New King James Version - accurate?

stick with the king james

lok for yourself do research on the people who translated to the nkjv, not good.

the kjv is what God really said the most accruate.

Trust me.

I also think theres a verse on people translating and trying to make something thats not out of it

I don't know if this is a fact or not but I will tell you anyway. I heard that every time a new version of the Bible comes out it has been changed by at least 10%, if it isn't changed by at least 10% then they can't call it a new version.

For me personally, I prefer the King James version.

I was a secretary for a pastor for a couple of years and that pastor had several versions that we would use frequently, so really which ever one you get the most out of you should go with. Sometimes I like to look up different passages in the different versions just to see what they each say.

None of them are completely accurate to the original. The book itself was written 2 decades after the death of the Christ. It wasn't translated for a very long time. This is because the King's Priest translated it to the mostly illiterate population. If you control a persons beliefs, you then control the people.

King James allowed it to be translated so that everyone could read it. Then a group of learned people got together and threw parts out, cut and pasted, and generally made it so THEY could all agree on it.

Ppl have since found the Gnostic writings, which haven't been messed with. Check them out. You're in for a big surprise!

Blessed Be

Technically, none of the English language translations are completely accurate. And the Authorized King James Version of 1611 actually borrowed quite a bit from the older Catholic Douay-Rheims version. In fact, the original KJV initially had all 73 books found in the Catholic Bible and was later cut down to the current 66 Books. There are a lot of flaws in the KJV that a lot of people refuse to acknowledge and get angry when you bring them up. Sorry for sharing the truth if it hurts a bit. God Bless.

MeMe, I question the King James Version, so I don't know how the New King James version would necessarily be any better. For example in the King James version, the story of the unmerciful servant relates the story in a very English way by referring to the King as the "Lord" of his subjects (in the English sense and not referring to Christ.) and the servant who owes his Lord 10,000 talents but cannot repay him. The Lord is merciful on him and forgives him his debts until he finds out the servant was not forgiving of another servant for a much smaller debt.

The reason I bring this up is because while I don't know what circumstances the Greek translation refers to, but I'm pretty sure it isn't in reference to an English Lord and his subjects. Not that this in and of itself detracts from the meaning of the verses and the importance of repentance and forgiveness, but would knowing more about the original details of the story shed any additional clarity on the purpose of the verses?

I don't know, but who is responsible for the New King James version of the Bible and how did they relate back to the original Greek translation of the Bible to provide better clarity and accuracy? And, what controversies were there over any of their decision on what to change and why? How can we trust one version over another?

I have the old version and will continue to use it. I suppose the only real way to know for sure would be to have both and cross reference them to see what differences there might be.l

The New King James Version has totally eliminated God's name from its text(Psalms 83:18) In the King James Version it has God's name left in a few places (Psalms 83:18) When the Bible was originally written God's name appeared in it thousands of times. It is important to know and use God's name and the King James Version denies that to its readers The New World Translation is an accurate Bible written in modern day english and it has God's name restored to its rightful place. You can get one at your local Kingdom hall.

One pastor I respect very much put out his study Bible in the NKJV (John MacArthur), so I would think that it is very accurate. Many people say that the NASB 95 is the most literal translation available.

The newer translations have better access to older and many more Greek manuscripts, so a Bible scholar would tell you that Bible translations are getting closer and closer to the original manuscripts. This increases our confidence in the translations that we have today.

The uncovering of the Dead Sea Scrolls, for instance, put to rest some of the criticisms that parts of the OT were (re-)written in order to conform to Christian doctrine (especially the Book of Isaiah). The discovery increased our confidence in the text of the OT.

If the bible contains no errors or contradictions, why is it being changed? Version means change. It cannot be 100 percent accurate if you change a book that is 100 percent accurate to begin with.

The King James Version is also changed. Was it changed from an accurate version, or was it changed TO an accurate version?

This is ridiculous. Every "version" is different. They cannot all be 100 percent accurate, or else they would all say the exact same thing.

I'll say the same thing I always say. Any Bible in English misses many of the truths which are found in Greek for the New Testament, and ANY semitic languge in the Old Testament. There are just an overwhelming majority of Christians who have never been exposed to that kind of teeaching. A teacher who can read write and teach what those other languages are really saying just don't have what it takes to know the difference.

I personally prefer the King James , but the New King James is so closely the same , and it is a bit more easier to understand. The translation is very accurate.