I am interested in hearing reasons why you reject the NKJV. The only valid argument I have heard to date is that some people prefer the plural pronouns of the KJV. This is an archaic convention that is no longer used in modern English and is not a critical factor for me, but I will grant this is a valid objection however weak it may be. I would like to hear some more substantive arguments as to why you specifically reject the NKJV. I think it is an excellent translation that is worthy of your consideration. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

It is not based completely on the preserved texts (the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus). It has over 100,000 changed words, contains critical text notes that cause doubt in the Word of God, contains an occultic symbol on the cover. It is a counterfeit, not an update of the KJV.

Jerry:

The NKJV is based on the same manuscripts as the KJV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_King_James_Version

The 1611 Version included textual variants in the margin
http://glorygazer.blogspot.com/2008/...-in-light.html

The Cross was a pagan symbol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_cross

NKJV is an update
http://www.bible-researcher.com/nkjv.html

It is not an update of the KJV, when it changes the meaning, not just updates the words.

Also, read the Preface of the NKJV. Thomas Nelson quite clearly states that the used the Septuagint and other manuscripts in this translation - so it does not solely use the same preserved texts.

Originally Posted by jerry

It is not an update of the KJV, when it changes the meaning, not just updates the words.

Also, read the Preface of the NKJV. Thomas Nelson quite clearly states that the used the Septuagint and other manuscripts in this translation - so it does not solely use the same preserved texts.

As did the KJV in 1611 (read its preface)

Neither did wee thinke much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrewe, Syrian, Greeke, or Latine, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdaine to revise that which we had done, and to bring backe to the anvill that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helpes as were needfull, and fearing no reproch for slownesse, nor coveting praise for expedition, wee have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the worke to that passe that you see.

http://www.kjvbibles.com/kjpreface.htm

A subsidiary (Nelson Bibles) of Thomas Nelson is now publishing the NKJV. They have removed the triquetra that once was on the Bible.

At least they listened to the christian feedback that took exception to it.

Grace

Originally Posted by againstheresies

I am interested in hearing reasons why you reject the NKJV. The only valid argument I have heard to date is that some people prefer the plural pronouns of the KJV. This is an archaic convention that is no longer used in modern English and is not a critical factor for me, but I will grant this is a valid objection however weak it may be. I would like to hear some more substantive arguments as to why you specifically reject the NKJV. I think it is an excellent translation that is worthy of your consideration. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

You're wrong about it being a weak argument. Thee is english for 2nd person singular. Ye is english for 2nd person plural. The Greek mss. make a distinction in the number of the pronoun. So does the KJV. The NKJV just drops this inspired content of God's word. Note modern spanish speakers make this distinction in the number of the pronoun. Its in the english grammar. That's why the KJV used it. Its called respect for God's word. All of God's word.

BTW: Edward F. Hills was asked to give his endorsement of the NKJV. He would not. He did not approve of the NKJV.

[ziggy2sound4u]

1.The NKJV does Not make the English more understandable.
2.The NKJV changes doctrines of the Bible in some spots.(Matt. 20:20,I Cor. 1:18, He. 10:14)
3.The NKJV used the Hebraic Biblia in the Old Testament, versus what was actually used by Jews then and now.
4. The NKJV contains an obvious lie in He. 3:16.The NKJV denies Old Testament history that they entered Canaan. Paul taught that not all Israelites from Egypt died in the wilderness, due to the exceptions of Joshua and Caleb.
I think this should be plenty enough to avoid the NKJV!

[stephanos]

Originally Posted by againstheresies

I am interested in hearing reasons why you reject the NKJV. The only valid argument I have heard to date is that some people prefer the plural pronouns of the KJV. This is an archaic convention that is no longer used in modern English and is not a critical factor for me, but I will grant this is a valid objection however weak it may be. I would like to hear some more substantive arguments as to why you specifically reject the NKJV. I think it is an excellent translation that is worthy of your consideration. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Againstheresies, your use of the NKJV in your signature is inappropriate on a site such as this. No one here wants to read from your wannabe bible. I would no sooner read that text than I would the New World Translation.

It is clear that the only reason your here is to further sow your seed of doubt concerning our beloved Scriptures. IIRC you were asked once before to use the King James Bible in your signature if you were going to quote Scripture; this was when it was a passage from the Geneva text. Now you've moved on to the NKJV. Could you either move on to the real Holy Bible, or move on and away from this site? You are have not proven to be a contributing member of this community.

Stephen