Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

13

The reason is that "Jehovah" (or any transliteration) does belong there, and in these specific cases, the replacement would sound strikingly incorrect. Exo 6:3: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, but the Name of God Almighty, but by my name LORD was I not knowen to them If both occurences were to be understood as "title", ...


6

The two translations are probably similar enough that you don’t need to get both. I would recommend getting the KJV because of its historical importance. In your studies, it will be useful to get a historical perspective on passages, as well as a taste of truly traditional language. I wouldn’t advise getting the NKJV in your particular case: anything it ...


5

An Angel moved it. Matthew 28:2 states: There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. Footnote: the other Gospels (Mark, Luke and John) only mention that the stone was moved, but not by whom.


5

If you are interested in accuracy, the NKJV is the way to go, since it correct errors present in all current KJVs. Some are errors in the manuscripts used, some are translation errors, some are typographical errors present in the original 1611 edition (when compared to the translators’ notes), some typographical errors introduced in subsequent editions such ...


5

The NKJV is probably the most similar translation to the KJV of any of the modern translations. It should be noted that the KJV you are probably referring to is the latest update of 1769 and not the original 1611. The translations that predate the KJV 1611, like the Bishop's Bible or Coverdale Bible, will likely be more similar to that than any of the ...


5

The biggest problem with the KJV is that no one is fluent in its language any more. It simply is not written in an English anyone speaks today. When you read the KJV the problem isn't words you don't know - you can go look them up in a dictionary like you do any other words you haven't read before. The problem isn't complicated sentences or strange word ...


3

I disagree that there is a contradiction here. It is more of a subtle difference in the meaning of the two words being compared, “expected” and “hope”. I do see how “expected end” can be a greater indicator of an actual end that the word hope indicates. But, it appears that you are assigning the secular meaning to the word “hope” which is really wishful ...


3

Matthew 28:2 uses the word απεκυλισεν (apekulisen, rolls away). Mark 16:4 uses the word αποκεκυλισται (apokekulistai, has been rolled away). Luke 24:2 uses the word αποκεκυλισμενον (apokekulismenon, having been rolled away). John 20:1 uses the word ηρμενον (ermenon, having been lifted/taken away). No mention of flying, and the word "lifted" only indicates ...


2

If you don't care about modernized English, then there is one important difference that few people tend to note. The KJV has one superiority over every single modern translation I've ever seen (including the NKJV): it correctly uses "thees" and "thous" to reflect the singular versus plural "you" in English. Thus, if you want to read an English translation ...


2

The answer is found in the preface to the AV KJV of 1611 (The Translators to the Reader 11 pages), which has been removed from American KJV Bibles, and is not available on official King James Version web sites. This AV also lists the translators (Pages 36-38) who were all ordained except one; Sir Henry Saville. Many were Bishops, several Deans. On the WEB, ...


1

It was indeed very wise to use the 'title' LORD in all caps there as it follows on with the Jewish custom of not pronouncing the LORD's name. Also in retrospect it might have actually prevented the LORD's Holy name to be taken much more in vain as is sadly done these days to the title God and even the name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus and His holy title ...


1

The major difference between the KJV and the NKJV, is that the King James Version 1611-1769 (the Authorized Version, so called) was written by the Bishops of the Church of England specifically to support the Ecclesiology and doctrine of that Church. American versions of the KJV are different, and not authorized to be read in the CofE. The Queens publishers ...


1

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (commonly referred to as the "Mormons" or "LDS") use the KJV. For verification see Scriptures.LDS.org



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible