.

Every time I read it, I want to correct it! Personally, I think that the WEB might offer a better basis or departure for a MT translation : the generous public licence to adopt and adapt allows for great flexibility. Great shame! But, paradoxically. Hi Mark. The NKJV is my primary version. That being said, I think there is an often overlooked factor in the discussion as to why TR advocates overwhelmingly use the KJV.

Many stick with the KJV because it is not in the hands of publishing companies and therefore not subject to constant updates. Also it is not subject to updates that are influenced more by our current cultural trends than anything else. For instance, I love the New King James as it stands but I am worried that when the update comes it will be an egalitarian gender-neutral mess.

I agree with you that if there ever were going to be an update to the KJV, it would need to be a trusted institution like the TBS that undertakes the work. Hope this helps. Brother, have you read much by D.

These are both men who are respected and loved by conservatives such as myself and you, I presume! Vern Poythress is someone I respect a great, great deal who is unhappy with the treatment of gender in the the TNIV, for example.

And I think he makes some really good points. But I think Carson and Moo make some good points, too. But this debate divides conservatives, and conservatives such as Carson ought to be given a hearing.

You may be unique in all my experience. Many, myself included, have written them on this issue. One of the big draws of the KJV is that it will not be altered in the future due to pressure from a culture that is growing increasingly more hostile to Biblical truth. I have not read Carson or Moo on the topic of gender and translation, but I will check it out. I have read and listened to his discussions on this issue of gender and translation, and respectfully disagree with him at points.

I am a proud supporter of the Trinitarian Bible Society, but I find their articles against the NKJV as a translation not to be very balanced or compelling. To clarify my comments on Harper Collins committing to not changing the text, I would be just as happy if they would commit to the continued publication of the current edition of the NKJV after the update comes out. I just know that the actual individuals working on Bible translation are evangelicals. I work at a company that serves the church.

I really did. But digging into his work in detail was a big disappointment. Respectful disagreement with Mounce is okay; you may come to the same conclusion after reading Carson and Moo. And no one should ever do that with those two men. They are some of our top, most gifted guys. Gifts to the church. As to trusting the TBS, I appreciate most of their stances.

I appreciate their stand in leaving a Bible society that insisted on having Unitarians and other unorthodox influences be involved in working on the Word of God. I appreciate their work in distributing the Word of God around the world. I think the distinction is helpful. Thanks for taking time to reply. This was a very gracious article, I appreciate it. Lots of hypothetical suspicions and almost no substance.

My experience seems to be very similar to yours: Invariably TR advocates end up advocating whatever ended up in the KJV, and everything else falls short of that. A very puzzling methodology which no one could determine a priori…. God help us all. Thank you for the well thought write up. I feel different from both them and Alexandrian defenders. My stance stems from something alien to most discussions: I just lean on Tradition. We would at least see some reactions, even if if indirectly.

Especially in a highly liturgical tradition. Liturgy is the most repetitive practice that humans engage in. If there was such a noticable change in texts, older family members would have pointed it out to grandkids, or there even would have been outright revolts revolts like what happened when Jerome correctly updated the Old Latin Gospels and Old Testament texts.

What more could I want? I would also hope that they rethink their policy of capitalizing pronouns. For example, 2 Thess stands out. This is cogent. And when I do talk about textual criticism my focus is mainly on pulling people away from what my friend Tim Berg kjbhistory. This is great. They think the KJV is some holy text in and of itself, that should be treated just like the original Hebrew and Greek.

The whole idea of footnotes ruins that. Anyone who cites Riplinger with approbation, as Melton does, does not deserve to be listened to. How much more problematic is it that the original KJV included the non-inspired Apocrypha in its very text?

Melton does not give even one example, so his claim cannot be taken seriously. This is a bad thing only if you accept as dogma that the original KJV is inerrant — which is a ludicrous position. If so, it is a bogus argument. Where changes are not made in the text, subtle footnotes often give credence to the Westcott and Hort Greek Text. At most one could say that some of the translations chosen are not the best that could have been picked, but the same can be said of the KJV.

Ooh, Melton finally gives some specifics! How nice! Now we can see how truly bogus his claims are. They can all be checked by consulting KJV and NKJV concordances side by side for each of these words, to see where and how often they occur in each translation.

Sheol is the abode of the spirits of the dead, prior to the final allocation of corporeal people into heaven and hell after the Millennium. The KJV also risibly tells us that hell will be cast into hell, in Revelation The KJV translation only describes part of the symptoms, and not clearly. It would be interesting to see where Melton got this idea from; it is certain that he did not bother to check its veracity.

Actually, this provides a salutary example of superior translation in the NKJV. The following are just three examples of many:. Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people … And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

In two of the passages, the KJV translation is flat-out wrong, as in these passages the Hebrew word is not actually shamayim. However, if he wishes to list the passages in which these alleged omissions are made, we could look at it.

The personal name of God is revealed in the OT. The consonants correspond to YHWH, but the vowels have not been recorded for us, as the Jews believed the name to be too holy to say.

The NKJV follows this convention consistently. Why it should be considered laudable to translate this way in only these seven places is not clear.

The full deity and Lordship of Christ are clearly presented in this translation. Regarding Hebrews , this complaint is hilarious! The name is the same in Greek. This is a flagrant error in the KJV!

And it is exactly the same in the case of Acts , where, if anything, it is even more clear that the person being talked about is Joshua of the OT, not Jesus! In other words, we have here an important witness to the deity of Christ, which is absent from the KJV because the translators did not know enough Greek grammar at the time.

In each of these passages, the verb is a present participle, not a perfect, so the NKJV translations are correct and the KJV translations are wrong.

The NKJV is an altogether new translation of the source material, a fact that reveals itself in side-by-side comparisons. You have dozens of versions of the Bible to choose from, many of which vary greatly from one another. If you are interested in a faithful translation, remember that the differences between the KJV and NKJV are bigger than their titles may suggest.

NKJV — This is aimed at a more general population. With its slightly more easy to read format, more people can understand the text. Translation popularity. KJV — is still by far the most popular Bible translation. Pros and cons of both. This is the Bible that our grandparents and great grandparents read to many of us from.

One of the biggest cons of this Bible is its entirety came from the Textus Receptus. Gary G. Cohen, D. Robert Schuller, Greg Laurie. Study Bibles to choose. Other Bible Translations.