How do you view the esv/Nas?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is the NKJV a better overall translation than the Geneva Bible?
- Thread starter Logos1560
- Start date
The makers of the KJV departed from their own edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text a number of times to follow other versions or sources while several of those times the NKJV translates the reading in the KJV's Masoretic text.
Thus, the NKJV's may be more faithful to the Hebrew Masoretic text used in the making of the KJV than the KJV is.
Garrett20
Member
As a big fan of the Byzantine textform I prefer any of the three (Geneva, KJV, NKJV). I use the NKJV for personal study and devotional, but I do use the KJV regularly as well. Also, I just accepted my first pastorate (Youth Pastor) at a church in my community and we use the NKJV from the pulpit. Has anyone read through the MEV? It released in 2014 I believe but seems to read similar to the NKJV. It too is a TR translation.
Well said! (As Jerome often remarks regarding your posts.)
I like what I've read from the MEV but am a bit hesitant since it is published by the publishers of Charisma magazine and all or most of the people who endorse it are Charismatic/Word of Faith.
37818
Well-Known Member
A quick review and it is not better than the KJV or the NKJV.
The very best translation for one holding to the TR would be the Nkjv itself!
I do not think that it includes all of the main notes and footnotes the Nkjv does...
37818
Well-Known Member
I didn't check for that. And what I saw suggests it would not.
I just checked, the MEV has foot notes. 1 John 5:8
a 1 John 5:8 The earliest Greek manuscripts lack in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and the three are one. There are three that testify on earth.
The NKJV has fare more foot notes:
b 1 John 5:7 NU, M omit the words from in heaven (v. 7) through on earth (v. 8). Only 4 or 5 very late mss. contain these words in Greek.
Last edited:
To me the best approach would be to have and use the Nas and the Nkjv, as both are excellent formal translations, and complement each other....
37818
Well-Known Member
I updated my post above. And the NASB is generally a better formal translation. The NKJV followed the dynamic equivalence approach in Colossians 1:15.
Last edited:
My point was when one looks at the whole Bible, those 2 would be the best ones to use for serious studying!
37818
Well-Known Member
Those two are a good choice. I use the KJV as my standard study Bible. What it has that modern versions do not are the singular , thee, thy, thou and thine, and plural pronouns, ye, you and your. See John 3:7 and check the NIV foot note.
Garrett20
Member
One of the main reasons I prefer the NKJV is the excellent textual notes! The MEV does not have but a few.
GenevanBaptist
Member
I prefer the more accurate Geneva 1560 for many reasons over the NKJV and the KJV, not for a single reason.
But one reason is clear in Acts 4:27, and 4:30.
Where our Lord is equated with David calling Jesus our Savior a servant (NKJV) and child (KJV).
Not the Holy Son, like the 1560.
Hmm.
But one reason is clear in Acts 4:27, and 4:30.
Where our Lord is equated with David calling Jesus our Savior a servant (NKJV) and child (KJV).
Not the Holy Son, like the 1560.
Hmm.
Garrett20
Member
Thank you, Genevan Baptist. I do enjoy the Geneva Bible as well (as it is translated out of the Byzantine textual tradition).Of course, I have no problem with any of the three readings you listed from Acts 4:27, 4:30. I believe the MEV reads “holy Son” also. The New Testament refers to Jesus as child, Son, and servant in numerous places so any of those readings are acceptable. The NKJV, WEB, and Pickering’s translation say “holy Servant Jesus”.
Interestingly, Young’s Literal Translation sides with the KJV reading, “holy child Jesus”.
Perhaps our Greek experts can weigh in, but I believe the typical Greek word for “Son” is not used in these two verses in Acts 4.
GenevanBaptist
Member
Also the KJV and NKJV leave out in Acts 22:16 the small word that is in the Geneva 1560 "in", making this verse supportive of baptismal regeneration.
"...in calling on the Name of the Lord."
Having had numerous debates with 'church of christ' ministers and members over the years, these verses ALWAYS come into their supportive references.
Especially 1 Peter 3:20,21.
Where the 1560 has the right wording for what figure actually saves us.
Don't bother with the 1599, it's not real Geneva. That is Tomsons translation of the NT.
"...in calling on the Name of the Lord."
Having had numerous debates with 'church of christ' ministers and members over the years, these verses ALWAYS come into their supportive references.
Especially 1 Peter 3:20,21.
Where the 1560 has the right wording for what figure actually saves us.
Don't bother with the 1599, it's not real Geneva. That is Tomsons translation of the NT.
That is a nice feature of the Kjv, as does help one to better understand certain passages in the scriptures. I also have stated that the Kjv is a good translation, but so are Nas/Nkjv/Esv etc!
The Nkjv and its notes are a good supplement to using the Nas for serious bible studies!
Is a textual variant issue, between the differing Greek texts?
And we have to look over the entire body of the translation to see if they have still kept Jesus as Son of God, Lord, God etc, and all modern versions such as the nas/Esv/Nkjv etc have done just that!