Benefits of the NKJV

[BlueMoon]

I know the NKJV, as well as the KJV, is from the TR, and other modern translations are from older manuscripts (ESV, NASB, etc.), but can anyone, pro-NKJV share any links to sites or documents that discuss benefits of using the NKJV? NO, I'm not NKJV(O)only :tongue3: My three favorite translations are ESV, NKJV, and NASB - pretty much in that order, although sometimes differing.
Thanks in advance!

 

[robycop3]

http://goarticles.com/article/The-Benefits-of-Using-a-New-King-James-Version-Bible/5045185/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzdBtZllKK8

There's the obvious advantage of reading God's word in OUR English.

I've found it advantageous to read as many Bible translations as possible, both old and new, to give the HOLY SPIRIT more material to teach me from. Now, while ALL Bible versions are known to HIM, of course, they must be known to me for Him to teach me from them.

The newer versions also take advantage of more-recent manuscript discoveries. now, while there are no new doctrines in those mss. of course, there are different insights to God's word from various ancient authors in them.

Let us use ALL the tools GOD provides for us to learn more about Him.

 

[Van]

The NKJV is a fine word for word translation philosophy version. In a few cases, the good old KJV is better, but in the vast majority of cases, where differences exist, the NKJV is better. Since I am not a fan of the TR, I prefer to start study of any passage from the NASB95. However, once I conclude both (NKJV and NASB) are saying essentially the same thing, I often conclude the NKJV says it better. (And yes, I came to the Lord using the KJV.)

Another version you might like to compare is the World English Bible (WEB), it is available on line and is based on the Byzantine text, rather than the Critical Text used by the NASB95. But the WEB does not contain many of the questionable passages (thought by me to be TR corruptions) so if the WEB agrees with the NASB over and against the NKJV, you might want to be "sometimes differing" on that verse or passage.

 

[Yeshua1]

The NKJV is a fine word for word translation philosophy version. In a few cases, the good old KJV is better, but in the vast majority of cases, where differences exist, the NKJV is better. Since I am not a fan of the TR, I prefer to start study of any passage from the NASB95. However, once I conclude both (NKJV and NASB) are saying essentially the same thing, I often conclude the NKJV says it better. (And yes, I came to the Lord using the KJV.)

Another version you might like to compare is the World English Bible (WEB), it is available on line and is based on the Byzantine text, rather than the Critical Text used by the NASB95. But the WEB does not contain many of the questionable passages (thought by me to be TR corruptions) so if the WEB agrees with the NASB over and against the NKJV, you might want to be "sometimes differing" on that verse or passage.

Dor doing serious studies in the bible, the Nas and the Nkjv are the 2 best ones, but also use the Niv/Esv/Hcsb...

 

[jonathan.borland]

For those who are into such things, one benefit of the NKJV is that the footnotes contain most of the translatable differences between the underlying text of the NKJV (TR) and that of most other versions (Nestle-UBS).

 

[BlueMoon]

For those who are into such things, one benefit of the NKJV is that the footnotes contain most of the translatable differences between the underlying text of the NKJV (TR) and that of most other versions (Nestle-UBS).

That's one of the greatest advantages. However, I've been reading a good bit lately about the topic - reliability of the TR. I've wondered about a couple of things. Yes, there seems to be no argument that critical texts and eclectic text manuscripts are older. That makes it seem like they would be more reliable. However, one person pointed out - suppose you have a manuscript from the 12th century, and it is a fourth generation copy (I realize that unless the document stated that, this would not be known). Then you have a manuscript from the fourth century, that was the 12th generation copy. This would increase the weight value slightly to the later document.

Also, there is the argument that the majority text is exactly that - the majority, because of errors in the manuscripts that are the foundation for the critical texts. People naturally copied the reliable ones.

Anyway, these seem like good arguments to me. However, let's say things are black and white. The critical texts are older. The majority (and TR) are more recent - no other facts. That would cause me to lean more toward critical and eclectic texts.

Bottom line - I really like the NKJV, but am a stickler for accuracy. If I'm going to use the NKJV, I'd like some kind of assurance that it's ONE of the best translations to use (not necessarily THE best, but a very accurate and reliable translation, using a good manuscript - the TR). Maybe I'm trying to justify using the NKJV.

Please respond.

 

[Logos1560]

However, I've been reading a good bit lately about the topic - reliability of the TR.

There was not just one edition of the Textus Receptus. There were actually 20 to 30 varying printed editions of the Textus Receptus with some textual differences between them. Some of these textual differences involve whole verses.

The printed Textus Receptus editions have a number of "minority" readings so that they are not completely a majority text.
In footnote 1 of their preface to their second edition, Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont wrote that “the overall text of these early [TR] printed editions differs from the Byzantine Textform in over 1800 instances, generally due to the inclusion of weakly supported non-Byzantine readings” (The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform, p. i).

Textus Receptus editions even have some textual conjectures or readings found in no known original language manuscripts.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Welcome to the BB, BlueMoon!

... Yes, there seems to be no argument that critical texts and eclectic text manuscripts are older. That makes it seem like they would be more reliable. However, one person pointed out - suppose you have a manuscript from the 12th century, and it is a fourth generation copy (I realize that unless the document stated that, this would not be known). Then you have a manuscript from the fourth century, that was the 12th generation copy. This would increase the weight value slightly to the later document.

Well, there is never a translation issue that has "no argument" from somebody. In fact, some TR-advocates assert that TR readings are older than those found in eclectic Greek editions.

But older is not necessarily "more reliable". The common thinking is that there has been less time (that is, less generations of copies) for copyist errors to accumulate. Maybe. But reliability actually depends on the accuracy and care taken by the individual copyists. So, a succession of sloppy copyists could generate a lot of errors quickly while a string of careful copyists potentially could preserve accuracy over long periods.

Indeed paleographers can somewhat identify the age of the text separately from the age of the document (materials).

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Also, there is the argument that the majority text is exactly that - the majority, because of errors in the manuscripts that are the foundation for the critical texts. People naturally copied the reliable ones. ...

Bottom line - I really like the NKJV, but am a stickler for accuracy. If I'm going to use the NKJV, I'd like some kind of assurance that it's ONE of the best translations to use (not necessarily THE best, but a very accurate and reliable translation, using a good manuscript - the TR). Maybe I'm trying to justify using the NKJV.

I'm not entirely sure I understand you here. How would people know which copies were the reliable ones? In most cases the recipients would not normally be able to compare their copy with the exemplar (much less the original).

Majority just means numerically more by some comparison. If you and I each had the same text before us and you copied twice as fast as I did, you would produce a majority between our combined output. Does a larger number of copies generated correspond with the reliability of the copies? Might fewer copies produced suggest more accurate ones?

The NKJV is a very literal translation. That the TR is a "good" text (it isn't a manuscript) is highly debatable.

 

[BlueMoon]

I'm not entirely sure I understand you here. How would people know which copies were the reliable ones? In most cases the recipients would not normally be able to compare their copy with the exemplar (much less the original).

Majority just means numerically more by some comparison. If you and I each had the same text before us and you copied twice as fast as I did, you would produce a majority between our combined output. Does a larger number of copies generated correspond with the reliability of the copies? Might fewer copies produced suggest more accurate ones?

 

[BlueMoon]

I'm not entirely sure I understand you here. How would people know which copies were the reliable ones? In most cases the recipients would not normally be able to compare their copy with the exemplar (much less the original).

Majority just means numerically more by some comparison. If you and I each had the same text before us and you copied twice as fast as I did, you would produce a majority between our combined output. Does a larger number of copies generated correspond with the reliability of the copies? Might fewer copies produced suggest more accurate ones?
.

That was an argument that I read about in favor of the Majority text - The reason for the "Majority" is that people were copying the better manuscripts. There seem to be arguments for both sides - age of manuscripts, majority, location of manuscripts, etc. From my perspective, it's hard to choose who's right.

 

[Yeshua1]

That was an argument that I read about in favor of the Majority text - The reason for the "Majority" is that people were copying the better manuscripts. There seem to be arguments for both sides - age of manuscripts, majority, location of manuscripts, etc. From my perspective, it's hard to choose who's right.

The real truth is that regardless of whicj textual basis is seen as being the best one, you have fine translations such as nasb/Esv/Hcsb/Niv, and those such as kjv/nkjv....

 

[franklinmonroe]

... There seem to be arguments for both sides - age of manuscripts, majority, location of manuscripts, etc. From my perspective, it's hard to choose who's right.

I agree that there are some good points on both sides. Why does one side have to be completely 'right' and the other completely 'wrong'? Maybe they're both mostly 'right' but a little bit 'wrong'.

 

[BlueMoon]

I agree that there are some good points on both sides. Why does one side have to be completely 'right' and the other completely 'wrong'? Maybe they're both mostly 'right' but a little bit 'wrong'.

That makes sense to me.