Books and eBooks by the Director
Verse
Evaluations:
KJV vs. NKJV - Part Two
The following is continued from Verse Evaluations: KJV vs. NKJV - Part One. On that page, what Gregg considers to be "egregious errors" and "serious errors" in the NKJV were looked at. Here, less serious "errors" will be studied. Again, Gregg's comments are in black and and enclosed in "greater than" and "lesser than" signs. My comments are in red.
Moderate Errors
Matthew 7:14
narrow (vs.) difficult
>(KJV) "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
(NKJV) "Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."
(Young) "how strait [is] the gate, and compressed the way that is leading to the life, and few are those finding it!"
New Testament Greek Definition:
2346 thlibo {thlee'-bo} akin to the base of 5147; TDNT - 3:139,334;
AV ["Authorized Version" i.e. the KJV] - trouble 4, afflict 3, narrow 1, throng 1, suffer tribulation 1; 101) to press (as grapes), press hard upon
2) a compressed way
2a) narrow straitened, contracted
3) metaph. to trouble, afflict, distress
Vine, Strong and YLT [Young's Literal Translation] all favor narrow. In fact the margin notes in the NKJV also favor narrow over difficult.
Strong defines the Greek as: "a compressed way, narrow straitened, contracted, compressed."<
The reason for the NKJV rendering is probably to prevent repeating "narrow" which it has already used at the beginning of the verse, translating a different Greek word. To use narrow again would not show that two different words are actually being used.
But, the footnote in the NKJV is "confined." And this word could have been used. "Constricted" is used in the LITV and MKJV. Which would work as well.
In any case, the implications of Jesus’ statement is the same. As a comment on this verse I read somewhere (forget where now) put it, "If you’re going in the same direction as everyone else, you’re probably going the wrong way!"
Luke 11:8
importunity (vs.) persistence
>(KJV) "I say unto you, Though he will not rise and give him, because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity he will rise and give him as many as he needeth."
(NKJV) "I say to you, though he will not rise and give to him because he is his friend, yet because of his persistence he will rise and give him as many as he needs."
The MKJV, LITV, YLT, Strong, and Vine all favor "importunity."<
I am glad to see that you are already comparing the MKJV and LITV on your new Online Bible. They are both generally very accurate translations.
However, in this case, I must first ask, what does "importunity" mean? I had to look it up, "1. An importunate request; an insistent or pressing demand. 2. The quality of being importunate.".
Meanwhile, "persistence" means, 1. The act of persisting. 2. The state or quality of being persistent; persistency." And "persistent" means, 1. Refusing to give up or let go; persevering obstinately. 2. Insistently repetitive or continuous: a persistent ringing of the telephone. 3. Existing or remaining in the same state for an indefinitely long time; enduring" " (American HeritageŽ Dictionary).
So it does not appear to me that there really is a big difference between the two words, other than that "persistence" would more likely be understood than "importunity" by today's readers.
As for the Greek word, Bauer defines anadeia as, "persistence, impudence, Lit. shamelessness" (p.54). So "persistence" is an appropriate translation.
John 4:24
God [is] a Spirit (vs.) God [is] Spirit
>(KJV) "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."
(NKJV) "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."
The two are very close but the KJV’s "God [is] a Spirit" is clearly closer to the Greek! The NKJV leaves out the "a" that is included in the Greek.<
First off, I must point out, there is no indefinite article ("a") in the Greek language. So it is impossible for the "a" to be "included in the Greek."
There is a definite article in the Greek language. When it appears with a noun it is generally translated as "the" but can also translated as a demonstrative pronoun ("those"), a possessive pronoun ("his"), along with various other uses. Also, there are times when it is not appropriate to translate the article, such as when it is used with proper names (Dana and Mantey. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, pp.135-153).
When a noun does not have the article it is called an "anarthrous" construction. The most important distinction between a noun with the article versus a noun without it is explained by Dana and Mantey, "An object of thought may be conceived of from two points of view: as to identity or quality. To convey the first point of view the Greek uses the article; for the second the anarthrous construction is used" (p.149).
In this instance, "Spirit" is used without the article. So it is referring to the "quality" of God. "Quality" means, "1. a. An inherent or distinguishing characteristic; a property. b. A personal trait, especially a character trait ... 2. Essential character; nature" (American HeritageŽ Dictionary).
Putting all of the above together, if it was up to me, I would translate this verse, "God is as to His essential character Spirit." But given the awkwardness of this rendering, I would prefer the NKJV’s. It comes closest to "my" rendering.
1Corinthians 7:3
benevolence (vs.) affection
>(KJV) "Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband."
(NKJV) "Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband."
The Greek word means to "give away." Benevolence means "an inclination to perform kind charitable acts." Clearly, the KJV is closer to the Greek.<
First off, note that there is a textual variant here. The "Critical Text" does not have the word "benevolence" in it. But since the word is in the Textus Receptus that both the KJV and NKJV are based on, the variant doesn't affect this discussion. The NKJV does not footnote this variant but George Berry’s Interlinear New Testament does.
In any case, the Greek word is eunoia. Bauer gives the following possible definitions: "good will, favor, affection, benevolence, zeal, enthusiasm" (p.323). The Online Bible has "good will, kindness" for its definitions.
So either affection or benevolence are possible. The LITV and MKJV both have "kindness" which is also possible. But since the context is discussing sexual relations between a husband and wife, in my opinion, "affection" would be the better rendering.
Ephesians 5:33
reverence (vs.) respect
>(KJV) "Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband."
(NKJV) "Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband."
Strong’s definition clearly favors reverence.<
The Greek word is phobeo. The word has many connotations. Bauer's definition "2" for the word is "(have) reverence, respect - a. (for) God, fear him in the sense of reverence .... b. for men who command respect" (p.863).
Louw and Nida give three basic definitions for the word, " be afraid, respect, worship" (Vol. I, p. 258). They then elaborate on the second definition, "to have such awe or respect for a person as to involve a measure of fear - 'to fear, to show great reverence for, to show great respect for'" (Vol. II, p.735).
Rienecker defines the word as "to reverence, to show respect" (p.540). So it appears either rendering is appropriate.
This might be a good place to interject, maybe it would help if you got yourself a more scholarly lexicon than Strong's. His simple lexicon might be helpful for basic studies; but for more serious word studies the kind of books that I have been quoting from are more appropriate. Moreover, having more than one lexicon to compare is also very helpful.
As stated previously, Bauer's and Louw and Nida's lexicons were the ones recommended by my Greek professors at Denver Seminary. However, neither of these are coded to Strong's numbers. So a knowledge of the Greek alphabet is needed. For lexical aids which are coded to Strong's numbers, see under "Language Helps" at Recommended Bible Study Aids.
Philippians 3:8
dung (vs.) rubbish
>(KJV) "Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,"
(NKJV) "Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ"
Strong define the Greek word translated as dung: any refuse, as the excrement of animals, offscourings, rubbish, dregs 1a) of things worthless and detestable. (Dung is the strongest of the two--it more closely represents the original.)
"Rubbish is close but not close enough. Strong’s definition clearly favors "dung."<
The LITV has "trash" here while the MKJV has "dung."
Copying from the Online Bible:
1) any refuse, as the excrement of animals, offscourings, rubbish, dregs
1a) of things worthless and detestable.
So it could be that "dung" is the original meaning of the word; but it came to mean anything that is worthless. So "trash" or rubbish" would both be fitting translations, but so would "dung." The problem with the latter though is, how many people today really use the word "dung?" I can think of several other much more common terms that are in use today for excrement. But most would not be appropriate for use in the Bible!
This type of problem is one that a translator will often face, how to render "sensitive" words (like those referring to human, sexual body parts, sexual acts, and human waste products). The translator could use the most "common" term but it would often be considered "vulgar" in the receptor language. So a somewhat less accurate term might be used or a somewhat less common term.
In any case, the Greek word is skubalon, Bauer defines it as, "refuse, rubbish, leavings, dirt, dung.... " Phil 3:8 is then referred to with the rendering, "consider everything rubbish or dung" (p.758). So Bauer gives both the KJV and the NKJV translations.
Subsequent to my comments above, I attained a book written by the NT editor of the NKJV: Arthur L. Farstad. The New King James Version in the Great Tradition (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1993).
The following taken is from page 86 of this book:
Now if the Greek word definitely meant waste products, dung would have been left here in the NKJV. But it does not! The Greek word skybala is thought by some to be from an expression "throw to the dogs" - hence garbage or rubbish. Another view is that it comes from skor, an expression meaning dung. Since we are not sure, rubbish is a good choice.
1 Peter 1:7
trying (vs.) genuineness
>(KJV) "That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:"
(NKJV) "that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ,"
Most translations use "proving" which is synonymous with "trying."<
The LITV has "proving" and the MKJV follows the KJV with "trial."
The Greek word is dokimiov. Rienecker comments on the word and this verse, "tried, approved after trial, genuineness. The genuine element in their faith was proven by a process similar to that of metal refining and is found to be something more precious than these precious metals" (p.745).
Bauer gives two sets of definitions, "1. testing, means of testing.... 2. neuter, singular of the adjective genuine, without alloy." As an example for each set, Bauer refers to James 1:3 for the first and 1Peter 1:7 for the second. He then renders the latter, "the genuineness of your faith" (p. 203).
So it would appear that "genuineness" is the most appropriate translation of the word in this context.
2 Peter 3:5
ignorant (vs.) forget
>(KJV) "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:"
(NKJV) "For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,"
The NASB translates the Greek as "escapes their notice" consistently throughout the New Testament. Ignorant is closer but not perfect. The NASB rendering or the use of hid or hidden would be more appropriate.<
The Greek word is lanthano. Bauer defines it as, "escape notice, be hidden." He then renders this verse as, "when they maintain this, it escapes their notice" (p.466). Rienecker comments on the word, "to escape notice of, to be hidden from" (p.781).
The LITV and MKJV both have, "For this is hidden from them by their willing it so...." So these sources agree with your evaluation.
However, Louw and Nida give three basic definitions for the word, "escape notice, forget, not know" (Vol. I, p.151). They then elaborate on the second definition, "to not recall information and thus lose sight of its significance - 'to forget, to not remember, to lose sight of, to ignore.'" They then give 2Peter 3:5 as an example of this usage and render it, "for when they maintain this, they forget that" (Vol. II, p. 348). So Louw and Nida agree with the NKJV.
Since there is some lexical support for the NKJV it is not necessarily in "error." But the evidence does seem to favor your evaluation.
Debatable, Possible Errors
>The following are instances where I feel either translation (KJV or NKJV) would be appropriate but I would lean more to the KJV choice of wording.<
Genesis 1:28
replenish (vs.) fill the earth
>(KJV) "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
(NKJV) "Then God blessed them, and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth'"
"Fill the earth" is the primary meaning but replenish is also a possible translation and it is truer to the fact that there was something here before Adam.
The Hebrew favors "fill the earth" but theologically many favor replenish.<
The basic definition of the Hebrew word male' is "be full, fill" according to The New Brown - Driver - Briggs - Gesenius Hebrew and Greek Lexicon (BDBG). The lexicon does not list "replenish" among its other possible definitions (pp. 569-570).
As for, "the fact that there was something here before Adam" I am assuming you’re referring to the "gap" theory of a pre-Adamic race in-between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. All I can say for this theory is there is no specific Biblical evidence for it. So the theory cannot be used to justify using an, at best, obscure definition of a word in translating.
Both LITV and MKJV have "fill the earth."
Genesis 22:8
provide himself a lamb (vs.)
provide for Himself the lamb
(KJV) "And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together."
>(NKJV) "And Abraham said, 'My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering.' So the two of them went together."
What a difference the preposition "for" makes. With it, the verse loses its prophetic reference to Christ!!
Debatable and contestable but I favor the KJV.<
This verse is mentioned in the last letter included in Letters on Bible Versions on my site.
To repeat my comments from there:
I really do not see much of a difference between the two
translations of Genesis 22:8; but to respond, the reason the NKJV
has "for Himself" rather than just "himself"
is because of a "dot" know in Hebrew as a
"dagesh." This dot occurs in the first letter of the
word (a Lamed). And in Hebrew, a prefixed Lamed is a preposition
which means "to" "for" "in regard
to" (BDBG, p. 510).
So the NKJV accounts for the dagesh, whereas the KJV doesn't. So based on the Hebrew text, the NKJV is the more exact translation.
Psalm 109:6
Satan (vs.) accuser
>(KJV) "Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand."
(NKJV) "Set a wicked man over him, and let an accuser stand at his right hand."
The KJV is the most literal. Although I would agree that the NKJV’s choice of wording aligns better with the text.
Accuser is correct for the context of the text but Satan is the most literal and correct.<
Actually, the KJV is simply a transliteration of the Hebrew letters into English letters. Whether it is best to simply transliterate rather than translate controversial words can be, well, controversial.
Compare, for instance, how different translations handle the Hebrew word "Sheol." The LITV simply transliterates it while the KJV, NKJV, MKJV translate it as "grave" (Gen 37:35). "Sheol" leaves open the possibility that Jacob is thinking about life after death. But "grave" eliminates this possibility.
In any case, as you say, "accuser" better fits the context. The LITV and MKJV both have "adversary" which would also fit. Notice also that the NKJV has a textual footnote indicating that the Hebrew word is "satan." And one thing I like about the NKJV is that it includes these types of textual aids.
Isaiah 61:1
meek (vs.) poor
>(KJV) "The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;"
(NKJV) "The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me, because the LORD has anointed Me to preach good tidings to the poor; he has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound;"
Vines definition favors meek:
`anaw ^6035^, "humble; poor; meek." This
adjective, which appears about 21 times in biblical Hebrew, is
closely related to `ani and derived from the same verb.
Sometimes this word is synonymous with `ani. Perhaps
this is due to the well-known waw-yodh interchange. `Anaw
appears almost exclusively in poetical passages and describes the
intended outcome of affliction from God, namely
"humility." In its first appearance the word depicts
the objective condition as well as the subjective stance of
Moses. He was entirely dependent on God and saw that he was:
"Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which
were upon the face of the earth" (Num 12:3).<
First, to clarify, you quote Vine's definition for the adjective. But in this context 'anaw is a noun. But the meaning is unaffected.
In any case, BDBG gives the following possible definitions, "poor, afflicted, humble, meek" (p.776). So either "poor" or "meek" is possible. The LITV has "meek" while the MKJV has "poor."
Acts 3:13, 3:26, 4:27,
4:30
Child or Son (vs.) Servant
>(KJV) "The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go" (Acts 3:13).
(NKJV) "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go" (Acts 3:13).
"Servant" is a possible alternative in the above verses but would be clearly out of context and not supported in scripture. How can God be a servant of God? God never said Jesus was his servant but called him a Son!! This mistranslation may be considered an attack on the deity of Jesus!! The NKJV agrees with most of the modern translations. The NASB footnotes the verse and provides the correct alternate "son".
Some versions support "Servant." It is also a possible alternative but the most correct is "son or child."<
There is no "attack" on Jesus’ Deity here. First off, as you say, the translation can go either way.
Copying from the Online Bible:
3816 pais {paheece} perhaps from 3817; TDNT - 5:636,759; n m/f
AV - servant 10, child 7, son (Christ) 2, son 1, manservant 1, maid 1, maiden 1, young man 1; 241) a child, boy or girl
1a) infants, children
2) servant, slave
2a) an attendant, servant, spec. a king's attendant, minister
So in the KJV it is rendered "servant" as often as "son" or "child." Moreover, notice in Acts 4:25 the same word is used in reference to David, and both the KJV and NKJV render it as "servant." This use is especially significant as "son" would not fit the context. Also, it occurs right in between the four times the word is being applied to Jesus.
As for your question, "How can God be a servant of God?" - simple, the same way a human being can be the servant of another human being. I can serve another without being essentially inferior to that person. In other words, there is a distinction of person and position, but not of nature.
In the same way, Jesus is distinct in Person and position from the Father, yet equal in essence. The Father is the first Person of the Trinity; Jesus is the second Person of the Trinity. Jesus can be the "Servant" of the Father by obeying His Father’s will (John 5:11,30; 6:38).
Secondly, in Romans 15:9 Paul writes, "Now I say that Jesus Christ has become a servant to the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers" (NKJV). In KJV, LITV, and MKJV "servant" is rendered "minister."
The Greek word is diakonos. It can mean:
AV - minister 20, servant 8, deacon 3; 311) one who executes the commands of another, esp. of a master, a servant, attendant, minister
1a) the servant of a king
1b) a deacon, one who, by virtue of the office assigned to him by the church, cares for the poor and has charge of and distributes the money collected for their use
1c) a waiter, one who serves food and drink (from the Online Bible).
So whatever the translation, the word refers to one person doing something for another. Putting Acts 3:13 and Romans 15:9 together, Jesus can be called "Servant" because He did the will of the Father by dying for the sins of His people (Matt 26:39).
1Peter 1:2
through sanctification (vs.) in sanctification
>(KJV) "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied."
(NKJV) "elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied."
It’s amazing how one preposition can change the entire meaning of a passage. Our election is accomplished "through the sanctification of the Spirit" not "in the sanctification of the Spirit". (The NKJV differs in many places to the KJV by changing prepositions.)<
The Greek word in question is ev. Dana And Mantey’s discussion of prepositions states the following about this word:
Root meaning: "within." In composition: "within, in" … Resultant meanings: (1) with the locative case; "in, on, at, within, among" … (2) With the instrumental case; "with, by means of" …
Remote meanings (1) "besides" … (2) "into" … (3) "Because of" (p.105).
Note: "through" is not given as a possible meaning; though "by means of" would be similar.
As stated previously, translating prepositions can be rather difficult. For ev the most common translation is "within" or "in." Hence why the NKJV, along with the LITV and MKJV, use "in" here. And when I do my own translating I will always use "in" unless the context clearly indicates it should be rendered otherwise. So I would probably use "in" also in this verse.
Compare this verse with Matt 3:11, "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire" (NKJV).
Note the words "with" twice in this verse. In both cases the original word is ev. The KJV also has with; but the LITV and MKJV have "in."
As a Baptist, the translation "in" is most appealing. But what is appealing to me is not what matters. What matters is that he most common way to render the word is "in" and there is nothing in the context that necessitates "with."
As J.P. Green comments in his "Translation and Textual Notes" on the Online Bible:
baptize you WITH water (AV-KJV) should be baptize you IN water, since the Greek preposition is "en" (which denotes local or relevant place, whereas with would indicate an instrumental mode). baptize you WITH vs. IN the Holy Spirit and fire, where again "en" would mean the baptized person was being put IN the Spirit, not having the Spirit applied to the person.
Greens words would also apply to 1Pet 1:2. Sanctification is not the cause of our election as the KJV would have it; we are "in sanctification of the Spirit" as a result of our election. A bit difficult I know. But either rendering has its problems.
1Peter 2:2
sincere (vs.) pure
>(KJV) "As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:"
(NKJV) "as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby,"
The literal translation is "without guile"--sincere is closer to the original.<
The Online Bible defines the word as:
1) guileless
1a) in things: unmixed, unadulterated, pure
1b) in persons: without dishonest intent, guileless
So "pure" is a possible translation. And given the context "pure milk" makes the most sense. Whoever heard of "sincere milk?"
The LITV has "pure" while MKJV has "sincere."
2 Peter 1:9
blind and cannot see afar off (vs.)
shortsighted even to blindness
>(KJV) "But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins."
(NKJV) "For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins."
Again, the KJV is more literal.<
The "and" in the KJV and the "even" in the NKJV are not in the Greek. There is no kai that these words would require. The KJV follows the Greek word order more closely though. But "shortsighted" is more a more natural term than "cannot see afar off" for today's readers. So each rendering has a plus and a couple of minuses.
The MKJV follows the KJV; but the LITV has, "blind, being shortsighted...." The latter word is a present, active, participle.
The Online Bible gives an explanation for each of these grammatical terms:
The present tense represents a simple statement of fact or reality viewed as occurring in actual time. In most cases this corresponds directly with the English present tense.The active voice represents the subject as the doer or performer of the action. e.g., in the sentence, "The boy hit the ball," the boy performs the action.
The Greek participle corresponds for the most part to the English participle, reflecting "-ing" or "-ed" being suffixed to the basic verb form. The participle can be used either like a verb or a noun, as in English, and thus is often termed a "verbal noun."
So "being shortsighted" brings out the grammatical form of the word. And by following this construction, the LITV does not need to add a "and" or "even." So the LITV would be the most "literal" of all.
>Here are number of verses that were too close to make a judgment at this time. It will take more than dictionaries to settle these in my heart (A lot of prayer and meditation):<
2Corinthians 5:17
he is a new creature (vs.)
he is a new creation
(KJV) "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."
(NKJV) "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new."
The lexicons I checked give both possible meanings. The MKJV has "creature" but the LITV has creation." So it could go either way. But to me, "creation" sounds better. Also, the KJV even translates the word as "creation" in some contexts (e.g. Rom 1:20).
2Corinthians 10:5
Casting down imaginations (vs.)
casting down arguments
(KJV) "Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;"
(NKJV) "casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ,"
The only other place in Scripture where this word is used is in Rom 2:15 where it is translated "thoughts" in every version. The lexicons are not much help. So, again, it could probably go either way. The LITV and MKJV both have "imaginations."
1 Thessalonians 5:22
Abstain from all appearance of evil
(vs.) Abstain from every form of evil
(KJV) "Abstain from all appearance of evil."
(NKJV) "Abstain from every form of evil."
I discuss this verse at length in my Bible versions book.
Titus 3:10
A man that is a heretick (vs.) a divisive man
(KJV) "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;"
(NKJV) "Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition,"
The Greek word is a hapax legomena (i.e. "spoken once") meaning this is the only verse in which it occurs in Scripture. In such cases it is always hard to get an exact meaning for a word.
The Greek word is hairetikon so "heretic" is basically a translaiteration. The definition both my Online Bible and PC Study Bible give for it is "schismatic." Louw and Nida define it as: "pertaining to causing divisions - 'divisive, one who causes divisions."
So it would depend on wether you want to jsut transliterate the word actually translate it. Moreover, the word is an adjective, not a noun. Also, the KJV rendering requires adding the words "that is." So by grammar the NKJV would be preferred.
Both the LITV and MKJV have "a man of heresy." I guess Mr. Green, who edits both versions, was trying to use the KJV translation while making it "sound" like an adjective. It did not come out too well. Although, in The Interlinear Bible, which Green also edits, the word-for-word reading under the Greek text is, "a heretical man." This rendering at least makes the word an adjective rather than a noun.
Hebrews 10:14
are sanctified (vs.) are being sanctified
(KJV) "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."
(NKJV) "For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified."
The Greek word is hagiazomenous. It is a present, passive, participle. The first and last of these terms were previously defined from the Online Bible. To add the definition for the second term here, "The passive voice represents the subject as being the recipient of the action. E.g., in the sentence, 'The boy was hit by the ball,' the boy receives the action."
The NKJV's "are being" brings out each of these grammatical points much better than the KJV. The LITV has "the ones being sanctified." This rendering is even better in showing the "verbal noun" nature of the participle.
Summary and Conclusion
In the verse evaluations above, some of the time I agree with you that the KJV has the better rendering; but more often I prefer the NKJV. At times, I think it could go either way. Moreover, to truly answer the claim of the superiority of the KJV over the NKJV, I could come up with my own list of "errors" in the KJV. Maybe someday I will write such an article.
But note, in most every case in which I refer to the LITV, I prefer its rendering. I do think the LITV is the most "literal" version I know of. Hence why I use it as my "secondary" Bible. I have even thought of switching to the LITV as my primary Bible but its extreme literalness can cause to to be rather awkward at times.
The above should also demonstrate the value of Bible programs. Much of the research for my comments was done on my Online Bible and PC Study Bible. But I also now have books laying all around me. So my computer has not completely replaced my hardcopy books, yet.
Most of all, the above should show how very close these versions really are. To many people reading the above, it would sound like a lot of "nit-picking." In most cases the differences simply are not that significant.
Note: My book Differences Between Bible Versions contains two chapters of verse evaluations between the KJV and NKJV. Most of the verses looked at in the book were not discussed on these pages.
This discussion is concluded at Final Thoughts on the KJV vs. NKJV.
Books and eBooks by Gary F. Zeolla, the Director of Darkness to Light
Darkness
to Light Home Page
www.zeolla.org/christian