NKJV & TR

[rlvaughn]

...I understood the NKJV to be a revision of the KJV, with a few corrections made from a few other texts besides the TR.

I have a booklet (no author, no date given) titled Why the New King James Version. This was printed by Nelson apparently about the time the NKJV came out. They say this on pages 9-10.

While the New Testament scholars were free to consult any available Greek text, and they did, each agreed to follow the Greek text developed by Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener. This text, originally published by Cambridge University Press, attempts to reconstruct as closely as possible the Greek text underlying the King James Version.

For the Old Testament they used the Masoretic Text of Moshe ben Asher, and the 2nd Bomberg Edition of the Hebrew Bible.

 

[Conan]

There are variants with the TR.

Collation of Received text readings

 

[Logos1560]

I have not found any writing of TR advocates in favor of the NKJV.

My preference and bias has been for the KJV, but as I have examined the evidence I am starting to think that the NKJV is a more accurate translation overall than the KJV. My new book Practically Identical Bibles: The Geneva Bible, the KJV, and the NKJV? examines that evidence.

I found that in most if not all places where the KJV improved on the Geneva Bible that the NKJV agrees with the KJV. In a good number of places where the 1560 Geneva Bible could be considered clearer, better, or more accurate than the KJV, the NKJV usually agrees with the Geneva Bible. I found sixty pages of examples where the NKJV basically agreed with the Geneva Bible where the KJV differs. In some of them, the KJV has archaic language while the Geneva Bible and NKJV has more up-to-date language. In some of them, the differences may be considered synonyms. Still there are a good number of the places where the NKJV could be considered more accurate than the KJV.

Considering that the NKJV is usually in agreement with where the Geneva Bible is more accurate than the KJV and with where the KJV is more accurate than the Geneva Bible, it would suggest to me that the NKJV is likely more accurate overall than the KJV.

I do not find that KJV-only advocates apply the same exact measures/standards to the NKJV that they apply to the Geneva Bible and the KJV.

 

[37818]

1 Timothy 1:4, "Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do." The TR is divided on "sdifying" and "stewardship." The Majority rext reading is "stewardship."

1 Peter 2:2 , "as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby.*" * footnote, NU-Text adds up to salvation. Notice the NKJV translators make the Greek for "into" read as "up to." And this is one case where the actual majority text has "into salvation." [My comment on this reading, one cannot grew into salvation one does not have.]

 

[rlvaughn]

My preference and bias has been for the KJV, but as I have examined the evidence I am starting to think that the NKJV is a more accurate translation overall than the KJV.

What is your position and preference on the Greek text?

 

[37818]

The identity of the New Testament Greek text is not yet "cut and dry." Manuscript readings of Greek family 35 . . . .

Not everyone agrees.

 

[Van]

1 Peter 2:2 , "as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby.*" * footnote, NU-Text adds up to salvation. Notice the NKJV translators make the Greek for "into" read as "up to." And this is one case where the actual majority text has "into salvation." [My comment on this reading, one cannot grew into salvation one does not have.]

Nice observation, and I agree no body grows to salvation, salvation is a gift of God bestowed upon those of His choosing. (We of course disagree on how He chooses, but that issue is not the topic)

Here the issue is what part of salvation is in view. Positional Sanctification, where God puts those of His choosing into Christ, Progressive Sanctification, where we grow to become more Christ-like and effective witnesses, or Ultimate Sanctification, our redemption in glorified bodies at Christ's second coming. If the second aspect of salvation is in view, then grow in regard to Salvation seems to present the actual message more clearly.

 

[Garrett20]

Thanks for the comment, although it doesn't really address my question. I am not talking about KJVO, but people who prefer the NKJV. Are there people who prefer the NKJV because they want a translation of the TR in more modern language? Surely there must be some?

Great question. As I’ve stated before, as an advocate of the Byzantine Textform, the NKJV is excellent. Of course the TR is a representative of the Byzantine Textform. So yes it is my preferred English translation. In the preface of the NKJV, the translations state that the NKJV is the fifth official revision of the KJV (and the first official revision since 1769). The KJV is marvelous and I read from it often but the archaic words change over time and the NKJV does a great job of updating the language and retaining the beautiful English. I use it and I’m an Assistant Pastor of a church that uses it as well.

 

[Garrett20]

I have a booklet (no author, no date given) titled Why the New King James Version. This was printed by Nelson apparently about the time the NKJV came out. They say this on pages 9-10.
For the Old Testament they used the Masoretic Text of Moshe ben Asher, and the 2nd Bomberg Edition of the Hebrew Bible.

Thank you sir! Arthur Farstad, General Editor of the NKJV also wrote a book called ‘The New King James in the Great Tradition’ and it really outlines the goal and purpose of the translation. He broke it down into The categories: something old, something new, something borrowed, and something blue. Great resource to learn more about the NKJV.

 

[Yeshua1]

My preference and bias has been for the KJV, but as I have examined the evidence I am starting to think that the NKJV is a more accurate translation overall than the KJV. My new book Practically Identical Bibles: The Geneva Bible, the KJV, and the NKJV? examines that evidence.

I found that in most if not all places where the KJV improved on the Geneva Bible that the NKJV agrees with the KJV. In a good number of places where the 1560 Geneva Bible could be considered clearer, better, or more accurate than the KJV, the NKJV usually agrees with the Geneva Bible. I found sixty pages of examples where the NKJV basically agreed with the Geneva Bible where the KJV differs. In some of them, the KJV has archaic language while the Geneva Bible and NKJV has more up-to-date language. In some of them, the differences may be considered synonyms. Still there are a good number of the places where the NKJV could be considered more accurate than the KJV.

Considering that the NKJV is usually in agreement with where the Geneva Bible is more accurate than the KJV and with where the KJV is more accurate than the Geneva Bible, it would suggest to me that the NKJV is likely more accurate overall than the KJV.

I do not find that KJV-only advocates apply the same exact measures/standards to the NKJV that they apply to the Geneva Bible and the KJV.

How do you see the New Geneva Bible?

 

[Yeshua1]

Great question. As I’ve stated before, as an advocate of the Byzantine Textform, the NKJV is excellent. Of course the TR is a representative of the Byzantine Textform. So yes it is my preferred English translation. In the preface of the NKJV, the translations state that the NKJV is the fifth official revision of the KJV (and the first official revision since 1769). The KJV is marvelous and I read from it often but the archaic words change over time and the NKJV does a great job of updating the language and retaining the beautiful English. I use it and I’m an Assistant Pastor of a church that uses it as well.

I prefer the Critical Greek text and its translations off it, but do use and like the Nkjv especially how it gives the various MT/CT readings in margins!

 

[rsr]

Robert, I think you are generally correct that the NKJV has had few defenders among hardline TR advocates. The TBS, in particular, has spilled considerable ink to denigrate the NKJV. For example, Albert Hembd prepared a 38,000-word “Examination of the New King James Version,” which shreds the NKJV — more often for translational choices than for textual choices. (David Cloud's rejection of the NKJV generally follows Hembd's critique, except in length.)

Many opponents of the NKJV insist that it is NOT based on the same texts as the KJV, but that has not been proven to my satisfaction. If it does depart, it seems to be no more than the KJV departed from the TR.

My reading of opposition by TR advocates seem to be concentrated in a few areas: Belief that the NKJV does not follow the underlying texts of the KJV; renderings that follow modern translations, even though the NKJV is translating the same KJV source; and the editors' decision to list textual variants in the footnotes, thereby casting doubt on the main text.

The fact is that the TBS represents the bulwark of modern TR advocacy. Modern proponents of the Byzantine text are more likely to be on the Majority Text side of the debate. Thus they defend the Byzantine text but not the specific choices present in the TR or the KJV. Farstad, of course, was general editor of the NKJV but co-authored his own MT. Pickering has compiled his own MT text, reflecting primacy of Family 35, and has also translated it into English. Yet on his site he acknowledges "The translation is quite similar to the NKJV, an excellent translation of a good Greek text."

 

[Yeshua1]

Robert, I think you are generally correct that the NKJV has had few defenders among hardline TR advocates. The TBS, in particular, has spilled considerable ink to denigrate the NKJV. For example, Albert Hembd prepared a 38,000-word “Examination of the New King James Version,” which shreds the NKJV — more often for translational choices than for textual choices. (David Cloud's rejection of the NKJV generally follows Hembd's critique, except in length.)

Many opponents of the NKJV insist that it is NOT based on the same texts as the KJV, but that has not been proven to my satisfaction. If it does depart, it seems to be no more than the KJV departed from the TR.

My reading of opposition by TR advocates seem to be concentrated in a few areas: Belief that the NKJV does not follow the underlying texts of the KJV; renderings that follow modern translations, even though the NKJV is translating the same KJV source; and the editors' decision to list textual variants in the footnotes, thereby casting doubt on the main text.

The fact is that the TBS represents the bulwark of modern TR advocacy. Modern proponents of the Byzantine text are more likely to be on the Majority Text side of the debate. Thus they defend the Byzantine text but not the specific choices present in the TR or the KJV. Farstad, of course, was general editor of the NKJV but co-authored his own MT. Pickering has compiled his own MT text, reflecting primacy of Family 35, and has also translated it into English. Yet on his site he acknowledges "The translation is quite similar to the NKJV, an excellent translation of a good Greek text."

Did the Nkjv team use same Hebrew source texts as the Kjv did?

 

[Logos1560]

Did the Nkjv team use same Hebrew source texts as the Kjv did?

Arthur Farstad quoted the following from the guidelines for the making of the NKJV: “the Traditional texts of the Greek and Hebrew will be used” (NKJV in the Great Tradition, p. 34).

Concerning the NKJV, James D. Price observed: “Constant reference was made to the printed edition of the Hebrew Bible used by the translators of 1611, the second Bomberg edition edited by Jacob ben Chayyim. In those few places where the Bomberg text differed from the Stuttgart edition, the Bomberg reading was followed” (King James Onlyism, p. 307). Price listed “nine differences that affect translation” and demonstrated that the NKJV followed the Bomberg edition in those nine places (pp. 222-223). The preface to the NKJV clearly pointed out concerning its Hebrew Old Testament text the fact of “frequent comparisons being made with the Bomberg edition of 1524-25” (p. xxiii).

While the NKJV translators made use of a different printed edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text, they actually followed the same Hebrew text as was used in the making of the KJV. In the very small number of places (only eight or nine have been identified) where their printed edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text differed from the Bomberg edition of Chayyim, the NKJV translators followed the same Hebrew text that underlies the KJV.

Therefore, KJV defenders jump to a wrong conclusion when they claim a different Hebrew text was used for the NKJV’s Old Testament. R. B. Ouellette’s claim that “a completely different Old Testament text was used” in the making of the NKJV is not true (A More Sure Word, p. 57).

 

[Yeshua1]

Arthur Farstad quoted the following from the guidelines for the making of the NKJV: “the Traditional texts of the Greek and Hebrew will be used” (NKJV in the Great Tradition, p. 34).

Concerning the NKJV, James D. Price observed: “Constant reference was made to the printed edition of the Hebrew Bible used by the translators of 1611, the second Bomberg edition edited by Jacob ben Chayyim. In those few places where the Bomberg text differed from the Stuttgart edition, the Bomberg reading was followed” (King James Onlyism, p. 307). Price listed “nine differences that affect translation” and demonstrated that the NKJV followed the Bomberg edition in those nine places (pp. 222-223). The preface to the NKJV clearly pointed out concerning its Hebrew Old Testament text the fact of “frequent comparisons being made with the Bomberg edition of 1524-25” (p. xxiii).

While the NKJV translators made use of a different printed edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text, they actually followed the same Hebrew text as was used in the making of the KJV. In the very small number of places (only eight or nine have been identified) where their printed edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text differed from the Bomberg edition of Chayyim, the NKJV translators followed the same Hebrew text that underlies the KJV.

Therefore, KJV defenders jump to a wrong conclusion when they claim a different Hebrew text was used for the NKJV’s Old Testament. R. B. Ouellette’s claim that “a completely different Old Testament text was used” in the making of the NKJV is not true (A More Sure Word, p. 57).

don't pretty much all English translations use the Hebrew Masoretic text, with a few variations?

 

[Garrett20]

I prefer the Critical Greek text and its translations off it, but do use and like the Nkjv especially how it gives the various MT/CT readings in margins!

Yes sir. I have several friends who use the NKJV for the same reasons. It has a lot of textual-variant readings in the footnotes.

 

[Logos1560]

Many opponents of the NKJV insist that it is NOT based on the same texts as the KJV, but that has not been proven to my satisfaction. If it does depart, it seems to be no more than the KJV departed from the TR.

I also do not think that the allegations against the NKJV, which allege it is based on different texts, have not been soundly and justly proven.

The fact that the NKJV may not have an English word for some Greek word in an edition of the Textus Receptus does not actually prove that a different Greek text was supposedly followed. There are places where the KJV does not provide an English word for a Greek word in the TR, and KJV-only advocates do not say that the KJV departs from the TR in those places. This type difference can be a translation decision as in the range of translation decisions found in the KJV itself.

 

[Dave G]

I was completely unaware of that (the bolded third point). Can you list a verse or two in that category.

If you browse through the NKJV you will find a few of these. I will keep an eye out for them in my daily readings.
I did come across Galatians 4:6 though:
T.R. 'One God and Father of all, who is above all, through all and in you all.'
C.T. '.......in all.'
Maj. '........in us all.'
Does it matter much in the great scheme of things? No.

And I just found this in Matthew 5:47.
T.R. & C.T. 'And if you greet your brethren only, what do you more than others?'
Maj. 'And if you greet your friends only.........?'

Answering the bolded and underlined, " Does it matter much in the great scheme of things? No.":
I suppose that depends on perspective, Steve.

For example, here is the passage you quoted in Galatians, which I have looked at and found to be in Ephesians:

" [There is] one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 one God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all.
7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ." ( Ephesians 4:1-7, AV ).

Here in the "KJV", I see this in verse 6:

By using the words, "...in you all", God the Father is declared to be in every believer, because of who the letter is addressed to ( Ephesians 1:1 ).
This agrees with several other passages that state that Christ is in us ( Colossians 1:27, Romans 8:10 ), and that the Holy Spirit is in us ( 1 Corinthians 2:12, Romans 8:9 ).
Being "3-in-1" ( 1 John 5:7 ), that means the presence of the Godhead is in each and every believer and leaves no room for guessing, like "in all" does.

In the NKJV, the passage is worded like this:

" [There is] one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling;
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
6 one God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all." ( Ephesians 4:4-6, NKJV ).

This is why, as I have stated in other threads, I would use the NKJV if the KJV were not available.


However, this is why I will not use anything CT-based:

" [There is] one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling;
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all." ( Ephesians 4:4-6, NASB ).

To me, by using the words, "in all", it takes away a critical word..."you", and makes the reader ( at least to me ) misunderstand what "in all" really means.
In other words, it takes away the clarification of God the Father being in each believer ( "in you all" ), and seems to give the impression that He is in all things...plants, animals, unbelievers, etc.

So, where there is clarification in the TR-based translations and a "dovetailing" with other Scriptures that confirm certain things, I see an ambiguity in the CT-based translations that creates more questions than are answered.

To me, the text then becomes less-informative, instead of being more-informative and able to rely upon the rule that Scripture "interprets and defines Scripture".


May He bless you richly with His gifts.

 

[Dave G]

So, do you know of TR folks who have written or talked about why they prefer the NKJV (especially in relation to TR)? I hope we can keep to this topic and not just have the usual version free-for-all.

To answer your OP:

I believe the TR is God's preserved Greek Text.
Given the choice of only using modern English translations, I would much prefer the NKJV over almost anything else out there because of their advertised reliance upon that particular collated Greek text.

I know of people who have talked about why they prefer it, and some take my stance.
I know of others who prefer the NKJV over the KJV, and they do so for reasons of desiring God's word in more modern English.

If you want specifics, I could try digging up some, but given my own particular stance, I'm not in favor of using the NKJV... so my labors wouldn't be motivated by a positive effort in that direction.
In the interests of not taking things too far off-topic, this will be my final reply in this thread.


May God bless you sir.

 

[37818]

When they did a NKJV word for word check against the KJV. The KJV that was used wrongly had "he" for "ye" and the NKJV had the correct "you" was by mistake corrected to "he." This of course was corrected back to "you.". Off the cuff I do not have the stories source.