I don't know who wrote the "article" about the NKJV, BUT, that person really didn't study. Obviously the people here know that you must take the Greek and Hebrew into consideration, easiest way, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. If you look up the verses that that person claimed were changed, you will see why the NKJV uses the "changed" words. All words from the Strong's that are in the definition for the AV. So, the NKJV still keeps the same meaning as the AV.

[bibleprotector]

If the authority of Scripture resides in what has been supplied by God's providence in the common tongue, as manifest from the Reformation times, then Strong’s lexicon fails because:
a. it is not in the common tongue
b. it appeared long after the Reformation
c. it is counter to the Reformation scholarship
d. it is relative, uncertain and non-restrictive
e. it is interpretative, subject to opinion
f. it is of the Nicolaitan doctrine of putting something between God and man
f. it is placed as an idol

Strong’s lexicon is a newfangled work, which supplies meanings to Hebrew and Greek words which neither match the true sense as given in the King James Bible, and is based on the entirely false notion that the authority of Scripture yet resides in the original languages, that it must be divined out of such sources with no certain success (that the fullness of the Scripture is lost) and that men must elevate men with learning and certain hidden knowledge to be able to stand in behalf of the rest of Christendom to deliver the words of God to them (like the medieval Romanist priesthood).

[Debau]

So, the NKJV still keeps the same meaning as the AV.

Hebrews 3:16
KJB "For SOME, when they had heard, did provoke: HOWBEIT NOT ALL that came out of Egypt by Moses."


NKJV "For who, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, WAS IT NOT ALL who came out of Egypt, led by Moses?"

These have two DIFFERENT meanings...

All did not rebel or provoke. Joshua and Caleb did not rebel or provoke. (Numbers 13:25-30, Numbers 14:6-9, Joshua 14:8-9). The NKJV is not accurate. The KJB is precise.

[Biblestudent]

Originally Posted by apostolicpeyt

I don't know who wrote the "article" about the NKJV, BUT, that person really didn't study. Obviously the people here know that you must take the Greek and Hebrew into consideration, easiest way, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. If you look up the verses that that person claimed were changed, you will see why the NKJV uses the "changed" words. All words from the Strong's that are in the definition for the AV. So, the NKJV still keeps the same meaning as the AV.

I find myself disagreeing to almost all that was said here.
1. The person who wrote the article you are referring to may indeed have done some study.
2. I don't think people here (at least, not all) believe that knowledge of Greek and Hebrew is necessary to understand the Word of God.
3. "Son" (KJV) and "Servant" (NKJV) certainly do not mean the same.

[Manny Rodriguez]

KJV - Isa. 9:3 Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy: they joy before thee according to the joy in harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil.

NKJV - Isa. 9:3 You have multiplied the nation and increased its joy;They rejoice before You according to the joy of harvest, as men rejoice when they divide the spoil.

Looks like a different meaning to me.

[Biblestudent]

Then the New KJV is not KJV at all.

[Debau]

Originally Posted by Biblestudent

Then the New KJV is not KJV at all.

If it's "new", it's not true!

2 Kings 23:29
KJB "In his days Pharaohnechoh king of Egypt went up against the king of Assyria"

NKJV "In his days Pharaoh Necho king of Egypt went to the aid of the king of Assyria"

The NKJV is not true.

[Brother Tim]

The initiator of this thread said:

I don't know who wrote the "article" about the NKJV, BUT, that person really didn't study. Obviously the people here know that you must take the Greek and Hebrew into consideration, easiest way, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance.

1 ) To what article are you referring? How can one examine your claims?
2 ) "[T]he people here..." is too broad a statement. There are some here, like myself, that use the KJB only as our authority.
3 ) Strong's only real value is to provide a useful concordance feature (for those who do not have SwordSearcher ). Its lexicon feature is far from useful as it does not do justice to the language grammar forms. It is a very basic dictionary at best.

The textual differences between the NKJV and the Bible are too numerous to list here. The posters above have given a few obvious ones. On top of these differences, the NKJV dabbles into borrowing from the corrupted Alexandrian mss, thus corrupting itself.

[BornAgainBibleBeliever514]

Here's a tract from Riplinger about the not-KJV.

http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/...NKJV_tract.pdf

I've seen alot more about the nonKJV, but this tract is handy, printable and clear.
I had my last pastor really trying to prove his bible wasn't corrupted, and when I gave him that tract, he came back a while later saying that he found all kinds of errors in it.
So I looked up every single reference in both versions and found what could be considered at best a typo: one of the places where its Jesus vs. Joshua, they had the correct values in the wrong columns. So granted there was one mistake, but just look at all the rest of the claims that are correct! (even the counts of omitted words!) Talk about straining at a gnat and swallowing the whole enchilada!
I was huge into Led Zeppelin before I got saved, and somehow I doubt they were promoting the Holy Trinity with that symbol on the nKJV, nor were the countless satanic and new age references where it can be found (there's a ton).