When was the nkjv translated

So which one is it servant or son? In the book of Psalms it says it is better to trust in the Lord then to put confidence in man. I stand with this guy not cause of what he says but what he says and backs it up using the Word of God. I must also add that NKJV calls him his Son but just as Jesus said he came to serve, he was also called his servant, so both are correct I think. Can an organization that publishes the satanic bible be trusted? No one knows where each individual manuscript was penned.

Quite a long discussion but a good one. Easier to understand?? The Holy Spirit will teach you when you are saved. Woah woah woah to you. You can call anything God. Same with Hindus. I rebuke that statement in the name of Jesus Christ. Also everyone that has been apart of this post or have read this post or is now doing so. Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of God almighty, never not once called a murderer, a thief, a prostitute etc.

Thinking their works are great and good and holy. Matthew Because he was not minduo of the things of God, but the things of men. It is the direct word of GOD. In Acts KJV Acts And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. In the NKJV; Acts so when he had arrested him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to 4 squads of soldiers to keep him, intending to bring him before the people after Passover.

I was angry, I cried tears, I prayed to GOD for an answer as to why the devil infiltrated with his lies and deceipt the translation process of GODs word. It was a hard time during the festive holiday season I was shocked, I sat without a bible for 4 days and felt lost. I refused to open the KJV and delivered it to a prophetess. Who do I believe? The KJV was all I knew. Those feasts we should keep and the rest are abominations in the eyes of the LORD.

What happened to the Lion and the Lamb lying down together in Isaiah and in Isaiah ? I am going to start reading the KJV. I would say, read the version that you understand and then upgrade to a harder version. Mankind that have not trusted the gospel of the grace of God, that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and raised from the dead cannot understand this spiritual book. In 1 Cor the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God.

The moment a person trust Christ as their saviour they are then baptized By the Holy Spirit into the church the Body of Christ. The Holy now dwells in that person. Unless the Holy Spirit dwells in you you cannot understand the Holy scriptures. Trust Christ and begin to understand the scriptures. Slight correction. They were not discovered. Oxford and Cambridge. The NKJV translators primarily sought an update to the KJV as well as utilized footnotes to note textual variations as there are no two manuscripts that read completely identical.

This debate about the Kjv only bible has bothered me for years. Here is my issue, for years I studied out for the KJV until one day a young lady in my Bible study class bought me a version King James,imagine my shock when it was way different in language then my kjv.

The kjv has been translated into a more updated English language than the old English. Thus my change in study habits, I use both nkjv and nkjv in a parallel bible and compare scripture to scripture of both and if I find discrepancies I follow the nkjv. To me the nkjv is easier to read. To me they both teach the blood of Jesus unto salvation. May your prayers and the Holy Spirit Ghost lead you to all truth May we all be together someday in heaven in one mind.

God Bless. Same words, some different spelling, different font. I have no trouble at all reading my copy of the original KJV.

Now man is not perfect, but fallible; -this is true. Thus no translation man performed is perfect but fallible. Just stating the obvious. Not that English is the ultimate language of the world. Sisters and Brothers.

Please do your research. The King James is not the first English translation. It was produced to appease the Puritans. Also, King James was not a fan of the Geneva Bible. He put together a group of linguists to translate the ancient manuscripts.

These were not men who were from other regions that may have had a better understanding the languages being translated. The probability that things were lost during translation is high. Hold on to what the Holy Spirit has revealed to you about salvation. The rest is just cause for debate. You say things with authority that is easily disproven. That is not true. We know God loved the cyrians and in ancient times a lot cake from what is now modern day Turkey, aka Antioch. Please stop lying brotheren because God loves you and you still have a chance to repent.

Repent and read the Bible again. With all my love and peace be with you all…. Because in the beginning there was only one Heaven. Trust me, the new version of the Bible do this on purpose; Why? It was never there in the Hebrew. Argue with them about it. Lucifer is a Latin word for the planet Venus, meaning morning star or day star. Not referring to Satan at all but the king of Babylon. Another lie from the KJV only cult. Jesus is the Morning Star got that?

Upper case. The king of Babylon is the morning star lower case. Who sought to exalt himself above the throne of God. Also in the margin of the KJV it says day star. The examples and interpretations and comment speeches given are not helpful to a new Christian nor are they fully understood.

A straight answer would be what is the easiest bible to understand for a new believer. Repent Every Word of God is pure pro very pure ps How many read every Word?

This saith the Lord; Cursed the man who trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord. Jer Blessed the man that trusteth in Lord, n whose hope the Lord is.

Jer My friends, I agree with almost ALL of your comments. Will say this though, apostle peter said we have a more sure word of prophesy, which I believe is made very clear in the kjv. It appears that Jesus our Saviour is coming soon! What hidden agenda is that? Since when was the KJV the standard? Where are the scriptures that support the KJV only myth?.

If there is an agenda it is the KJV only cult that Satan is behind. I would like to respectfully disagree about your saying that the Catholic Church is the one true church. Where in the Bible bodies it state this? Also, when Catholics say that they started the church, is much like saying that Columbus discovered America, when the Indians where already here.

There are Christians all over the world who are not Catholic, Do you think that Catholics have a monopoly on being Christian? Name required.

Email required. Please note: comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment. Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. Written by : Noa A.

User assumes all risk of use, damage, or injury. You agree that we have no liability for any damages. Summary: 1. The KJV neglected to include Alexandrian texts altogether. Author Recent Posts. Noa A. Latest posts by Noa A see all. Help us improve. Rate this post! DEAN P. Cancel Reply. Select personalised content. Create a personalised content profile.

Measure ad performance. Select basic ads. Create a personalised ads profile. Select personalised ads. Apply market research to generate audience insights. Measure content performance. Develop and improve products.

List of Partners vendors. Share Flipboard Email. Mary Fairchild. Also, biblical linguists agree that the Hebrew and Greek original words for this conjunction may commonly be translated otherwise, depending on the immediate context. Therefore, instead of and , alternatives such as also, but, however, now, so, then , and thus are accordingly rendered in the present edition, when the original language permits.

The real character of the Authorized Version does not reside in its archaic pronouns or verbs or other grammatical forms of the seventeenth century, but rather in the care taken by its scholars to impart the letter and spirit of the original text in a majestic and reverent style.

The format of the New King James Version is designed to enhance the vividness and devotional quality of the Holy Scriptures:. The Hebrew Bible has come down to us through the scrupulous care of ancient scribes who copied the original text in successive generations. By the sixth century A. Babylonia, Palestine, and Tiberias were the main centers of Masoretic activity; but by the tenth century A. Through subsequent editions, the ben Asher text became in the twelfth century the only recognized form of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Daniel Bomberg printed the first Rabbinic Bible in ; that work was followed in by a second edition prepared by Jacob ben Chayyim and also published by Bomberg. The text of ben Chayyim was adopted in most subsequent Hebrew Bibles, including those used by the King James translators.

In Paul Kahle published a third edition of Biblia Hebraica. This edition was based on the oldest dated manuscript of the ben Asher text, the Leningrad Manuscript B19a A. In addition to referring to a variety of ancient versions of the Hebrew Scriptures, the New King James Version draws on the resources of relevant manuscripts from the Dead Sea caves.

In the few places where the Hebrew was so obscure that the King James was compelled to follow one of the versions, but where information is now available to resolve the problems, the New King James Version follows the Hebrew text. Significant variations are recorded in footnotes. There is more manuscript support for the New Testament than for any other body of ancient literature. Over five thousand Greek, eight thousand Latin, and many more manuscripts in other languages attest the integrity of the New Testament.

There is only one basic New Testament used by Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox, by conservatives and liberals. Minor variations in hand copying have appeared through the centuries, before mechanical printing began about A.

Some variations exist in the spelling of Greek words, in word order, and in similar details. These ordinarily do not show up in translation and do not affect the sense of the text in any way. Other manuscript differences such as omission or inclusion of a word or a clause, and two paragraphs in the Gospels, should not overshadow the overwhelming degree of agreement which exists among the ancient records.

Bible readers may be assured that the most important differences in English New Testaments of today are due, not to manuscript divergence, but to the way in which translators view the task of translation: How literally should the text be rendered? How does the translator view the matter of biblical inspiration? Does the translator adopt a paraphrase when a literal rendering would be quite clear and more to the point? The New King James Version follows the historic precedent of the Authorized Version in maintaining a literal approach to translation, except where the idiom of the original language cannot be translated directly into our tongue.

The King James New Testament was based on the traditional text of the Greek-speaking churches, first published in , and later called the Textus Receptus or Received Text. Although based on the relatively few available manuscripts, these were representative of many more which existed at the time but only became known later.

In the late nineteenth century, B. Westcott and F. Hort taught that this text had been officially edited by the fourth-century church, but a total lack of historical evidence for this event has forced a revision of the theory. It is now widely held that the Byzantine Text that largely supports the Textus Receptus has as much right as the Alexandrian or any other tradition to be weighed in determining the text of the New Testament.

Since the s most contemporary translations of the New Testament have relied upon a relatively few manuscripts discovered chiefly in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Such translations depend primarily on two manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, because of their greater age.

The Greek text obtained by using these sources and the related papyri our most ancient manuscripts is known as the Alexandrian Text. However, some scholars have grounds for doubting the faithfulness of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, since they often disagree with one another, and Sinaiticus exhibits excessive omission. A third viewpoint of New Testament scholarship holds that the best text is based on the consensus of the majority of existing Greek manuscripts.

This text is called the Majority Text. Most of these manuscripts are in substantial agreement. Even though many are late, and none is earlier than the fifth century, usually their readings are verified by papyri, ancient versions, quotations from the early church fathers, or a combination of these.

The Majority Text is similar to the Textus Receptus, but it corrects those readings which have little or no support in the Greek manuscript tradition. 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. In light of these facts, and also because the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the footnotes.

Although these variations are duly indicated in the footnotes of the present edition, it is most important to emphasize that fully eighty-five percent of the New Testament text is the same in the Textus Receptus, the Alexandrian Text, and the Majority Text. Significant explanatory notes, alternate translations, and cross-references, as well as New Testament citations of Old Testament passages, are supplied in the footnotes.

The textual notes in the present edition of the New Testament make no evaluation of readings, but do clearly indicate the manuscript sources of readings. By giving a clearly defined set of variants the New King James Version benefits readers of all textual persuasions. Where significant variations occur in the New Testament Greek manuscripts, textual notes are classified as follows:.

The textual notes reflect the scholarship of the past years and will assist the reader to observe the variations between the different manuscript traditions of the New Testament.