Comments on: Preface To The NKJV http://markharrell.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/preface-to-the-nkjv/ Just another WordPress.com weblog Mon, 04 May 2009 10:51:15 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: markharrell http://markharrell.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/preface-to-the-nkjv/#comment-55 markharrell Thu, 22 Jan 2009 04:26:19 +0000 http://markharrell.wordpress.com/?p=117#comment-55 David... once again you choose to nic pic. The translators of the King James used the RT as there basis for its Bible... and... went to great lengths to be consistent for the reason of cross referencing. You site one area that you call a mistranslation, but, it is an attempt (as God was providentially leading the writers) to keep the consistency in tact. That is important, David... the consistency to the uncorrupted MT and the RT is vital to an accurate translation. Those uncorrputed texts were protected in Antioch, preserved by Erasmus in the RT and used by the KJV translators. It is the only Bible since 1611 to do so... consistently! You fail to refer to the multiplicity of NKJV words that are absolutely not part of the RT in any way, shape or form (refer to the above list). I'm getting used to that tactic though (trying to slam the whole thing by citing one misunderstood area). The NKJV also used the Masoretic text that was in the hands of origen, philo and Eusebus as a preferred text. They destroyed the OT text. The Masoretic text was protected by the blessed line of Shem (the only son of Noah to carry that title); they settled in a city known as Antioch (model church, first missionaries, first deacons, etc.) The point is that the KJV is accurate and consistent in all respects to the RT and the Masoretic text from Antioch. The NKJV is not. Just google the "school of Alexandria" and the "school of Antioch" for the source material. So, as far as accuracy is concerned... the KJV is totally consistent with the RT. The NKJV is littered with totally inconsistent words. Thanks for the comments. It is good for people to hear both sides and make decisions for themselves. Mark David… once again you choose to nic pic. The translators of the King James used the RT as there basis for its Bible… and… went to great lengths to be consistent for the reason of cross referencing. You site one area that you call a mistranslation, but, it is an attempt (as God was providentially leading the writers) to keep the consistency in tact. That is important, David… the consistency to the uncorrupted MT and the RT is vital to an accurate translation. Those uncorrputed texts were protected in Antioch, preserved by Erasmus in the RT and used by the KJV translators. It is the only Bible since 1611 to do so… consistently!

You fail to refer to the multiplicity of NKJV words that are absolutely not part of the RT in any way, shape or form (refer to the above list). I’m getting used to that tactic though (trying to slam the whole thing by citing one misunderstood area).

The NKJV also used the Masoretic text that was in the hands of origen, philo and Eusebus as a preferred text. They destroyed the OT text. The Masoretic text was protected by the blessed line of Shem (the only son of Noah to carry that title); they settled in a city known as Antioch (model church, first missionaries, first deacons, etc.)

The point is that the KJV is accurate and consistent in all respects to the RT and the Masoretic text from Antioch. The NKJV is not. Just google the “school of Alexandria” and the “school of Antioch” for the source material.

So, as far as accuracy is concerned… the KJV is totally consistent with the RT. The NKJV is littered with totally inconsistent words.

Thanks for the comments. It is good for people to hear both sides and make decisions for themselves.

Mark

]]>