NKJV a good study bible?

[Godsent]

Hello everyone at home i have a commentary to go along with my KJV so i can understand what im reading but i dont take my commentary to church so i need a good study bible that will be easier to understand for while im at church is the NKJV a good book for this....or should i look to other type bible please explain just a bit either way.

[Potters House]

MOOOOO!
Like you, I use the good ol' KJV. Its works with my Strongs Concordence so that i can look up the actual meanings and use of each word. I also like a Hebrew Greek Interlinear, so I can see how the original transcripts were worded. With so many ( Over 400) different versions available, its very confusing. And God is not the author of confusuion. Man is. I run from commentarys. They are mans opinion.

For example, if a verse is written in the original as " Throw the cow over the fence some hay" , you will have many different translations. Some will be throwing the cow over the fence. Some will throw hay over the fence. Some will throw the cow and the hay. Some will claim it was a goat. Some will refer to cow throwing as a sin. Or it wasn't a cow, it was actually a bull. And the hay went thru the bull before they thru it.
So my advise to you, and all others, is to get the closest version of Bible you can to the original text. ( KJV ) Then study for yourself, to show thyself approved. Don't fall into the trap of letting someone else do your study for you. We all know, the Holy Spirit teaches us all things. We have no need for any man to teach us .1 John 2:27 I think it's time we let the Holy Spirit do his job, and not take that away from him. The problem is that we depend too much on commentarys, and not enough on revelation knowledge from the Holy Spirit. 1Cor 2 9-14 .

[OneJoe]

Well put Potters house, I completely agree. Godsent, I too thought about getting a study bible not long ago, but I also recently started using the Strongs condordence and it is a great tool to help with the meanings of words. If you don't already have it, you can download the esword online bible at e-Sword.com and also download different bible versions so they are handy or you can use the "look up scriptures" link on the homepage of CCF which I often use also. I got the KJVw/Strongs, KJV, LITV, Greek, and Hebrew, and they are really handy. It will allow you to type in a certain word to quickly locate certain scriptures if preparing a topic. There are other online bibles, I just like the esword since i have gotten used to it. Rather than reading what others believe a scripture means, I would use the strongs concordence and just compare to other scriptures on your own. Continue rightly dividing the word of truth!!

Onejoe

[zarxs]

Potter, it's nothing personal but between you interpretting the Bible and a commentator I'm betting on the commentator getting it right.

They spend thier lives doing that. You don't have to trust it, but comparing what they said to what you interpreted can help clear up missunderstanding of the Scripture. The is especially important if you are using an out of date translation like the KJV which was written in year 1611. While it is a very good word for word translation when it was written, the language is akward and inaccurate as many words have different meanings now. It is easily misunderstood by a majority of readers today.

The NKJV is definately a better way to go of you are a KJV fan.

[SirLaffalot aka CarltonRoss]

The NKJV is an upgrade of the KVJ, simply updating the "Olde English" and including the newer scriptural material discovered in recent years, i.e. the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The NKJV is an excellent study Bible and I recommend it for study and daily devotions and find it reliable and enjoyable reading for any Bible-related occasion.

[blueheron32]

Godsent..

I do not recommend a study bible of any kind....if you want to use a commentary that is fine, but you should do just as you are doing and keep the comments separate from the bible... The problem arises when a person has a bible that contains comments. He reads the comments in the bible and things get a little fuzzy as to whether what is being read is the word of God, or the words of man. The Scofield bible is a prime example of this. Many times I have heard people make authoritative statements based on the comments contained in that bible.....My scofield bible says....such and such... and it is as if Scofield is speaking for God himself.

Godsent, the bible is its own commentary, and its own dictionary. In order to understand the bible, you must learn to compare spiritual things with spiritual.. in otherwords compare scripture with scripture. If you want to know what a word means in the bible, look at other places God uses that word and see how he uses it there...by doing so you will learn Gods definitions, and the truth of what God is saying...And always pray for wisdom godsent...that God will give you understanding.

Commentaries can be of some help, but they can also be very harmful by discouraging you from doing your own study, and just getting in the habit of blindly following what someone else thinks and continueing in the errors they may very well learned from someone else...your time will be much better spent searching the scriptures than searching commentaries...

blue

[blueheron32]

zarxs...

What do we need a bible for any way zarxs...if the commentary is the way to go..why dont we just read the commentary....why read a bible at all....why not just listen to the preacher..they after all are professionals....carefully trained and skilled in their lifes work...Us poor ignorant common folk should know better than to try to think for ourselves. It would probably be a waste of time anyway, better just to believe what we are told.

You have been receiving seminary training..and I have heard both you and Potters house make comments about the bible....and I assure you, I will go with Potters house every time. Have you ever heard of the dark ages zarxs? Centuries during which church officials were the only ones who had bibles, and were the official interpreters of the bible, while the common folk were the helpless victims of their abuse. To publicly disagree with the official commentator, was to risk being sentenced to hell by the church or death by what ever means judged proper by the professionals...

Your method is the same as the catholic churches was during the inquisitions..if you had your way, we would still all be Catholics and living in superstitions and fear... and outer darkness.... So if you dont mind..me and potters house will keep searching the scripture for ourselves....it seems to me to be a more excellent way....

blueheron32

[zarxs]

Blue, isn't that a bit over the top? I did say to compare your interpretation to the commentary to catch obvious errors in understanding. If you interpret the Bible the same way you interpretted me you might want to consider using a commentary as well. The only correct interpretation is the authors intended meaning. Not only is that a valid principle when reading the Bible it is just as crucial when listening to people.

God Bless

[Donnie]

I am new here, but I have my own opinion. I think that we should all use the KJV because it is what God has written for us. other people who we don't even know has tryed to write and sell us foney Bibles (which are not even Bibles). As you can see I am totally against the NKJV. All i use is a KJV, and if I need to look up a verse or don't know the meaning of that word then i go to my concordance (which I have in the back of my Bible). If you keep studying God's word from the KJv you will understand it. It might take time, but eventually you will.

Donnie

[zarxs]

Why, why work so hard to understand ancient English? Our efforts should be to understand God's word, not Ancient English. Now if you prefer the KJV thats great, it is a great translation, I can respect that.

"I think that we should all use the KJV because it is what God has written for us."

I'm a little concerned that your post showed translation worship. The worshiping of idols. There is nothing magical about the KJV, it is a good translation, the best of it's day 400 years ago. We are not to worship a translation not even worship the message. We are only to worship God.

If you want to judge what is a good translation and what isn't you should first learn enough about Hebrew Greek and Aramaic as languages to know what factors are important when translating them.

[SirLaffalot aka CarltonRoss]

The Bible will shed a lot of light on any Commentary and the New King James Bible is an excellent resource for Bible reading, study or personal devotions.

[proskyno]

I have significant problems with the KJV and even more problems with the NKJV.

The KJV has some very clear errors, such as Rev 22:18 where it translates the 'book of life' where every other translations agrees it should read 'tree of life'. This is a huge error and there are many like it in the KJV.

It also is very inconsistent in translating words Sheol and the divine name (pronounced Jehovah or Yahweh) in the Old Testament. These are commonly changed words, but their inconsistency is based solely on pushing the translators beliefs rather then offering true translation.

The KJV also uses the word Easter in translating Passover (Pascha), in Acts. This is REALLY bad....since Easter is a name derived from false Gods - Ishtar and Astare.

The NKJV corrects some errors but adds many more. Its made more to sell one interpretation of the Bible rather then being a consistent translation. I'd say about the same for most other popular translations - such as the the NASB & NIV.

I've studied Greek (Koine) and my preferred translation is the ASV 1901 (American Standard Version from 1901). It's not a common bible, and there is only one publisher that still makes it, but it's an excellent translation.

[Angel]

proskyno

I have a New King James Version and Revelations 22 verse 18 reads "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of this prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book" I think you may have the wrong verse! However Revelation 22 verse 14 reads "Blessed are those who do His commandments that they may have the right to the tree of life and may enter through the gates into the city.

It does not read book but tree.

Angel :af

[proskyno]

I mentioned the wrong verse - it's actually 22:19. It's a mistake that - I believe - exists in both the KJV and NKJV.

REV 22:19 - KJV
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

REV 22:19 - ASV
and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book.

[blueheron32]

proskyno..

I cant think of any reason why it should be translated tree rather than book... the word "book" is in verse 18 twice...translated from the word biblion...I assume you consider that to be the correct translation..and then again the word "book" is repeated twice in verse 19, translated from the word...biblos, both times..the exact same word...if you are consistent you would therefore translate the verse...." and if any man shall take away from the words of the "tree" of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and out of the holy city, and the things that are written in this book... the third time ..book is used in verse 19, it is again the word biblion.

the word biblion or biblos, simply refers to the inner bark of the papyrus plant, which was used to make writing material...It is not refering to the plant, and even if it was...papyrus is hardly a tree, but a heavy sedge grass...book is the proper translation. In my humble opinion :-)

the word tree is found a number of times in the new testament...it is always the word xoolon..G3586.... it is variously translated tree, wood, staves, stocks, always refering to trees or the products associated with the wood from trees..in fact three times it is used in verses that say the tree of life..

Rev 2:7 He that hath2192 an ear,3775 let him hear191 what5101 the3588 Spirit4151 saith3004 unto the3588 churches;1577 To him846 that overcometh3528 will I give1325 to eat5315 of1537 the3588 tree3586 of life,2222 which3739 is2076 in1722 the midst3319 of the3588 paradise3857 of God.2316
Rev 22:2 In1722 the midst3319 of the3588 street4113 of it,846 and2532 on either side1782, 2532, 1782 of the3588 river,4215 was there the tree3586 of life,2222 which bare4160 twelve1427 manner of fruits,2590 and yielded591 her848 fruit2590 every2596, 1538, 1520 month:3376 and2532 the3588 leaves5444 of the3588 tree3586 were for1519 the healing2322 of the3588 nations.1484
Rev 22:14 Blessed3107 are they that do4160 his848 commandments,1785 that2443 they846 may have2071 right1849 to1909 the3588 tree3586 of life,2222 and2532 may enter in1525 through the3588 gates4440 into1519 the3588 city.4172
You will notice that two of those verses are in chapter 22...funny john didnt use the same word "xoolon" in verse 19, if he wanted it to say tree...dont you think..:-)


I have no problem with people finding fault with the kjv...it does have its deficiencies as do all translations. But we have recourses whereby we can easily check out the work of the translators and make sure they did it right. If you prefer a different translation feel free to use it..I will continue to use the kjv and recommend it to others...:-)

blueheron32

[proskyno]

proskyno..

I cant think of any reason why it should be translated tree rather than book... the word "book" is in verse 18 twice...translated from the word biblion...I assume you consider that to be the correct translation..and then again the word "book" is repeated twice in verse 19, translated from the word...biblos, both times..the exact same word...if you are consistent you would therefore translate the verse...." and if any man shall take away from the words of the "tree" of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and out of the holy city, and the things that are written in this book... the third time ..book is used in verse 19, it is again the word biblion.

the word biblion or biblos, simply refers to the inner bark of the papyrus plant, which was used to make writing material...It is not refering to the plant, and even if it was...papyrus is hardly a tree, but a heavy sedge grass...book is the proper translation. In my humble opinion :-)

the word tree is found a number of times in the new testament...it is always the word xoolon..G3586.... it is variously translated tree, wood, staves, stocks, always refering to trees or the products associated with the wood from trees..in fact three times it is used in verses that say the tree of life..

Rev 2:7 He that hath2192 an ear,3775 let him hear191 what5101 the3588 Spirit4151 saith3004 unto the3588 churches;1577 To him846 that overcometh3528 will I give1325 to eat5315 of1537 the3588 tree3586 of life,2222 which3739 is2076 in1722 the midst3319 of the3588 paradise3857 of God.2316
Rev 22:2 In1722 the midst3319 of the3588 street4113 of it,846 and2532 on either side1782, 2532, 1782 of the3588 river,4215 was there the tree3586 of life,2222 which bare4160 twelve1427 manner of fruits,2590 and yielded591 her848 fruit2590 every2596, 1538, 1520 month:3376 and2532 the3588 leaves5444 of the3588 tree3586 were for1519 the healing2322 of the3588 nations.1484
Rev 22:14 Blessed3107 are they that do4160 his848 commandments,1785 that2443 they846 may have2071 right1849 to1909 the3588 tree3586 of life,2222 and2532 may enter in1525 through the3588 gates4440 into1519 the3588 city.4172
You will notice that two of those verses are in chapter 22...funny john didnt use the same word "xoolon" in verse 19, if he wanted it to say tree...dont you think..:-)


I have no problem with people finding fault with the kjv...it does have its deficiencies as do all translations. But we have recourses whereby we can easily check out the work of the translators and make sure they did it right. If you prefer a different translation feel free to use it..I will continue to use the kjv and recommend it to others...:-)

blueheron32

I checked and the Textus Receptus (probably the Greek NT you are referring to) does say Biblios.....book. That's not suprising - considering the TR was written after the KJV, based on the KJV. Go back to the scholarly work.

Let me put this into perspective. We have a few thousand original manuscripts of the New Testament across both the 'minority' and 'majority' texts.......4 of these have the Comma Johnanneum (1John 5:7-8)....another, more popular example of bad translation in the KJV.

How many of the original manuscripts translate the word in question as Biblios? None. Not one. Every single original majority and minority manuscript that exists in the world translates it as xylos.....tree.

[proskyno]

One more note. If anyone is really interested in this, they should look at the origin of the KJV.

Erasmus and the group of translators, as members of the Catholic church wrote it in a hurry. We know why the translation was bad for this particular verse. It was because they didn't use the original Greek manuscripts - they didn't have the time to get them (they were in a race in some respects). They used some bad Latin translations that the Catholic Church had.....and it happened.

BTW.....I just checked two sources to confirm my comment in the original post - there are ZERO manuscripts (out of 1000's) with the word in 22:19 trasnlated 'biblios'. I did that from memory but will back up anything I write with references if you want them.

[germanJoy]

Rev. 22:19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. NASB

In humility :-), I think the "tree of life" has more sense than the "book of life" if one looks closer the context of Rev. 22:19. If it says, God will take away his part from the tree of life, it connotes an act of having part of the tree of life. What is there in the tree of life? Rev. 7:2 explains it "he who overcomes will eat of the tree of life". Also, Rev. 22:2 explains it "the tree of life bears 12 kinds of fruit... and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.". To have part means also to have right over it, Rev. 22:14 explains that right to the tree of life that "they may enter by the gates into the city."

The translation "book of life" has lesser sense. Rev. 21:27 "and nothing unclean .... shall ever come into it (the city) but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life." The "book of life" is a record of names; either one's name is written there or not. Rev. 22:19 says God will take away HIS PART (tree) and not HIS NAME (book). That makes sense! :-)

[Jaded]

Hello everyone at home i have a commentary to go along with my KJV so i can understand what im reading but i dont take my commentary to church so i need a good study bible that will be easier to understand for while im at church is the NKJV a good book for this....or should i look to other type bible please explain just a bit either way.
Godsent,
NKJV is an excellent translation. I have lots of translations and they shed more light on the meaning of some scriptures. KJV was written in the 1600's--in old english. NKJV has updated language as does the NIV, NLT and others. KJV is a good translation but hard to understand because of the old english. Try other translations--they are not of the devil as some believe. Every time someone came out with a translation of the Bible (like Martin Luther--German Theologian) people were calling them heretics. The original language of the Bible was not King James english, it was several languages. Other translations were translated from the original languages. Check out the first few pages of different translations and they will tell you how it was translated. God bless you!

[TheCowExpert]

MOOOOO!
Like you, I use the good ol' KJV. Its works with my Strongs Concordence so that i can look up the actual meanings and use of each word. I also like a Hebrew Greek Interlinear, so I can see how the original transcripts were worded. With so many ( Over 400) different versions available, its very confusing. And God is not the author of confusuion. Man is. I run from commentarys. They are mans opinion.

For example, if a verse is written in the original as " Throw the cow over the fence some hay" , you will have many different translations. Some will be throwing the cow over the fence. Some will throw hay over the fence. Some will throw the cow and the hay. Some will claim it was a goat. Some will refer to cow throwing as a sin. Or it wasn't a cow, it was actually a bull. And the hay went thru the bull before they thru it.
So my advise to you, and all others, is to get the closest version of Bible you can to the original text. ( KJV ) Then study for yourself, to show thyself approved. Don't fall into the trap of letting someone else do your study for you. We all know, the Holy Spirit teaches us all things. We have no need for any man to teach us .1 John 2:27 I think it's time we let the Holy Spirit do his job, and not take that away from him. The problem is that we depend too much on commentarys, and not enough on revelation knowledge from the Holy Spirit. 1Cor 2 9-14 .
lolz. I loved reading your reply! My favorite animal is a cow. No matter what ppl say I still love them and think they can be just as good a pet as a dog or a cat. Even a horse. I raise them so that I can get money to go to college. Anyway, I use the KJV too. Most ppl think I'm nuts because "it was written a long time ago" and that "it's too hard to understand". Gee, we had ought to be happy that we don't have to learn latin to read the Bible. Besides, I believe the KJV is the one most closely translated. There are plenty of good commentaires to get (we use Strong's) that go along with your KJV. I have a KJV Nelson study Bible and I like it. My dad has a KJV Ryrie study Bible and it's a little bit better than the Nelson.

[TheCowExpert]

zarxs...

What do we need a bible for any way zarxs...if the commentary is the way to go..why dont we just read the commentary....why read a bible at all....why not just listen to the preacher..they after all are professionals....carefully trained and skilled in their lifes work...Us poor ignorant common folk should know better than to try to think for ourselves. It would probably be a waste of time anyway, better just to believe what we are told.

You have been receiving seminary training..and I have heard both you and Potters house make comments about the bible....and I assure you, I will go with Potters house every time. Have you ever heard of the dark ages zarxs? Centuries during which church officials were the only ones who had bibles, and were the official interpreters of the bible, while the common folk were the helpless victims of their abuse. To publicly disagree with the official commentator, was to risk being sentenced to hell by the church or death by what ever means judged proper by the professionals...

Your method is the same as the catholic churches was during the inquisitions..if you had your way, we would still all be Catholics and living in superstitions and fear... and outer darkness.... So if you dont mind..me and potters house will keep searching the scripture for ourselves....it seems to me to be a more excellent way....

blueheron32
Wait a minute. That was WAY uncalled for. She was just wondering. There is absolutely no reason you can't read your Bible and get another person's opinion on it by looking at a commentary. My dad is a Sunday School teacher for the adult class and he looks in his commentary all the time. Nobody wants to hear just one person's opinion. In fact, I think some of the best Pastors use commentarys to help them along. You can not read the commentary if you want to, but don't put down those who want to because there is no reason one can't read a commentary.

[Friarbob]

Hello everyone at home i have a commentary to go along with my KJV so i can understand what im reading but i dont take my commentary to church so i need a good study bible that will be easier to understand for while im at church is the NKJV a good book for this....or should i look to other type bible please explain just a bit either way.I really like my NKJV Study Bible but, I also use the KJV and the NIV for comparison. The 2 main reasons I still use the KJV is because that is the bible I used as a child. Also my Strong's Exhaustive Concordance is cross referenced with the KJV.

[blueheron32]

Ok...:-) in all humility I am ready to concede, sort of...:-)

According to the majority text, the preferred word is tree rather than book...however... the word biblios is also mentioned as a variant, so to say that there is absolutely no manuscript evidence is also not correct...it would seem..

Rev 22:19 και εαν τις BAαφελη TSαφαιρη απο των λογων BAτου BAβιβλιου TSβιβλου της προφητειας ταυτης Aαφελει Bαφελοι TSαφαιρησει ο θεος το μερος αυτου απο BAτου BAξυλου TSβιβλου της ζωης και εκ της πολεως της αγιας TSκαι των γεγραμμενων εν BAτω βιβλιω τουτω

So I am prepared to accept tree as an acceptable alternative..but Im going to keep my King James...:-)

Oh and by the way... someone should tell Luther...he made the same mistake in his german translations, using buch instead of baum. He must have been using one of those texts that didnt exist too..lol also the geneva bible..


blueheron32