Why Do People Promote The Use Of The New King James Version As Opposed To Other Versions?

It is a system which mutates when no divine beacon exists to prevent error. Where is the Divine Teacher of His Doctrine? And why is He not stopping the "mutating?" Especially since He sent the Paraclete to prevent any "mutations" and innovations to His Church? Why doesn't the Divine Paraclete do His job? Or does He? And do the "mutilators" ignore the Divine Guidance?

These are questions which must be answered before the substance of a "choice" occurs. Comparisons between the many "mutilated" versions could be obtained. Who would decide whether "mutilations" are good or bad? right or wrong? Who is the authority? And without an authority, will there ever be a time when the scripture "does not evolve?" How soon will it be called the NWO bibli-oddity?

You ask a big question. What is presently known is that the KJV was obtained by revising the original Vulgate--taken from the scrolls. The KJV no longer translates "back" to the Latin in the scrolls. This "revision" is admitted by both sides of the issue, the KJV writers claiming St. Jerome & the Apostles & Doctors translated erroneously from Greek, Aramaic, & Egyptian, et al. That is the open admission by making the KJV version. It answers the question of your "why."

The real question is "Why did the KJV writers come to believe the Vulgate was erroneous?" After 15 centuies did Christ let the world finally discover "missing" scrolls to His teaching? Did the "re-writers" then do their duty? or did they have an agenda? Was it innocent?

Second, why did the second KJV (and the 3rd, 4th, 5th & 99th) versons appear? The answer ponts to the same question, "Did they have an agenda?" Was it innocent? It certainly was a work of human hands which were not the guided hands of the Apostles.

To this day no sufficient innocent reply satisfies these questions, so good luck.

Traditional Catholics at traditionalmass.org/

Work of Human Hands, by Fr. Anthony Cekada, 2010, Philothea Press.

1) Why Do People Promote The Use Of The New King James Version As Opposed To Other Versions?

Because those particular people like that particular Bible version better than competing Bible versions.

2) Why do most Protestants (at least on here, and that I have met anyway. I don't want to make blanket statements) promote the use of the New King James Version as opposed to other versions?

I think your opinion is mistaken. I think that the NIV is the most-often suggested, followed by the NKJV, KJV, NASB and NLT2. In fact, it seems to follow the popularity of Bibles in the U.S. very closely:

http://www.cbaonline.org/nm/documents/BSLs/Bible_T...

3) What is wrong with the old King James Version?

a) archaic language (many words used have changed in meaning and are misunderstood by modern readers)

b) translated from comparatively poor source texts (particularly the New Testament); critical texts were unavailable to the King James Version translators.

c) translated using 400-year-old translation principles; our knowledge of translation has improved drastically in the last 400 years, and our knowledge of the original languages has improved even more

- Jim, http://www.bible-reviews.com/charts_accuracy.html

Some of the answers here are so very wrong, but I will not waste your time going through them. The KJV of the bible was found to be the "worse" translation ever [today, with the exception of the Jehovah Witnesses translation called New World Translation] Old parchments of the original scriptures were discovered since the KJV and the added discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls all have proven this fact. FYI: The use of the KJV has never been approved for use by the Roman Catholic Church.

I suspect that your experience is likely not an accurate reflection of what Bibles people actually use. The most popular Bible among non-Catholics (is that who you mean by "Protestants", or do you mean just Protestants, i.e. those churches that sprung from the Reformation?) is the NIV, followed by the KJV. I believe the NKJV is after these two.

Part of the issue too is copyright; KJV/NKJV are not copyrighted, and therefore free to be used/distributed

They think that it is 100% accurate for some reason. Most likely because that is the bible they grew up with in church.

After much research i found it to be not so good when compared to the original texts.

.

The problem I have with the KJV is the old english. I use the NASB because it is suppose to be the most accurate. Still I am not perfectly happy with the NASB. I use a number of versions for study. I don't suppose I would be perfectly happy with any version. Some I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.

I like the New King James, because its the exact translation as the king james, but modernized

in the 1600's "Charity never faileth" made sense

Today "Love never fails" does

I can read a correct translation of the bible, without having to translate it again first

More input, more enjoyment, same accuracy

It is actually Catholics that support the KJV and the NKJV most protestants advocate for either the NIV or ESV translations. I personally use the NASV as it is most accurate to the NA-28 greek.

Some people have some idea that the translators/interpreters of that era weren't affected by modern thought.

This is just my opinion: It says what they want it to say.

Personally I'll take a direct transcription of the original texts, and learn whatever language it was written in if the opportunity were to present itself.