# KJV folks - why not the NKJV?



## MichaelNZ (Aug 18, 2016)

My question to those who use the KJV is this: why not use the NKJV instead? It's translated from the Textus Receptus, yet is easier to understand and doesn't use archaic words. Plus, it tells you which NT texts have which alternate readings.

Also, do you think using the KJV is an obstacle to spreading the Gospel to those who have never read the Bible? Do you think the average guy on the street with no Bible education can read the KJV and understand it as well as he could an NKJV, NIV, HCSB or ESV? I remember hearing that a guy from the local Independent Fundamental KJV Only Baptist church in my city told a guy in the prison to switch to the KJV from whatever other translation he was reading, and he complained that he couldn't understand it. Wouldn't the NKJV be a better option in those circumstances?

I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Aug 18, 2016)

I personally love the NKJV, but I think most of the folks on here who would reject it would do so because it was not translated under the authority of the church and because it fails to disntiguish between singular and plural pronouns. I'm sure there are other reasons as well, but those were just two that came to mind.


----------



## Warren (Aug 18, 2016)

I like old words. They force me to think harder about what I'm reading.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tyrese (Aug 18, 2016)

MichaelNZ said:


> My question to those who use the KJV is this: why not use the NKJV instead? It's translated from the Textus Receptus, yet is easier to understand and doesn't use archaic words. Plus, it tells you which NT texts have which alternate readings.
> 
> Also, do you think using the KJV is an obstacle to spreading the Gospel to those who have never read the Bible? Do you think the average guy on the street with no Bible education can read the KJV and understand it as well as he could an NKJV, NIV, HCSB or ESV? I remember hearing that a guy from the local Independent Fundamental KJV Only Baptist church in my city told a guy in the prison to switch to the KJV from whatever other translation he was reading, and he complained that he couldn't understand it. Wouldn't the NKJV be a better option in those circumstances?
> 
> I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.



Personally, I don't think this is a translation issue but rather an issue of understanding the Bible. Someone who has never read the Bible will eventually seek out help so that he or she can understand it. I can't tell you how many times I've had a person ask me to help them understand a passage of scripture that they didn't understand. But that's what I want. I want people to ask for help and ask questions. Yes there's a few words in the KJV that need defining, but come on guys it's not as bad as you all make I out to be. I prefere the NKJV, but it's not because I don't understand anything in the KJV.


----------



## Tyrese (Aug 18, 2016)

Warren said:


> I like old words. They force me to think harder about what I'm reading.



Exactly! I would also add that most of the new translations of the Bible haven't been around long enough for any one person to prove that they are in fact better (or easier) to read than the KJV. Fact is people need to be taught the Bible. They need guides. May we never get to the place were we think a translation is so clear that we no longer need teachers and preachers to show sinners the way.


----------



## Edward (Aug 18, 2016)

Tyrese said:


> most of the new translations of the Bible haven't been around long enough for any one person to prove that they are in fact better (or easier) to read than the KJV.



Readability can be scored, and yes, many of the newer translations ARE more readable than the KJV. The KJV generally scores out as needing a 12th grade reading ability; several of the newer translations grade out at the junior high level.


----------



## Tyrese (Aug 18, 2016)

Edward said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> > most of the new translations of the Bible haven't been around long enough for any one person to prove that they are in fact better (or easier) to read than the KJV.
> ...



Yes, but are they more readable to the point where a new Chriatian will not need a verse or word explained?


----------



## Tyrese (Aug 18, 2016)

Just yesterday my wife was asking me about Ephesians 5:4 which says, "...neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks." (NKJV) We had to define "jesting" because it's not a word that we regularly make use of. If someone complained about a verse such as this one, would you get rid of the NKJV, or just define the word?


----------



## Edward (Aug 18, 2016)

Tyrese said:


> Yes, but are they more readable to the point where a new Chriatian will not need a verse or word explained?



As for word, it depends on the reading level of the person. 

As for verse, it depends on which verse. "All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them." John 11:35 is pretty easily understood in almost all English translations.


----------



## Warren (Aug 18, 2016)

My buddy reads kvj, because that's what they had in jail. Never cracked a book till he read the bible. He reads fine. I think the Word's an active sword, regardless of the wielder, because God's doing the cutting.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tyrese (Aug 18, 2016)

Edward said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, but are they more readable to the point where a new Chriatian will not need a verse or word explained?
> ...



Agreed. And the same applies to the KJV.


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 19, 2016)

In the congregation I attend the former pastor (years ago) used the 1984 NIV, and that is what is in the pews. Our current pastor uses the NKJV, though he also sometimes quotes passages from the KJV, ESV, or NASB. He personally prefers the KJV for his own reading and study. I use all of the above. This year I am going through the M'Cheyne 1 year Bible reading plan with the 1599 Geneva. 

There is one women in our congregation, in her 70s, who is originally from Guyana. She speaks English fluently but told me, when I asked, she prefers the NIV because she understands it far better than the KJV. Also a young man, in his 30s, from South Africa and English is not his first language. I asked him as well. He has a difficult time with the KJV and prefers an NIV, or NKJV. . Same with a young couple who are from Korea, and are members of our congregation. No axes to grind, they just find it more practical to use those texts to better understand the BIble

I happen to love the KJV and read it regularly, but I also have to re-read certain portions in a modern translation to make sure I'm 'getting it.' I've participated in many of the threads arguing for the AV as the premier translation, and heard all of the arguments, but I believe I'm on safe ground in my position. For whatever that is worth.


----------



## Taylor (Aug 19, 2016)

Tyrese said:


> Yes, but are they more readable to the point where a new Chriatian will not need a verse or word explained?



I fear you are equating learning new vocabulary and studying Scripture. They are not the same. What is important is that people are taught what Scripture teaches, not what archaic words mean. No matter what the translation, the concepts behind the words are the important and difficult parts.


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 19, 2016)

My church uses ESV; I prefer NKJV.

Two issues: text and translation.

If the TEXT is important to you, then you will either choose the KJV/NKJV OR ANYTHING else (in English). NIV, ESV, NASB, HCSB, CEB, NRSV, RSV, LB, etc. ALL use a "critical text" relying heavily upon the so-called Alexandrian texts.

In the area of TRANSLATION, there are many reasons why people prefer the KJV - some serious (it has stood the test of four centuries, the serious language does honor to the content), some merely circumstantial ("my mother read it to me," "the beloved pastor who baptized me liked it").

All decisions about translations involve multiple factors that get weighed and balanced. IF lowest reading level were the ONLY issue, then everyone would use the same Bible since, as Edward noted, reading level can be "scored." Whether or not to use theological language (e.g., "propitiation") or periphrastic explanation for theological terms ("atoning sacrifice" or "sacrifice that makes us right with God") is another factor. What your church uses also enters into the mix since some people do not want to go against the stream, explaining why their Bible differs from what most other people are reading during a sermon or class. Finally, translation philosophy (formal correspondence vs. dynamic equivalent) dominates many people's decisions. I can hardly stand the NIV these days, even though it was my preaching Bible back in the '80s.

I believe that WHATEVER Bible people actually will read is the "right" Bible for them. And, despite the legitimate "issues" and scholarly quibbles with all translations, they are ALL the Word of God.

As an anal retentive, nerdy, fuss-budget, I want the BEST translation, not merely a good one. Hence, I pretty much stick with the NKJV (and KJV) and ESV as exemplar English translations of the formal correspondence type for the Majority Text and Critical Text types.


----------



## Ajay (Aug 19, 2016)

I suggest him to look up on dictionary and find the meaning to the words which He can't Understand. In India, No complete Bible in many languages. Most of the people who know little English use Dictionary to understand the meaning of the unknown Words. 


Sent from my ONE A2003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Edward (Aug 19, 2016)

I find a tablet useful. I can follow along with the lesson being taught from the ESV. One tap, and I'm in the KJV, another tap, the Strongs numbers are displayed, and a third tap, I'm looking at the Strong's entry. 

A few more taps, and I can have Calvin's Commentary or Matthew Henry. 

The KJO in practice folks might find the exercise useful starting from the KJV and working to the other resources to sort out meanings.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard (Aug 19, 2016)

MichaelNZ said:


> ? It's translated from the Textus Receptus, yet is easier to understand and doesn't use archaic words. Plus, it tells you which NT texts have which alternate readings.


It seems somewhat a misnomer to say that it is "translated" from the Textus Receptus. It certainly cannot be said to be a faithful interpretation of the TR. 
A couple examples:
Matthew 22:10 adds the word "Hall" to wedding for example. There is no need for this. How is that supportive of the TR? 

Acts 15:23 They wrote this letter by them: after this manner...
The "after this manner" which is in the TR is left absent which is the translation of the Critical Text not the TR. 

2 Corinthians 4:14 "dia Iesou" (By Jesus) which is the TR rendering is changed to "sun Iesou" (with Jesus) which is the Critical Text rendering. 

2 John 7 also uses the critical text rendering as does Revelation 6:11

2 Corinthians 7:2 is a translation that aligns with the RV. "choresate hemas" (receive us) is translated as (open your hearts to us)

John 1:18 for one. monogenes huios (only Begotton Son) is not equivalent to monogenes theos (Only begotton God.) Russelites could agree with the latter translation. 

The translation also casts direct doubt itself on the TR with the footnotes. See esp. the Comma Johanneum and notes thereof.

The principle editor of the NKJV Arthur L. Farstad stated in his preface to the NKJV:
"Today, scholars agree that the science of New Testament textual criticism is in a state of flux. Very few scholars still favor the Textus Receptus as such, and then often for its historical prestige as the text of Luther, Calvin, Tyndale, and the King James Version. For about a century most have followed a Critical Text (so called because it is edited according to specific principles of textual criticism) which depends heavily upon the Alexandrian type of text. More recently many have abandoned this Critical Text (which is quite similar to the one edited by Westcott and Hort) for one that is more eclectic. Finally, a small but growing number of scholars prefer the majority text, which is close to the traditional text except in the Revelation"

The examples abound that the NKJV is not a faithful translation of the TR.


----------



## Tyrese (Aug 19, 2016)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, but are they more readable to the point where a new Chriatian will not need a verse or word explained?
> ...



I admit that my comment may be confusing but the way the issue is being handled is confusing. In so many words it seems people are saying the KJV is unreadable because there's 'words' that need defining. Or is there something more? Because reality is the KJV is not hard to understand once you define a few words because it's in English. It makes no sense to read Puritan literature or sing the historic hymns of the faith and turn around and say the KJV is dated and hard to read. I've heard men trash the KJV and then defend archaic language in the Trinity Hymnal. So no I don't necessarily believe people who say the KJV is dated.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Tyrese (Aug 19, 2016)

Brother Taylor, let me give you an example. A hymn that's a Reformed favorite is Lord, with glowing heart I'd praise thee. The lyrics can be found here: http://www.opc.org/hymn.html?hymn_id=447.

Why do so many Churches sing this song if they have such a hard time reading the KJV? Another question is why are so many worship leaders more willing to define 'dated' words in hymns such as this one but have no desire to help anyone understand challenging aspects of the KJV? 

And for some of our Psalm only brethren who do not use the KJV, why sing psalms from the psalter that use words and phrases that you don't even want in your Bible?


----------



## Tyrese (Aug 19, 2016)

JimmyH said:


> In the congregation I attend the former pastor (years ago) used the 1984 NIV, and that is what is in the pews. Our current pastor uses the NKJV, though he also sometimes quotes passages from the KJV, ESV, or NASB. He personally prefers the KJV for his own reading and study. I use all of the above. This year I am going through the M'Cheyne 1 year Bible reading plan with the 1599 Geneva.
> 
> There is one women in our congregation, in her 70s, who is originally from Guyana. She speaks English fluently but told me, when I asked, she prefers the NIV because she understands it far better than the KJV. Also a young man, in his 30s, from South Africa and English is not his first language. I asked him as well. He has a difficult time with the KJV and prefers an NIV, or NKJV. . Same with a young couple who are from Korea, and are members of our congregation. No axes to grind, they just find it more practical to use those texts to better understand the BIble
> 
> I happen to love the KJV and read it regularly, but I also have to re-read certain portions in a modern translation to make sure I'm 'getting it.' I've participated in many of the threads arguing for the AV as the premier translation, and heard all of the arguments, but I believe I'm on safe ground in my position. For whatever that is worth.



In no way do I deny this to be true in some cases where those who are new to English are still in the process of learning. However I will say this, more than once I've heard someone suggest that African Ameicans need a more modern translation (NIV,ESV,etc.) because they cannot comprehend the KJV. It's at that point that I realize how ignorant to the facts that many people are. Sometimes I wonder if some brethren enjoy being in the dark on some issues. Fact is the majority of African American Chistians read the KJV. This may not be the case in reformed circles but it certainly is a reality outside of our circles. More people are reading the KJV than we think. They're just not as vocal as those who are telling us otherwise.


----------



## Taylor (Aug 19, 2016)

Tyrese said:


> I admit that my comment may be confusing but the way the issue is being handled is confusing. In so many words it seems people are saying the KJV is unreadable because there's 'words' that need defining. Or is there something more? Because reality is the KJV is not hard to understand once you define a few words because it's in English. It makes no sense to read Puritan literature or sing the historic hymns of the faith and turn around and say the KJV is dated and hard to read. I've heard men trash the KJV and then defend archaic language in the Trinity Hymnal. So no I don't necessarily believe people who say the KJV is dated.



I am not saying that the KJV _in general_ is difficult to understand. Of course, I must grant that I am saying that as someone pursuing a master's degree from a high level seminary, and as one who also grew up on the KJV. My primary issue with the KJV is not so much vocabulary as it is syntax. There are some phrases in the KJV that simply do not make sense without diagramming the sentence. But, what I _am_ saying is that claiming the archaic language and syntax makes one study Scripture more (or better) may not be true, because study happens at the concept level, not syntax or vocabulary level. One can understand every archaism in the KJV and yet have not an iota of understanding of Scripture's teachings.


----------



## Tyrese (Aug 19, 2016)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> > I admit that my comment may be confusing but the way the issue is being handled is confusing. In so many words it seems people are saying the KJV is unreadable because there's 'words' that need defining. Or is there something more? Because reality is the KJV is not hard to understand once you define a few words because it's in English. It makes no sense to read Puritan literature or sing the historic hymns of the faith and turn around and say the KJV is dated and hard to read. I've heard men trash the KJV and then defend archaic language in the Trinity Hymnal. So no I don't necessarily believe people who say the KJV is dated.
> ...



I see what your saying brother, but history doesn't support that claim. In fact wouldn't it be fair to say that the majority of KJV readers down through the centuries have been uneducated men and women? The first thing that comes to mind were the slave preachers of the south who used the KJV, and were mightily used by God. If what some of you are saying is true than we should have heard these claims a long time ago.


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 19, 2016)

Benjamin,

The precise answer is that the NKJV is "based on" the Majority Text. But insofar as pretty much EVERYthing else is based on a Critical Text leaning heavily upon Alexandrian readings, the fact is that the NKJV, like the KJV, is "based on" a textual tradition that is TR or very close to the TR. Even Bibles that are translations from the Critical Text make individual decisions, far more than you cited, where the translation differs from the CT. That does not stop us from saying that modern translations are "based on" the Critical Text. Indeed, since they keep releasing new editions of the UBS/Nestle Critical Text, I doubt that there is ANY English translation that follows the latest CT at every point, despite being "based on" it.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard (Aug 19, 2016)

Dennis,
I am not sure why you have addressed my post with the statement "the precise answer is..." as my post was the answer I gave to the OP and not meant to be exhaustive. Nor did I ask a question in my post. It is expected that translations based on the Critical Text be influx. It's based upon committees of men who update and revise it. 

It appears in your post that you stated that the NKJV is based on the Majority Text & it is based on a tradition that is similar to the TR. Not sure that makes any difference to my answer. I answered the OP which stated the NKJV is a translation of the TR, then I pointed out multiple instances where it is not. More can be produced. Obviously the instances cited were not taken seriously, so I don't believe more will further the argument other than substantiate fact. 

I do appreciate your usage of the phrase "based on" when referring to modern translations relationship to the Critical Text. It seems to make much more sense to use language of that nature when referring to a set of texts that have changed, will most likely continue to change, and are based upon the reason of man to determine their canonicity.


----------



## kodos (Aug 19, 2016)

Tyrese said:


> And for some of our Psalm only brethren who do not use the KJV, why sing psalms from the psalter that use words and phrases that you don't even want in your Bible?



Drive by commentator here; not sure I understand this statement. 

We use the _NKJV_ and we use the _Book of Psalms for Worship_ at our church. The thing about God's Word is that unlike a Hymn, it is to be translated into every vulgar tongue (not saying the KJV and 1650 Psalter are _not_ the vulgar tongue mind you). But that is just one additional benefit to singing the Word of God: it is timeless, ageless, and relevant for every situation, every society, and every culture.

"The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever", or "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of our God stands forever".


----------



## Pilgrim Standard (Aug 19, 2016)

I also appreciate the Authorized Version's recognition of the second personal pronoun. AV translators used "thee, thou, & thine" for singular and "ye, you, and you" for plural. This is not some preference of mine toward some form of formality. I don't find the same usage in the NKJV so I would have to consult the KJV in English or a Greek/Hebrew tool to determine what the grammatical number is. 

Example Luke 22:31-32 "And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for *thee*, that *thy *faith fail not: and when *thou *art converted, strengthen *thy *brethren."
When I read this in the AV I can tell right away that the "You" is plural meaning the Disciples, not Simon only, and that the "Thee, Thy & Thou" are singular and directed specifically to Simon.

I can't do that with the NKJV.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tyrese (Aug 19, 2016)

kodos said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> > And for some of our Psalm only brethren who do not use the KJV, why sing psalms from the psalter that use words and phrases that you don't even want in your Bible?
> ...



Hi brother, I'm not questioning the legitimacy of exclusive psalm singing, but the use of 'outdated' words in the psalter while complaining about the KJV. Why use the language of the KJV in song but not use the Bible for which it came? Btw, I'm aware that many psalters are modernized, but many are not and continue to be used. Either the language is outdated or it's not.


----------



## kodos (Aug 19, 2016)

Tyrese said:


> Hi brother, I'm not questioning the legitimacy of exclusive psalm singing, but the use of 'outdated' words in the psalter while complaining about the KJV. Why use the language of the KJV in song but not use the Bible for which it came? Btw, I'm aware that many psalters are modernized, but many are not and continue to be used. Either the language is outdated or it's not.



This is peculiar, as it is a rare church that uses the 1650 Psalter and doesn't use the KJV. At least in my experience that happens to be the case. Churches that use a newer metrical translation (BOPFW, Sing Psalms, etc.) usually use a newer translation.

Personally, I'm looking forward to the Church commissioning a new translation of the TR. I trust, all in good time, being a post-mil kinda guy.


----------



## Tyrese (Aug 19, 2016)

kodos said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> > Hi brother, I'm not questioning the legitimacy of exclusive psalm singing, but the use of 'outdated' words in the psalter while complaining about the KJV. Why use the language of the KJV in song but not use the Bible for which it came? Btw, I'm aware that many psalters are modernized, but many are not and continue to be used. Either the language is outdated or it's not.
> ...



What about the Trinity Psalter and the BOPFS? I have a copy of both of these Psalters and they're both published by the RPCNA. They both include language throughout that's found in the KJV. The Free Church of Scotland also has a version of Sing Psalms that includes the 1650 Psalter. This is my favorite Pslater btw. But my point is I don't understand why brothers complain about the KJV but sing the same words that they say no one understands. Very confusing.


----------



## kodos (Aug 19, 2016)

I cannot represent those people. My point is that there are modern psalters that match modern translations. As such the inconsistency (if there is one) is unnecessary. The words that I have found people find difficult are not the thees and the thous - almost everyone knows those. The Bopfs is significantly easier to read than the KJV in my estimation. Not that the KJV is difficult.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 19, 2016)

Some would mention differences in the OT as well. One that comes to mind is the Song of Solomon. Many of our KJV-Preferred brethren take the traditional view of that book being "a poetic representation of the spiritual relationship between the Lord and His people" in the words of the Reformation Heritage Study Bible. That is not the interpretation of most modern commentators, and it shows in most if not all versions. If it isn't apparent in the text, then it is in the marginal notes, subject headings, etc. 

The NKJV has "The Beloved", "The Shulamite", "The Daughters of Jerusalem" in the text, (as subject headings or as the equivalent of actors in a play) which is at least somewhat interpretive. Those headings are not technically in the Bible text, I suppose, but most other modern translations put these in the margin, and I think I've seen some translations differ on who is supposed to be speaking in a particular passage. So if I'm right about that, this practice in the NKJV is questionable even from a modern standpoint, especially in a formal equivalent translation that is supposed to leave more of that kind of interpretation to the reader as opposed to what we'd expect to find in a dynamic equivalent version.

Another issue is the NKJV's capitalization of pronouns that refer to the Lord. This gets the translators into situations in which they are forced to make an interpretation in doubtful cases, as it is at least occasionally a question of interpretation as to whether or not the Lord is being referred to or not.

EDIT: You can read an article from the Trinitarian Bible Society on the Song of Solomon and the NKJV here.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 19, 2016)

More from TBS:

Examination of the NKJV Part 1: http://www.tbsbibles.org/pdf_information/142-1.pdf
Examination of the NKJV Part 2: http://www.tbsbibles.org/pdf_information/136-1.pdf

What Today's Christian Needs to Know About the NKJV http://www.tbsbibles.org/pdf_information/145-1.pdf

The NKJV: A Critique (by Malcolm Watts) http://www.tbsbibles.org/pdf_information/130-1.pdf


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 19, 2016)

> I am not sure why you have addressed my post with the statement "the precise answer is..."



I say the "precise answer" because you respond to the claim that the NKJV is translated from the TR by citing places where it differs from the TR. Your instances are offered to "prove" or to "deny" that the NKJV follows the TR and that it is somewhat of a misnomer to connect the two. Those claiming the lineage of the NKJV would do better to nuance their speech a bit and say that both the KJV and the NKJV follow Byzantine texts which are the majority of manuscripts we actually have and which have been used continuously in Christian worship rather than privileging Alexandrian ones the way modern English translations do. But, speaking the way people actually talk, we would state simply that there are two textual approaches behind English translations: The Bzyantine (KJV and NKJV) and the Alexandrian/Ecclectic tradition (everything else). While you know that the TR is not identical to what Robinson or Pierpont mean by "Majority," when you are comparing KJV/NKJV to EVERYthing else, saying TR is (while less technically accurate and precise) good enough to communicate. The differences between the TR and the Majority are small compared to the differences among readings in the CT. That is all I was trying to say.

But, then, I am a simple man. I call it "greenish" regardless of whether it is "forest," "heather," "teal," "blue-green," "olive," "sea," or "chartreuse." We have two basic approaches to texts: either you count 'em or you weigh 'em. If you count 'em you will end up with a KJV/NKJV. If you weigh 'em you will end up with everything else. And, in popular conversation I will continue to use TR and Majority somewhat interchangeably, even though I realize that we could multiply the distinctions and sub-distinctions.

Pastor Robert Truelove is VERY specific and analytical in his nomenclature. He finds the following uniquely different positions among those who reject the Critical Text in favor of either the KJV or the NKJV: 
1. Majority Text
2. Byzantine Priority
3. F35
4. Textus Receptus Only
5. Textus Receptus Primary


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 20, 2016)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> > I admit that my comment may be confusing but the way the issue is being handled is confusing. In so many words it seems people are saying the KJV is unreadable because there's 'words' that need defining. Or is there something more? Because reality is the KJV is not hard to understand once you define a few words because it's in English. It makes no sense to read Puritan literature or sing the historic hymns of the faith and turn around and say the KJV is dated and hard to read. I've heard men trash the KJV and then defend archaic language in the Trinity Hymnal. So no I don't necessarily believe people who say the KJV is dated.
> ...


This is exactly right and another reason people whose first language is not English might find the KJV difficult. It is also the reason I am grateful to have the alternative translations, done in a more current version of the 'vulgar language' to better interpret the text.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Aug 20, 2016)

Pilgrim Standard said:


> MichaelNZ said:
> 
> 
> > ? It's translated from the Textus Receptus, yet is easier to understand and doesn't use archaic words. Plus, it tells you which NT texts have which alternate readings.
> ...



You do not seem to have a very good understanding of the process of translation. The fact that the NKJV makes different translation choices at times in no way demonstrates that it is not translated from the same text as the KJV. Consider the vast differences between most modern translations and yet they are all translated from the CT.


----------



## Taylor (Aug 20, 2016)

Tyrese said:


> I see what your saying brother, but history doesn't support that claim. In fact wouldn't it be fair to say that the majority of KJV readers down through the centuries have been uneducated men and women? The first thing that comes to mind were the slave preachers of the south who used the KJV, and were mightily used by God. If what some of you are saying is true than we should have heard these claims a long time ago.



I don't think I am being understood. I am not contending that the KJV is difficult to understand. I am saying that learning definitions of words is not studying Scripture, and that therefore the KJV's causing someone to look up archaic words does not mean they are studying Scripture any more deeply than someone reading the NIV. Learning is at the conceptual level.


----------



## TylerRay (Aug 20, 2016)

My main reason for preferring the KJV to the NKJV is the plural and singular second-person pronouns.

As for the difficult language, there are editions of the KJV with explanations of difficult or archaic words in the margins. I use the Westminster Reference Bible (published by Trinitarian Bible Society), which does just this, and also gives helpful alternate translations of a word or clause here and there.


----------



## reaganmarsh (Aug 20, 2016)

TylerRay said:


> My main reason for preferring the KJV to the NKJV is the plural and singular second-person pronouns.




This is my reasoning as well. All due respect to our brethren here who use it, though I consult it in my study each week, I am not a fan of the NKJV.


----------



## Free Christian (Aug 21, 2016)

Hi all. For me its the blatant omissions and uncalled for word changes. Hell is omitted 20 or so times, Repent 40+ times, Lord 60 times. Then compare these verses John 8 v 35. Acts 3 v 13. Hebrews 4 v 8. 1 Corinthians 1 v 18. Acts 15 v 18. Psalm 109 v 6. Titus 3 v 10. Mathew 7 v 14. They are just some.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Aug 21, 2016)

Free Christian said:


> Hell is omitted 20 or so times, Repent 40+ times, Lord 60 times.



No offense, brother, but this is beginning to sound a little too much like Gail Riplinger. There are far too many pages of fine argumentation and reasoning in support of the AV on this forum to have things like this posted.


----------



## MichaelNZ (Aug 22, 2016)

Thanks for all the replies. I have ordered the Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible, which I hear is a good resource to help understand the KJV.

As far as I understand it, the KJV used the word 'hell' to refer to three words: _Sheol, Hades _and _Gehenna_. These three words are not interchangeable. _Sheol _for instance can apparently refer both to the place where the wicked are tormented forever or simply the destination of all men after death. 

The Independent Fundamental KJV Only Baptist church I used to attend used Revelation 20:14 in their Gospel presentation. "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death." This was to show that hell exists. If you turn to the same verse in almost any other translation, it will say 'Hades' instead of hell. To those who use the KJV, would you feel comfortable showing an unbeliever Revelation 20:14 as proof for hell since the Greek word used is _Hades_, not _Gehenna_?


----------



## Taylor (Aug 22, 2016)

MichaelNZ said:


> To those who use the KJV, would you feel comfortable showing an unbeliever Revelation 20:14 as proof for hell since the Greek word used is Hades, not Gehenna?



I don't know why it matters. The lake of fire is hell. It's like saying, "Hell was thrown into hell."


----------



## Beezer (Aug 22, 2016)

MichaelNZ said:


> I have ordered the Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible, which I hear is a good resource to help understand the KJV.



I received the goatskin version of this study Bible for my birthday and it is the best study Bible I own. I hope you find it profitable.


----------



## Free Christian (Aug 23, 2016)

Sorry Taylor but i have not got the foggiest idea what your on about??????


----------



## Tyrese (Aug 23, 2016)

MichaelNZ said:


> Thanks for all the replies. I have ordered the Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible, which I hear is a good resource to help understand the KJV.
> 
> As far as I understand it, the KJV used the word 'hell' to refer to three words: _Sheol, Hades _and _Gehenna_. These three words are not interchangeable. _Sheol _for instance can apparently refer both to the place where the wicked are tormented forever or simply the destination of all men after death.
> 
> The Independent Fundamental KJV Only Baptist church I used to attend used Revelation 20:14 in their Gospel presentation. "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death." This was to show that hell exists. If you turn to the same verse in almost any other translation, it will say 'Hades' instead of hell. To those who use the KJV, would you feel comfortable showing an unbeliever Revelation 20:14 as proof for hell since the Greek word used is _Hades_, not _Gehenna_?



No problem!

Fact is it's easier to read the KJV than to read most of the Puritans, and yet, brethren read the Puritans and encourage others indiscriminately to do so. I read the Puritans because they're helpful, not because they're easy, and I'm sure most of you would agree. Therefore, it serves no one for me to go on about the KJV being an 'outdated' translation. Until this inconstancy is addressed I'll never feel the need to 'go with the flow', if you will.

Your brother,
Tyrese


----------



## Logan (Aug 23, 2016)

Tyrese said:


> Fact is it's easier to read the KJV than to read most of the Puritans, and yet, brethren read the Puritans and encourage others indiscriminately to do so.



I doubt it is indiscriminately. No one is passing out copies of Owen's works at high-schools in inner cities. Even so, there is a huge difference. The Bible is the word of God, necessary for the nourishment of the soul. Is it right to insist that a starving man learn the intricacies of wine-tasting or have to adapt to certain utensils in order to partake of what can save him from death? He probably is capable of it, he may even enjoy it once he learns, it just seems strange to me to insist on an additional barrier (language) in order to be fed. 

It is not critical to read the Puritans. It is critical to read Scripture. I have met with and studied with numerous people for whom the KJV just would not have been comprehensible. People whose first language was not English but our study was in English. People with low reading abilities. People who had never actually read a book. People who sight-read and struggled with the plethora of unfamiliar words. Or people who recognized the word, but the general-use meaning had changed and were confused as to what it meant (though in another translation it would be perfectly clear). I use the KJV personally, yet I would be extremely cautious about raising an artificial barrier for one of these.


----------



## Tyrese (Aug 23, 2016)

Logan said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> > Fact is it's easier to read the KJV than to read most of the Puritans, and yet, brethren read the Puritans and encourage others indiscriminately to do so.
> ...



Hi Logan,

Personally, I think the reason brothers are unsuccessful in their attempts to convince others of their perpective is because they speak of the KJV as if it's written in another language. It's still English. If you pulled out a chapter from any given book in the KJV the average reader would be able to read it and comprehend what was read. You may say, 'what about those words that need defining?' I would say look it up. That's a normal thing to do. You might also say, 'people need to understand doctrine and concepts.' I say, true, but that's not necessarily a translation issue. If it was, more people would think and believe as we do. Brother what we need is sound preaching and teaching in the land, not 'readable' translations becuase Americans are lazy when it comes to reading.

I pointed out in a previous post how the KJV has always been the primary translation for English speaking Christians; including the uneducated. Slave preachers who had little to no education were reading and preaching from the KJV. Could it be that Americans have lost touch with what it means to read? I feel like some of you are barking up the wrong tree. Whether you realize it or not people are struggling to read the NKJV and the ESV as well. 

Finally I'll say this: Your example is just that, it's your example. My experience with new English speakers could be used as an example, but it's certainly not authoritative nor is it the standard. The OP said he 'heard' of a man in prison who could not read the KJV, but I knew a guy who didn't graduate high school, spent a good deal of time in prison, and yet he read the KJV and refused to read any other translation. So who's right? I'd say neither. I would would just say we should avoid thinking and telling one another that people can't read KJV when we don't really know who's reading it. The majority of African Churches in PG County MD use the KJV. I would imagine they're explaining what may not be familiar to everyone. 

Don't disagree for the sake of disagreeing. No matter how many times we tell ourselves that people don't read the KJV because they can't understand it doesn't mean that it's true. A lot of people read the KJV. A lot more than you know.

Your brother,
Tyrese


----------



## Free Christian (Aug 23, 2016)

I should add that I also have as well as the KJV a 21,st Century KJ Bible. When my wife and i read one uses one and the other of us the other version. We do this to check and compare. So far I have no problems with the 21,st. In fact i like it.


----------



## Logan (Aug 23, 2016)

Tyrese said:


> I would would just say we should avoid thinking and telling one another that people can't read KJV when we don't really know who's reading it.



I don't think you captured the essence of my post. My point is not that most people can't, most people are probably capable, I agree and it's great that you knew a guy who could with little education. My point is that as much as I enjoy and use the KJV, I think it is wrong to unilaterally tell everyone, regardless of education or language capacity, without exception to just "deal with it" (thus my personal examples of exceptions). Why raise the artificial hurdle of archaic language when it is people's critical spiritual nourishment that is at stake?


----------



## Tyrese (Aug 23, 2016)

Logan said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> > I would would just say we should avoid thinking and telling one another that people can't read KJV when we don't really know who's reading it.
> ...



I see what you're saying brother, but does anyone here have an example of how that's happened? Do we have real examples of people not being nourished by the KJVs use in the pulpit and at home after they've given time to understand words and phrases that are no longer used? 

I would also add that the NKJV uses words and phrases that need to be defined. It also uses words that people don't walk around saying on a regular basis. Trust me I know; I read it everyday.


----------



## MichaelNZ (Aug 23, 2016)

So, if someone you're discipling said that they have trouble understanding the KJV (i.e. they've actually _tried_ to read it), would you give them an NKJV instead? If not, what would you do?

A guy from my church who holds to the Majority Text position said that he wouldn't have a problem giving away a modern translation to someone because he said that there's enough Scripture there for the person to get saved. Do you KJV folks agree? Is an NIV better than no Bible at all?


----------



## TylerRay (Aug 23, 2016)

MichaelNZ said:


> So, if someone you're discipling said that they have trouble understanding the KJV (i.e. they've actually tried to read it), would you give them an NKJV instead? If not, what would you do?



I'd probably give them a resource like the Reformation Heritage Study Bible or the Westminster Reference Bible. They help a ton.



MichaelNZ said:


> Is an NIV better than no Bible at all?



Of course it is! But I still won't be handing it out, when the KJV is so easy to come by.


----------



## MW (Aug 23, 2016)

If it is a question of preferred translation, I would recommend the most reliable translation; that is, the translation which most faithfully translates the word of God. As far as I can judge, that is the AV (or KJV). The NKJV is not the New KJV. It misrepresents itself as another revision when it is really a new translation. Sometimes its changes are meaningless, sometimes needless, sometimes unclear, sometimes erroneous, sometimes dangerous. I am glad I can say that this version is much better than some others that are available, and I have no doubt that the Lord can and does bless the use of this version to save and sanctify His own; but I cannot in good conscience recommend it over the AV. It is one thing to use it as an help to study; quite another thing to use it as a replacement for the AV. And, obviously, no translation serves to replace the ordained ministry of the Word. The problem with many modern versions is that they try to infuse their Bibles with evangelistic or teaching abilities which the gracious and glorious Head of the church only gives to certain men of His choosing.


----------



## Tyrese (Aug 25, 2016)

MW said:


> If it is a question of preferred translation, I would recommend the most reliable translation; that is, the translation which most faithfully translates the word of God. As far as I can judge, that is the AV (or KJV). The NKJV is not the New KJV. It misrepresents itself as another revision when it is really a new translation. Sometimes its changes are meaningless, sometimes needless, sometimes unclear, sometimes erroneous, sometimes dangerous. I am glad I can say that this version is much better than some others that are available, and I have no doubt that the Lord can and does bless the use of this version to save and sanctify His own; but I cannot in good conscience recommend it over the AV. It is one thing to use it as an help to study; quite another thing to use it as a replacement for the AV. And, obviously, no translation serves to replace the ordained ministry of the Word. The problem with many modern versions is that they try to infuse their Bibles with evangelistic or teaching abilities which the gracious and glorious Head of the church only gives to certain men of His choosing.



Rev Winzer, Logan said, "Why raise the artificial hurdle of archaic language when it is people's critical spiritual nourishment that is at stake?"

Based on your personal experience, is this a legitimate concern?


----------



## MW (Aug 25, 2016)

Tyrese said:


> Rev Winzer, Logan said, "Why raise the artificial hurdle of archaic language when it is people's critical spiritual nourishment that is at stake?"
> 
> Based on your personal experience, is this a legitimate concern?



Not really. Archaisms are an accepted part of language and serve multiple functions. That is why they are in the dictionary.

Every field has its linguistic circle. The so-called man on the street knows language about things that I am not familiar with. Take sports for an example. Supporters use particular terms, and some of them quite different to their natural meanings, which others are not acquainted with, but should someone become interested in the sport the language will be learnt soon enough.


----------



## Whitefield (Aug 25, 2016)

Free Christian said:


> Hi all. For me its the blatant omissions and uncalled for word changes. Hell is omitted 20 or so times, Repent 40+ times, Lord 60 times. Then compare these verses John 8 v 35. Acts 3 v 13. Hebrews 4 v 8. 1 Corinthians 1 v 18. Acts 15 v 18. Psalm 109 v 6. Titus 3 v 10. Mathew 7 v 14. They are just some.



As to 1 Corinthians 1:18, I take it your objection is "preaching" (KJV) vs. "message" (NKJV). If you look at the Greek of the TR you see the word translated "preaching" is not "kerugma" which is usually translated "preaching", but the word is "logos" which means "word, reasoning, message". This is the only place the KJV translates "logos" as preaching. The problem is not one of textual issues, but translational issues. The NKJV translates this verse correctly from the TR.


----------



## MW (Aug 25, 2016)

The translation issue in 1 Cor. 1:18, as with 2 Cor. 2:15; 4:3, is "being saved" and "are perishing." Compare 2 Thess. 2:10.

Logos is literally word, and contrasts with mere words. But "word of the cross" does not convey specificity in English, so translators supply a more specific word. Message, doctrine, preaching, are examples of specificity. Each has its proper and improper sense which requires explanation.


----------



## Whitefield (Aug 25, 2016)

My point is 1 Corinthians 1:18 is not an example of "uncalled for word changes" as asserted in the quoted post.


----------



## Logan (Aug 25, 2016)

MW said:


> Every field has its linguistic circle. The so-called man on the street knows language about things that I am not familiar with. Take sports for an example. Supporters use particular terms, and some of them quite different to their natural meanings, which others are not acquainted with, but should someone become interested in the sport the language will be learnt soon enough.



True enough. A person will have to learn the "language" of Scripture (e.g., terms like atonement). But I don't think that learning a translation of the language of Scripture into 400 year old English should be an additional barrier, as an absolute rule.


----------



## MW (Aug 25, 2016)

Whitefield said:


> My point is 1 Corinthians 1:18 is not an example of "uncalled for word changes" as asserted in the quoted post.



"Word changes" in the context of this discussion refers to words in the AV which have been changed in the NKJV. A change from "saved" to "being saved" is certainly a change in meaning, and a disputed one at that.


----------



## MW (Aug 25, 2016)

Logan said:


> True enough. A person will have to learn the "language" of Scripture (e.g., terms like atonement). But I don't think that learning a translation of the language of Scripture into 400 year old English should be an additional barrier, as an absolute rule.



The AV continues to speak in today's English precisely because it exercised a shaping influence on our language.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

