Quote:
Originally Posted by Diligent
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.
|
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