What is the difference between NKJV and KJV?

[Sajarie]

I see lots of bibles are now called New Kings James Version instead of Kings James Version. What's the difference?

[Madigan]

Can't resist...

One is newer. :hiya :D:

[BHiles]

I see lots of bibles are now called New Kings James Version instead of Kings James Version. What's the difference?
Most think that the New King James Version is just a version that removes "thees" and "thous". That is not the case. The KJV used a certain set of manuscripts that included the Textus Receptus and avoided the Alexandrian manuscripts. The New KJV however mixed in the Alexandrian Scripts in processing their translation.

If you wonder why that matters then look for KJVOnly debates throughout the site.

[AnyDayNow]

I see lots of bibles are now called New Kings James Version instead of Kings James Version. What's the difference?

The NKJV calls itself the fifth revision of the KJV, but it is not really a revision, it is an entirely new translation based on the same Greek NT manuscripts as the KJV was. The Gideons started replacing KJV Bibles with NKJV Bibles some time ago. They were concerned about readability.

I have and use both versions, as well as others. If you don't mind reading the KJV and like it, by all means stick with it. Translation choices are a matter of personal usage and conviction by the Holy Spirit. Use the one(s) you feel convicted about and which suit your needs the best.

[Literalist-Luke]

If you do start delving into the KJV-only debates, keep in mind that the KJV has its own share of glaring translation errors. And when you start reading the arguments about modern versions "deleting" Scriptures, ask yourself if the modern version really "deleted" Scriptures, or did the KJV add Scriptures that were never intended by God to be in there.

There, now I've stirred up the muddy waters so they're really filthy. :D:

[Sajarie]

What bible was used before KJV?

[OwnedByJesus]

What bible was used before KJV?

You mean what translation? I can't say :B: Don't have my stuff @ work, but if you have a study Bible it may tell you in the front...sort of a 'how we got the Bible' type thing.

:):

[Paula W.]

:tape LALALALALALA!!! :tape

Too much :rant :rant :rant and too much :catfight :catfight :catfight

:fish

[BHiles]

If you do start delving into the KJV-only debates, keep in mind that the KJV has its own share of glaring translation errors. And when you start reading the arguments about modern versions "deleting" Scriptures, ask yourself if the modern version really "deleted" Scriptures, or did the KJV add Scriptures that were never intended by God to be in there.

There, now I've stirred up the muddy waters so they're really filthy. :D:


Therefore for the last 400 years or so until these new translation all man had were bad translations because God was impotent in preserving His own word and now we are so much better off and spiritually enlightened with the new modern versions than when all they had was that flawed old KJV :rolleyes

[haeschen]

God bless you BHiles! I'm with you on KJV! Why do we think we are so much smarter than our ancestors?

[Literalist-Luke]

What bible was used before KJV?At first, there were just various manuscripts floating around the Mediterranean area. Then, along about the 4th or 5th Centuries, Jerome assembled a Latin translation of most of the "books" that had been come to be widely accepted as the canon of Scriptures. The Roman Catholic Church used Jerome's translation along with a few other sources to assemble the "Latin Vulgate Bible", which was declared the official Bible of the RCC. This version of the Bible was maintained in all the RCC's various parishes. Unfortunately, the RCC decided to consolidate its power over the European continent by using the Scriptures to hold the population hostage, and the Dark Ages promptly got underway. Europe went through a period of about 1000 years in which economic, educational, and artistic development were choked by the RCC. They did it by keeping the masses convinced that they had the keys to heaven and that you better "tow the line", so to speak. The worst fate that could possibly happen to a poor soul was being "ex-communicated", which sealed one's destiny in hell. The only people allowed to read the Scriptures were Church officials, i.e. priests, bishops, etc. If any layman read it, the punishment was death. However, that was not usually a problem, because the RCC had control of most people's education and made sure they did not have the education needed to read the Latin Bible. There were always a few renegades here and there, however who forced the RCC to keep the local "stake" fresh in case any "heretics" needed to be burned at it for daring to "usurp" the priest's job of disseminating the Scriptures to the masses (edited to fit Catholic doctrines, of course).

There were a few individual translations that developed gradually, especially William Tyndale's and John Wycliffe's English translations. Both men spent their entire lives hiding and running from the RCC for the "blasphemy" of giving uneducated laypeople the "burden" of having to interpret the Scriptures on their own without a Priest standing over their shoulder to tell them what it "really" meant. I think Wycliffe was eventually hunted down and murdered, but I don't remember if Tyndale was or not. You should be able to find ample details about both at Wikipedia.com if you're interested.

The KJV used the Tyndale translation as its launching point, although the translators used the best, most reliable copies of the original language manuscripts they had at the time to rebuild the translation from scratch. It was the first complete Bible ever produced that was intended for the masses and that the government or the Church were not trying to stamp out of existence. The first Bible ever printed was the Gutenberg Bible which was a copy of Jerome's Latin translation. It was first printed in 1453. It was also one of the first books ever published on a printing press.

[Literalist-Luke]

Therefore for the last 400 years or so until these new translation all man had were bad translations because God was impotent in preserving His own word and now we are so much better off and spiritually enlightened with the new modern versions than when all they had was that flawed old KJV :rolleyesYep.

[Literalist-Luke]

Therefore for the last 400 years or so until these new translation all man had were bad translations because God was impotent in preserving His own word and now we are so much better off and spiritually enlightened with the new modern versions than when all they had was that flawed old KJV :rolleyesOh, and also, if you want to talk about what a horrible job God did of preserving His Scriptures, then how do you explain the fact the He allowed the Catholic Church to keep people from even reading the Bible for 1000 years? If the KJV makes God look "impotent" (to use your word, not mine), then He REALLY look impotent for allowing the RCC to choke off His word completely.

[BHiles]

Oh, and also, if you want to talk about what a horrible job God did of preserving His Scriptures, then how do you explain the fact the He allowed the Catholic Church to keep people from even reading the Bible for 1000 years? If the KJV makes God look "impotent" (to use your word, not mine), then He REALLY look impotent for allowing the RCC to choke off His word completely.
You are inferring it not me.

I have already discussed this at length with literally hundreds of hours of study behind it. I am not a KJV onlyist but I am a Textus Receptus onlyist and have done the study to back up why I believe the gnostics and the college of Philo at Alexandria grossly mishandled the Word of God abolishing multiple doctrines including the one which we all celebrate on this site the premillineal return of Jesus Christ. If you were as your name says a Literalist then you would abhor anything Alexandrian also. They were not literalist they were complete gnostic allegorists.

With that I will be done with this thread because it has been done enough already for anyone interested in searching it out on this board.

[Literalist-Luke]

You are inferring it not me.I could have sworn that "impotent" appeared in your post first...http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/litluke/39.gif
I have already discussed this at length with literally hundreds of hours of study behind it.Excellent. I would welcome details about it, although a different thread might be a good idea out of respect for the OP.I am not a KJV onlyist but I am a Textus Receptus onlyist and have done the study to back up why I believe the gnostics and the college of Philo at Alexandria grossly mishandled the Word of God abolishing multiple doctrines including the one which we all celebrate on this site the premillineal return of Jesus Christ.To be honest, that is not an area that I can claim to be an expert about, but I certainly don't see the 2nd Coming missing from the TNIV or any other modern translation. :confusedIf you were as your name says a Literalist then you would abhor anything Alexandrian also.Why, because you say so? You actually might get more people to listen to your case if you would calm down.They were not literalist they were complete gnostic allegorists.I would be interested in more information. :nodWith that I will be done with this thread because it has been done enough already for anyone interested in searching it out on this board.You won't even post a link to a good thread to start with? :mmph

[JerRockson]

I have a KJV and NKJV and think that they're both fine. You see, translations like NKJV, NIV, NASB, etc. certainly won't add anything like "Satan died for my sins." That would be wrong. Anyway, my favorites do include NIV and others just mentioned.

[Forgotten_Child]

:popcorn :threadsneaker

[Sajarie]

I found an ultraslim NKJV bible in a flea market booth and haven't found yet a KJV that was ultraslim like that on ebay and was just wondering because that pastor wrote a book about Satan messing with bibles and altering God's word and was just wondering if it was ok to get the bible because it would be less bulky to carry around and all and that would be convenient although that isn't a good reason to get a bible if it's been altered and all.

Been wanting that bible since I first saw it. Thought it was cool/neat.

[Wildcat81]

The KJV used a certain set of manuscripts that included the Textus Receptus and avoided the Alexandrian manuscripts. The New KJV however mixed in the Alexandrian Scripts in processing their translation.

Strictly speaking, the KJV translators didn't use a set of manuscripts including the Textus Receptus, they used only the Textus Receptus (for the NT - they used the Masoretic Text for the OT).

Also, the NKJV translators did not, so far as I know, did not use Alexandrian manuscripts in their translation. The places where the NKJV differs (in more than just modern/archaic language) from the KJV has largely to do with where the Textus Receptus differs from the Majority text. That is to say, there are a number of readings in the Textus Receptus that are different from the majority of manuscripts (Acts 8:37 and 1 John 5:7 are a couple of examples). The NKJV follows the Majority text in such cases.

[Enlightenment]

I found an ultraslim NKJV bible in a flea market booth and haven't found yet a KJV that was ultraslim like that on ebay and was just wondering because that pastor wrote a book about Satan messing with bibles and altering God's word and was just wondering if it was ok to get the bible because it would be less bulky to carry around and all and that would be convenient although that isn't a good reason to get a bible if it's been altered and all.

Been wanting that bible since I first saw it. Thought it was cool/neat.

Go ahead and get it. It's a fine Bible.

[Elizabeth_S]

Go ahead and get it. It's a fine Bible.

Yes it is.