ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Difference Between NKJV And KJV

What are the differences between NKJV AND KJV? From the way many get very hot under the collar over this subject the differences must be very important.

Join Our Christian Dating and Take The Paganism Bible Quiz
 ---f.f. on 6/20/06
     Helpful Blog Vote (20)

Post a New Blog



What in the world are you talking about?

The originals were in Hebrew and Koine GREEK. The latin translations came centuries later.
---Chris on 7/31/09


The written word, the Bible, is all that it is - just words. The Bible brings you the knowledge of God and his relationship with his people - both Israelites/Jews and Christians. You then believe the concept not the word for word grammar. What you don't understand, you ask the Holy Spirit for truth. Trust the Holy Spirit more than the Bible to find the truth. Turn the words of the Bible from the physical to the spiritual. That's the only way to truly understand spiritual things.
---Steveng on 12/27/07


Nancy - while the early Bible was written in Latin, there were far too many different versions to have a standard. The Greek compilations were not completed until the 16th century. However, any version no matter how poor can be useful.
---Lee on 11/19/07


No matter what Bible you use, if it's not written in the originial Hebrew or Latin, you're going to have translation problems.

I recommend one of those multi-translation software packages for your studies (they can be very inexpensive), a copy of your denomination's choice for church, a KJV and/or NIV for communicating with others (if it's not one of the above), and a copy of the Reader's Digest version for pleasure reading, as the format they use makes it very easy to read.
---Nancy on 11/14/07


I really do not like either the KJV or the NKJV, the latter being an attempt to upgrade the English. But the translation errors in the KJV are also found in the NKJV.
---Lee on 11/13/07




as I said, when the only person you have to convince is yourself, I'd say its pretty easy. Most of us take a different approach and figure people who have spent their lives researching might have a bit to tell us. Glad science doesnt operate on the start from the beginning mode.
---alexia on 9/14/07


the point is that human knowledge is built on the concept of shared research building upon that which is already known and proceeding ever upward. We'd still be using campfires if we didnt rely on others expertise as a guide.
---alexia on 9/14/07


"After considerable research about her (and a few other so-called prophets) in the early 1970's, I found her to be a false prophet."

Gee you must have done a lotof work that no one else has done. I haven't even begun to look at other so-called prophets. I've looked at over 70 claims made against her so far and have found every single one of them to be a flat-out lie.
---djconklin on 9/14/07


Lee: "If you are really a true Seventh Day Adventist, you MUST believe the Ellen White was a messenger of God and that her writings are authoritative much on the same level as stated in 2 Tim. 3:16.

After considerable research about her (and a few other so-called prophets) in the early 1970's, I found her to be a false prophet. And I haven't changed my mind today.
---Steveng on 9/13/07


alexia: "...I would guess patting yourself on the back for correctly intrepreting a book when you have to convince only yourself must be pretty easy, and pretty satisfying...Pride pride.

First, I'm not patting myself on the back.

Second, any Christian can have the ability to trust in the Holy Spirit for knowledge. It's written in the Bible. In fact, we are to perform greater miracles than Jesus. If you can't wholey trust the Holy Spirit, who CAN you trust?
---Steveng on 9/13/07




steveng - *"If you truly want to dump 'Christian reference materials', suggest you start those written by Ellen White." There you go judging again. What make you believe that I have any religion/Christian books at all?*

If you are really a true Seventh Day Adventist, you MUST believe the Ellen White was a messenger of God and that her writings are authoritative much on the same level as stated in 2 Tim. 3:16.

---Lee on 9/13/07


stephen, you believe you need no reference matterial and its working so well for you...I would guess patting yourself on the back for correctly intrepreting a book when you have to convince only yourself must be pretty easy, and pretty satisfying...Pride pride.
---alexia on 9/13/07


RitaH: "a concordance is not someone's interpretation."

Try researching how concordances were created. For example, Strong had over a few men to write the book, but he had the last say about what went into it.

"It is a book which helps you find where a word or passage can be found in the bible."

The origianl manuscripts were never written in verses. Verses make it too easy to interpret the concept. Many teachings/denominations are based upon only verses.
---Steveng on 9/12/07


RitaH: I wouldn't be without my concordance, it is invaluable.

That tells me that you don't trust the Holy Spirit for true guidance. You depend more on man's writings than the Spirit that was sent to us. It just goes to show that Christians today believe in God, but deny His power. Give the Holy Spirit a chance. It's a completely different spiritual experience.
---Steveng on 9/12/07


Lee: "If you truly want to dump 'Christian reference materials', suggest you start those written by Ellen White."

There you go judging again. What make you believe that I have any religion/Christian books at all? Except for the Bible, of course, and two topical books (to look up verses when Christians demand it) my library of over 300 books consist of reference books of business, marketing, real estate, construction and human behavior/family.
---Steveng on 9/12/07


Steveng a concordance is not someone's interpretation. It is a book which helps you find where a word or passage can be found in the bible. Perhaps you are thinking of a commentary. I wouldn't be without my concordance, it is invaluable.
---RitaH on 9/11/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Consolidation


Steveng - *Why use any concordance, novels, and other Christian reference material at all? These materials are written by man having their own interpretations*

why do you suppose the Lord gave His church teachers in the first place if not to enable others to understand the Scripture?

Eph 4:11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers,

If you truly want to dump 'Christian reference materials', suggest you start those written by Ellen White.
---Lee on 9/11/07


Mark B,
I have no problem with arguing that the KJV committee used 11th and 12th cent. manuscripts. Although the records of this committee were lost in a fire, this is a very reasonable assumption. My argument was that the manuscript readings of B, Aleph, etc. were available at that time. Hence, no new discoveries of readings since that time.
---ed_the_other_one on 9/10/07


It's simple....the difference is the letter "N"....
---berf on 9/10/07


Ed...
I know that KJV only used 11th and 12th century manuscripts...why b/c those were the only ones avalaible...i also know that there are differences b/w the 11th and 12th century manuscript, the KJV bible, and the earliest manuscripts...how do i know
Well i was in this land called london and took a look at those orignal, and a person very knowledgable in manuscripts was telling me...and he was a christian
---mark_B on 9/9/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Refinancing


alexia: "...i'd choose a good study bible like the New Catholic Bible, The Jerusalem Bible."

Why use any concordance, novels, and other Christian reference material at all? These materials are written by man having their own interpretations. Do you not trust God who freely gives knowledge to those who ask? Do you not trust the Holy Spirit for guidance? Psalms111:10, James1:5, Proverbs2:3-11, 1Corinth2:11-13, Psalms119:27,34,67-68,73,98,105,125
Acts5:29, Psalms51:6,
---Steveng on 9/9/07


And the translators of the King James added to the Word of God in order to make it readable. Also they were instructed to base their translation as much as possible on the Bishop's Bible.
---Lee on 9/8/07


Pastor_Kevin:

Rev 22:18-19: (cut to 85 words):
"18 ... If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book"
"19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, ..."

Book and Prophecy are used interchangeably - these are the original Greek Revelation , not the whole Bible, and not a translation 1500 years later.

[Formerly Mark]
---StrongAxe on 9/6/07


My goodness why fret. Are you savrd by the Blood of Christ? Have you experienced the true living God? These are things that really matters. Not which translation is better. Are you going to heaven or hell? Translations won't save you. Not even reading the Bible will save you. Stop trying to put in people minds and hearts doubt and unbelief, who might would get saved.
---catherine on 9/6/07


Send a Free Easter Ecard


Stephen, I tend to agree. The KJV is beautifully written,and that has value. As for learning and understanding as best as possible, i'd choose a good study bible like the New Catholic Bible, The Jerusalem Bible. They just explain things so well and cross-reference material the best.
---alexia on 9/6/07


As the apostles, a new Christian uses the Bible to learn about God and His relationship with His people - both Jews and Christians. The more a person learns the less he needs the Bible. When a person had developles a true personal relationship with God, and after your baptism, He sends you the Holy Spirit for guidance and perform greater miracles than Jesus. The person goes out into the world without the Bible and other reference books, trusting in the Holy Spirit to put words into your mouth to speak.
---Steveng on 9/5/07


In the beginning of your walk as a Chrisitan, any book or interpretation of the Bible will do. As you mature, the Holy Spirit will guide you to the proper Bible. Trying to determine which intepretation is best in a worldly way is foolishness. Trust the Holy Spirit to guide you not what other people say you should do because most people will used worldly knowledge to convince you of spiritual things which is immpossible.
---Steveng on 9/5/07


Mary G. The NKJV is essentially the same Bible except that it does depart from the Traditional Text in many areas and follow the eclectic text in making "corrections."
Better than some of the others but not quite completely faithful to the Traditional Text as is the KJV.
---ed_the_other_one on 9/5/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Franchises


Just a reply to Mark B. The KJV translators had more than "a few" manuscripts. The readings of the older texts were reflected in the RC's D/R Bible printed prior to the KJV. In the 400 yrs since 1611 there have been no new text "families" found. To discredit the TR is to allege that the True Text was lost for some centuries. Just nit picking, we're still brothers in Christ.
---ed_the_other_one on 9/5/07


Im not positive but I dont think the RCC removed any books from the canon. I believe it was Luther who started removing books and was finally stopped.
---alexia on 9/5/07


I like reading all sorts of translations. My pastor uses the NIV in the Church of Christ. I have a few translations including kjv,nkjv,niv & I also am reading "the harper collins Study bible NRSV w/apocryphal/deutercanonical books: A new Annotated Edition by the Society of Biblical Literature" I donot know why the rcc of the 3rd century removed these books, I am glad they are restoring them,afteral lwho are we to judge what they wrote a long time ago?
---candice on 9/4/07


dan - while it is true that most modern translations use Greek & Hebrews manuscriptst that according to Biblical scholars more exactly reflect what they believe was in the originals, the NKJV and the KJV are based on the same Greek text. The problem lies with the proper choice of English words.

Also some of the known mistranslations of the KJV have been corrected.
---MaryG on 8/26/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Lead Generation


Something that hasn't been stated yet is the fact that modern translations come from a different Greek Text than the KJV which comes from the majority text "received text" Modern translations are translated from the critical text or "eclectic text" which was created within the past 400 years.
---Dan on 8/12/07


This is dangerous because if the source of the translation is corrupt, then the translation will also be corrupt which is the case with the modern translations. God has promised to preserve His word, which he did within the preserved greek manuscripts "the received text," this does not include the "critical Text" created by Westcott and Hort.
---Dan on 8/12/07


So for some of you who are comparing the KJV, NIV/NAS, and the greek manuscripts, make sure you have the correct greek manuscripts, and not the corrupt ones.
---Dan on 8/12/07


Ok Pastor Kevin...you must realize that that verse is also in the NIV but on a foot note why??? B/c the KJV translators only had the 11th and 12th century manuscripts of the NT...which means that taht verse probably was added in due to the fact that the NIV was translated from much much earlier manuspripts 4th-5th(and that part was not there)...and just b/c it took out that one verse doesnt denote the fact that Jesus is the son of God...Please do a little bit of more research...
---mark_B. on 5/19/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Mortgages


In the last days there will be a turning away from scripture.I wonder why anyone would want to change the words in the KJV and take a chance at having the plaques spoke of, poured out on them. By the way anyone who says that other Bibles are better than the KJV should look up Acts 8:37 and ask theirselves why God would want to take His Son's name out of the Bible. As for that why would we ? Why bring God's Word down why not try to bring ourselves up to His Word - The KJV.....
---Pastor_Kevin on 5/19/07


Two presuppositions to note:
1. "proper manuscripts but also uses the corrupt manuscripts as well"
Please provide concrete proof that supports this.

2. "the nkjv removes"
Or does the KJV add? Was it there in the first place? Can you prove that it was removed?
Is it because Gail said so?
---JohnE on 5/8/07


r.w. regardless of what you proclaim about Bible versions, you really will not convince anyone.

The modern versions are really here to stay while the old King James will eventually go the same way as the Geneva Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Vulgate, etc. - translations for their times, something found only in the dusty shelves of theologians libraries.
---lee on 5/7/07


you're correct- the kjv only crowd does claim the nkjv is perverse-cause it is. true, it uses SOME of the proper manuscripts but also uses the corrupt manuscripts as well. you tell me if they are the same. the nkjv removes: Lord 66 times, God 51 times, heaven 50 times,hell 23 times, 2289 words in the NT are removed, 100000 word changes total. how many types of 'Holy Bibles' did God create? things that are different are NOT the same.
---r.w. on 5/5/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Personal Loans


I'm afraid that the Riplinger crowd also rejects the NKJV as perverse.
Even though the originating MSS are the same.
Somehow the translators must not have been inspired. The cutoff year for inspiration must have been 1611.
---JohnE on 5/1/07


It actually makes sense
---mark on 4/30/07


the main difference between the KJV and the NKJV is updated language. they have removed the terms and words that are no longer used in modern English and replaced them with the modern equivalent. They have also retranslated areas that our greater understanding of languages have found needed changing. overall the KJV and NKJV are very similar.
---Jared on 4/30/07


A former acquaintance of mine often referred to the Living Bible as the "cheaters bible" since he could readily learn from it whereas the archaic King James Bible often left him confused.

yes, we should learn God's word in whatever Bible we can feel comfortable with.
---lee on 4/29/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Auto Insurance


why do we argue about whose right and whose wrong? why dont we just learn of God's word the best way we can and be ready for His coming? We are far too busy judging each other etc. Watch and be ready for the hour of His coming will be as a thief in the night. stay awake and be ready...
---jana on 4/29/07


"WOW!! seems tofurabbey kinda put some people in their places, huh?"
Really? I must have missed something.
All tofurabbey did was to dismiss the efforts of Bible scholars as foolishness.
This is a typical KJVO practice. Were not the KJV translators "Bible scholars"?
---JohnE on 4/26/07


WOW!! seems tofurabbey kinda put some people in their places, huh?
---r.w. on 7/17/06


Like it or not, not all Greek mss are 100% uniform.

Yet--strange to tell--there's not a single doctrine questioned by its apparent omission from one verse in ONE ms that is not more than adequately substantiated elsewhere in the SAME ms.
---Jack on 7/10/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Holidays


[-3-] See: Is the Holy Spirit a He or it? and search all the way down for the first occurance of '12:7,' then read up." I made that comment on 6/26/06. It's possible that you missed it, since I noticed that's the same date as your own comment, but then I have to ask: To what do you refer in your 6/26/06 posting directed to me, if it wasn't what I just showed you here?
---danie9374 on 7/10/06


[-2-] If that comment is supposed to refer to Psalm 12:7, I very clearly presented not only my own view of that verse, but that of the KJV Translators themselves when I posted the following comments below: "Not only is there no Scriptural basis for applying these verses to a translation, but the KJV Translators themselves did not agree with such an interpretation as seen in the marginal notes of the 1611 Holy Bible! [Cont.]
---danie9374 on 7/10/06


[-1-] RevHerbsSon: Why don't you deal with the facts I've presented, instead of making a cryptic comment about whether I think the KJV Translators were being humble? I can only conclude you have no answers! Then, to hide that fact, you fog-up the issue by saying I never answered a question (which you never asked me): What is "Where are the Preserved words(again plural). You have yet to answer that simple question." supposed to mean? [Cont.]
---danie9374 on 7/10/06


I think people deserve to be able to read the Bible without having to question it. No one has to be a scholar to read the Bible (good thing to, most of them are full of themselves and will be found fools when they meet the Lord). I think there is not enough oversimplication. Too many people trying to find too many consperacies etc. rather than reading the book for what it is. The Word of God. The End.
---tofurabby on 7/10/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Health Insurance


To M.P. and r.w.: I don't know if either of you saw my 4-part+ presentation about why the KJV translated "lo" as 'not' in Isaiah 9:3, but everyone should take note that translation problems are often more complex than merely thinking somenoe added or took away a word(s). I believe people deserve more than an oversimplification of what's involved in Bible translation.
---danie9374 on 7/10/06


Answer for archaic words: the words were old english words and they are what they are. the unicorn refers to a species that is not know and obviously extinct (scholors guess some sort of ox, but it is pure speculation). The satyr appears to refer to a real spiritual entity. Etc. gotta go for now... bottom line, many translations used these terms. Even the Greek Septuagint
---tofurabby on 7/5/06


Answer for saint luke: Arent you a saint? All believers are. Paul said "To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints;" Romans 1:7; "...to the saints which are at Ephesus;" Ephesians 1:1; "...to all the saints in Christ Jesus, which are at Philippi;" Philippians 1:1; there are many more. In the same way that I would say say, "brother Bruce," it labels Luke as a believer.
---tofurabby on 7/5/06


Answer for italics: This has to do with the completely different sentence structure of the languages. The KJV at least has the integrity of italicizing them. Example: Psalm 23:1 "The LORD is my shepherd". Now check your NIV and you see it is exactly the same, but they dont use the italics. The KJV translators were informing us that these words were added, but the other translations didnt do that, so how do you know what they added or didnt? It would be nonsense without these words.
---tofurabby on 7/5/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Dating


Answer for revisions question: the revised 4 times attack is a myth. The first 2 so called revisions were 2 stages of the purification of early printing errors. The second 2 were 2 stages of the standardization of the spelling. The 1000s of changes that are being claimed is ludicrous.
---tofurabby on 7/5/06


Audrea,
By the way, it is tittle not tiddle. But still do you know what it is?
---Bruce5656 on 7/5/06


PART ONE:
Audrea,
If the KJV is "the inspired word of God" and represents what Jesus was talking about when he spoke of the "jot and tiddle", (by the way, do you know what a jot and tiddle are?) Then what is it the other languages are to do in order to have access to the "inspired Word of God?"
---Bruce5656 on 7/5/06


PART TWO:
Here are some questions for you: (Taken from 69 Questions for KJV only advocates by Steve Rudd)
---Bruce5656 on 7/5/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Health Treatments


PART THREE:
Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times, the last being in 1769.

Why did the KJV translators use marginal note showing alternate translation possibilities? If the English of the KJV is inspired of God, there would be no alternates!
---Bruce5656 on 7/5/06


PART FOUR:
If the KJV-only supporters believe fully in the word-for-word inspiration of the KJV, why would italics be necessary?
---Bruce5656 on 7/5/06


PART FIVE:
Why would the translators use book headings like "The Gospel According to Saint Luke" since the Greek merely says "The Gospel According to Luke". Does not this show that the translators were influenced by their contemporary theology and the Catholic false doctrine of "sainthood"?
---Bruce5656 on 7/5/06


PART SIX:
Why would the Holy Spirit mis-guide the translators to employ the use of mythical creatures like "unicorn" for wild ox, "satyr" for "wild goat", "cockatrice" for common viper, when today we know what the real name of these creatures is?
---Bruce5656 on 7/5/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Affiliate Program


2. What is wrong with making something easier to read? Translating it into English made it quite a lot easier for me to read and I'm not complaining about that. Translating it more recently into the English which is spoken in my generation has made it better still.
---M.P. on 7/5/06


So Audrea, by saying "Jesus said not a jot or tiddle should be changed from the word of God." how can you also say "KJV is the inspired word of God". When Jesus said that, we didn't have the KJV or any other English version come to think of it so how did we get the KJV without changing a few things (the entire language in which it was written for starters)? If you really want the original you had better start learning the language in which it was written.
---M.P. on 7/5/06


KJV is the inspired word of God and man has changed the word of God to make it easier for them to read. Jesus said not a jot or tiddle should be changed from the word of God.
---Audrea on 7/5/06


Thank you MP.
---alan8869_of_UK on 7/5/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Abortion Facts


You are correct r.w. when you say "Isa 9:3 completely opposite one is right one is wrong". The NIV is the one that got it right because KJV version added the words 'and not'. They are not in the original but were added 'for better readability in English'.!!! BETTER READIBILTY ?? They gave it a totally opposite meaning. There are numerous examples of KJV translators doing this.
---M.P. on 7/5/06


Isa 9:3 completely opposite one is right one is wrong
---r.w. on 6/30/06


emg dont trust all interliners lexicons etc some are translated FROM the perverse bibles themselves
---r.w. on 6/30/06


bruce the KJB is at a 5th grade reading level how hard is that?
---r.w. on 6/30/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Acne Treatment


Sorry!!

Wrong thread.

I'll re post properly
---John_T on 6/29/06


Jermiah 8:17
For, behold, I will send serpents, cockatrices, among you, which will not be charmed, and they shall bite you, saith the LORD. KJV

See, I will send venomous snakes among you, vipers that cannot be charmed, and they will bite you, declares the Lord. NIV

Please compare also
Isaiah 59:5
Isaiah 14:29
Isaiah 11:8

These ALL translate cockatrices as vipers in the NIV. A cockatrice is a MYTHOLOGICAL creature.

Now, which is a better translation?
---John_T on 6/29/06


"The NIV has never led anyone to the lord".Who dare say this in this blog? Let gets the Facts right.The KJV has errors too! All translation have errors.Who here dare to say the KJV is "ERROR-FREE"? Please speak now or forever hold your peace. The NIV had lead many to lord. Many pastors I know had won souls using the NIV. Revherbson, thats didnt make sense!. I will go as far as to say the KJV has numerous errors! Its it proven by fact!. People here need to stop making the KJV holy!
---Ramon on 6/28/06


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.