So what? As I said, the NKJV agrees with modern versions against the KJV on these readings. The English has a different meaning.

Thank you for admitting that you believe the NKJV actually corrects the KJV. That clears up a lot, but it also makes your earlier points about language updates of no effect.

Another reason the NKJV should be rejected is that the authors of it show they do not hold to the underlying received text, because they include over 100 marginal notes that cast doubt on them by including critical text readings. Critical text readings are utterly irrelevant to devotional Bible study and have no business "footnoting" God's word.

Response to Jerry
 

The NKJV is from the same text tradition as the KJV as I have previously cited. It is not a valid argument to say that the NKJV is based on a different text tradition than the KJV. Read the Preface of the KJV they used other translations as well.

“Neither did wee thinke much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrewe, Syrian, Greeke, or Latine, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdaine to revise that which we had done, and to bring backe to the anvill that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helpes as were needfull, and fearing no reproch for slownesse, nor coveting praise for expedition, wee have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the worke to that passe that you see.”

The intent of the NKJV committee was to use the same text tradition as the KJV. You may choose to ignore the facts and remain uninformed if you wish. I would just ask you to examine your motives for doing so. I hope you are being honest with yourself.

Response
 

Words:

Yes words do change their meaning in time and should be updated. The KJV has been updated numbers of times. Below is a link to the most recent changes.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html


Variant Readings:

The 1611 KJV included marginal notes with variant readings. Please see the link below it is a scanned copy of the 1611 online. It may be worth your review. This link is to the first chapter in Genesis. Notice the marginal notes including variant readings. Perhaps the NKJV is more in keeping with the original KJV. What do you think?

http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti...agePosition=77

other than the plural pronoun argument. I have already agreed that this is a legitimate argument, just not very persuasive as far as I am concerned.

The number of the pronoun is inspired content which you lose in your translation. KJV/AV gives it to us because it was in the sources they translated for us. Its wrong to leave out what God put in.

The only "updates" our King James has undergone since its printing in 1611 are the standardization of spelling and the correction of spelling errors.

Awesome. Simple, to the point, irrefutable. Way to go brother Brandon.

I think you haven't done your research. The marginal readings of the KJV were not critical text variants. You're comparing apples and oranges.

I get a kick out of it when people show me pictures of 1611 edition printings. I have a folio leaf from an original, first-edition-first-run 1611 hanging on my wall behind me.

Againstheresies,

The front of my King James Bible states this:

"Translated out of the original tongues (languages) and with previous translations diligently compared and revised."

There is a big difference between studying other sound TR-based translations and previous sound English translations, and using the results of those works to revise/make better their English translation, and incorporating corrupt textual readings from a corrupt manuscript into their translation. These are not the same things at all - and you are dishonest to imply or teach that they are.

I said they are “variant readings.” If they are not variant or alternate readings what are they?

One more comment on this, since your charge warrants it:


The translators' governing rules explained when a marginal note could be written:

6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.

The NKJV translators were not working under the same kind of guideline, otherwise their marginal notes would not routinely cast doubt on the veracity of the Scripture text.

The only marginal readings in the original AV that I am aware of that resemble anything like what the NKJV translators wrote appeared in the apocrypha -- the books they kept out of the Old Testament and plainly did not regard as inspired Scripture. One example is 1Esdras 5:5 where the translators wrote "this place is corrupt." I suppose the NKJV translators decided to apply the same attitude to the New and Old Testaments that the KJV translators had for the apocrypha!