Is the NKJV a better overall translation than the Geneva Bible?

[Logos1560]

Is the 1982 NKJV a more accurate and better overall English translation than the 1560 Geneva Bible?

Since there are not likely very many English-speakers who read the 1560 Geneva Bible, many may regard this as an unimportant question. A good number of KJV defenders or KJV-only advocates have praised the 1560 Geneva Bible, one of pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision. The 1560 Geneva Bible is on the KJV-only view's line or stream of good Bibles.

On the other hand, many KJV-only advocates are very negative towards the NKJV and strongly condemn or attack it. Do KJV-only advocates use a different measure/standard for the NKJV than they use in their praise for the Geneva Bible? Is there sound evidence of the use of unjust divers measures or double standards in KJV-only reasoning?

 

[Baptist4life]

As a lifelong KJV user, I like the NKJV myself.

 

[TCassidy]

As a lifelong KJV user, I like the NKJV myself.

Me too.

 

[Logos1560]

When compared to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages, a sound case could be made that the 1560 Geneva Bible is more accurate in some places than the 1611 KJV is. The NKJV is often in agreement with the 1560 Geneva Bible in those places.

 

[Logos1560]

When compared to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages, a sound case could be made that the 1611 KJV is more accurate in a good number of places than the Geneva Bible is. The NKJV is often or usually in agreement with the KJV in those many places.

One important example in the Old Testament of where the makers of the KJV improve on the Geneva Bible is in the fact that the KJV indicates for readers a distinction between which Hebrew name is used for God by having “LORD” or “GOD” for the Hebrew name which was also translated Jehovah eight times in the KJV while the Geneva Bible does not. This one case would involve over 5,000 places where the KJV could be considered to have improved on renderings in the Geneva Bible. The NKJV also has these over 5,000 improvements to the Geneva Bible’s Old Testament.

If the NKJV is an improvement over the Geneva Bible in a large number of places, what does that suggest about the positive praise for the Geneva Bible on the part of KJV-only advocates when compared to their extremely negative attacks on the NKJV?

 

[Yeshua1]

When compared to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages, a sound case could be made that the 1560 Geneva Bible is more accurate in some places than the 1611 KJV is. The NKJV is often in agreement with the 1560 Geneva Bible in those places.

My understanding is that the Hebrew text used by the NKJV team only disagreed with the Hebrew used by the KJV in 8 area, but none changed anything, while the Greek text was the same for both. correct?

 

[missmary]

I love the KJV and am a downright direhard advocate of it. But, I don't rightly mind the NKJV all that much. I have no real respect for the Bible translations and transliterations which water down His Almighty Word, and the NKJV doesn't do that at all.

 

[JonC]

I like the NKJV (not more or less than th hr NIV, ESV, or NASV). If I were a TR kinda guy I'd probably prefer the NKJV.

 

[JonShaff]

Not that it amounts to much (my opinion that is ), but I preach out of the NKJV and I thoroughly enjoy it.

 

[Yeshua1]

I like the NKJV (not more or less than th hr NIV, ESV, or NASV). If I were a TR kinda guy I'd probably prefer the NKJV.

All of those translations are just as English word of the Lord to us as the Kjv itself!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Is the 1982 NKJV a more accurate and better overall English translation than the 1560 Geneva Bible?

I don't possess a Geneva Bible. I know that some people do and really rate it.
I do like the NKJV and use it almost exclusively for my private devotions and study. The KJV people have made constant attacks upon it and have scored one or two hits. I'm hoping for a revision of the NKJV sometime soon that will correct these.

My understanding is that the Hebrew text used by the NKJV team only disagreed with the Hebrew used by the KJV in 8 area, but none changed anything, while the Greek text was the same for both. correct?

In a small number of cases the NKJV translators went with the Dead Sea Scrolls where those were supported by the Syriac, Targum and/or LXX. The DSS were obviously not available to the KJV translators.

 

[JonC]

I don't possess a Geneva Bible. I know that some people do and really rate it.
I do like the NKJV and use it almost exclusively for my private devotions and study. The KJV people have made constant attacks upon it and have scored one or two hits. I'm hoping for a revision of the NKJV sometime soon that will correct these.

In a small number of cases the NKJV translators went with the Dead Sea Scrolls where those were supported by the Syriac, Targum and/or LXX. The DSS were obviously not available to the KJV translators.

What translation do you prefer (if any over another)?

 

[Rippon]

I don't possess a Geneva Bible. I know that some people do and really rate it.

What does the above mean?

 

[Logos1560]

In a small number of cases the NKJV translators went with the Dead Sea Scrolls where those were supported by the Syriac, Targum and/or LXX. The DSS were obviously not available to the KJV translators.

In what cases did the NKJV translators in their text claim to go with the Dead Sea Scrolls where those texts supposedly differ from the Masoretic text used in the making of the KJV?

The marginal notes in the NKJV may refer a few times to a reading in Dead Sea Scrolls' Hebrew manuscripts, but that does not mean that they followed that reading in their NKJV OT text.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

In what cases did the NKJV translators in their text claim to go with the Dead Sea Scrolls where those texts supposedly differ from the Masoretic text used in the making of the KJV?

The marginal notes in the NKJV may refer a few times to a reading in Dead Sea Scrolls' Hebrew manuscripts, but that does not mean that they followed that reading in their NKJV OT text.

I have seen this a few times but not made a note of the instances. If I come across one in my readings I will let you know.

The Preface to the NKJV states, 'In addition to referring to a variety of ancient versions of the Hebrew Scriptures, the NKJV draws on the resources of relevant manuscripts of the Dead Sea caves.. In the few places where the Hebrew was so obscure that the 1611 King James was compelled to follow one of the versions, but where information is now available to resolve the problems, the NKJV follows the Hebrew text. It may be these cases that I'm thinking of.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

What does the above mean?

Perhaps to 'rate' something is an English expression. It means to rate highly.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

What translation do you prefer (if any over another)?

I prefer the NKJV, but that does not mean that I think it is beyond improvement.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't possess a Geneva Bible. I know that some people do and really rate it.
I do like the NKJV and use it almost exclusively for my private devotions and study. The KJV people have made constant attacks upon it and have scored one or two hits. I'm hoping for a revision of the NKJV sometime soon that will correct these.

In a small number of cases the NKJV translators went with the Dead Sea Scrolls where those were supported by the Syriac, Targum and/or LXX. The DSS were obviously not available to the KJV translators.

Those chooses of theirs though were supported, and did not change any main doctrines, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

In what cases did the NKJV translators in their text claim to go with the Dead Sea Scrolls where those texts supposedly differ from the Masoretic text used in the making of the KJV?

The marginal notes in the NKJV may refer a few times to a reading in Dead Sea Scrolls' Hebrew manuscripts, but that does not mean that they followed that reading in their NKJV OT text.

Did they ever choose to go with what the Critical text showed, or was it that they would footnote/margin the alternate Critical or majority text reading?

 

[Yeshua1]

I have seen this a few times but not made a note of the instances. If I come across one in my readings I will let you know.

The Preface to the NKJV states, 'In addition to referring to a variety of ancient versions of the Hebrew Scriptures, the NKJV draws on the resources of relevant manuscripts of the Dead Sea caves.. In the few places where the Hebrew was so obscure that the 1611 King James was compelled to follow one of the versions, but where information is now available to resolve the problems, the NKJV follows the Hebrew text. It may be these cases that I'm thinking of.

They chose to use what was now considered to be the more accurate way to translate it...