Critique of the NKJV

Dr. Bob:

I prefer the NKJV for the following reasons:

1) It sounds more like the KJV than other versions, and is easiest to use with reference works based on the KJV;
2) I pefer the textual notes that let me examine the differences between the TR, MT and CT;
3) it "leaves out" no questionable verses;
4) It updates the KJV where translation was in error or archaic;
4) probably most importantly, it is the version I first used as a new Christian, and is the version I have memorized from.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
I like the NKJV and appreciate the sound Greek text on which it is based (better than the critical text imho). Many KJVonly take "cheap shots" at it.

Where are the BB members standing on this English translation of God's Word?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

I think the NKJV is much superior to the old Classic KJV keeping the dignity in style but upgrading the many archaic and out of date words of the KJV.

 

I use the NKJV quite a bit but still give the nod to the NASB since it is more literal.NKJV makes for a good pulpit Bible though.

 

Any more I prefer the NKJB as my primary Bible,with the NASB second. Seems the main Onlyists' objections to the NKJB are:

1. It aint the old KJB. So? That's why it's called the NEW KJB.

2. The NKJB removes the various pronouns indicating who is being addressed(ye,thee,etc.)in favor of the generic "you".
So what? That's the way we English speakers now talk.

3. The NKJB is sold for profit.
As if King James and his printer buddy Robert Barker didn't make a handsome profit from their monopoly and the royal tax stamp placed in every AV 1611 legally sold in England. If a printer or publisher doesn't make money,they don'e print or publish very long.

4. The MAIN reason,left largely unstated by the Onlyists is that the NKJB is in modern English.
They forget that the AV 1611 was in modern English in 1611.

 

The "anti-KJV" faction makes much to-do about the "misinformation" of the KJV defenders, yet they usually go unchallanged when they post pure unsubstantiated nonsense, such as robycop just posted. Let's look at his "points."

Point #1 is pure ad hominem.

Point #2 The KJV preserves the grammar/syntax of the Greek giving us additional information regarding case/number of the pronouns. Why do I keep hearing the assertion that the modern versions are more accurate, then the superior accuracy of the KJV in the area of pronouns is attacked? Is that a double standard?

Point #3 is equally applicable to all bibles published by for-profit publishing houses. My first choice is not-for-profit local church based printers which make no profit on their bibles, but they are not always available nor of the best quality.

Point #4 is pure hyperbole. The main reason most KJV defenders prefer the KJV is that the KJV is based on superior manuscripts, was translated by superior translators, using a superior translation technique which best preserves the grammar and syntax of the Greek in the receptor language. The NKJV is based on the same Greek texts, was translated by good, but not superior translators (see their translation of the present imperfect in 1 Cor 1:18), using a good, but not superior translation technique which obscures the case and number of pronouns.

I will revise my earlier assesment of the NKJV. It has been bumped from my #2 position to #3. Having looked at the Millenium Bible, I now prefer it to the NKJV.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Point #2 The KJV preserves the grammar/syntax of the Greek giving us additional information regarding case/number of the pronouns. Why do I keep hearing the assertion that the modern versions are more accurate, then the superior accuracy of the KJV in the area of pronouns is attacked? Is that a double standard?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The KJV does indicate case/number of pronouns as you stated. However, it does so with language not in use by modern Christians. When I speak with patients about a disease they may have, it is often better to use terms they know and are comfortable with rather than the most accurate terms that they do not use.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Point #4 is pure hyperbole. The main reason most KJV defenders prefer the KJV is that the KJV is based on superior manuscripts, was translated by superior translators...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That may be your reasoning (opinion), but it does not reflect the "rank and file" of KJVOs out there. Most of them belive that the KJV is the true Word of God and the MVs are "perversions" because their pastor preached it to them and/or they read a KJVO book, not because of any real research they did. Conversely, most Christians in non-KJVO churches are not aware of the KJVO controversy or simply dismiss it for similar reasons (they have not researched it).

Sincerely,

[ April 25, 2001: Message edited by: Blade ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blade:
The KJV does indicate case/number of pronouns as you stated. However, it does so with language not in use by modern Christians.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The pronouns used in the KJV were not in common usage in 1611 either. Just read "To The Reader" to note the absense of such pronouns. They have nothing to do with "common usage" they give additional information concerning the Greek which can make a difference in doctrine. The Bible is not your favorite supermarket tabloid, appealing to the lowest common denominator, but the very word of God. It should read differently!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
The Bible is not your favorite supermarket tabloid, appealing to the lowest common denominator, but the very word of God. It should read differently!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed it is not a tabloid. However, the MVs do not err by using terms such as the generic "you." The translation is still accurate and easily deduced from the context most of the time; however, the ambiguity might cause problems in some places.

At any rate, we don't have to use ye, thee, thou, etc. to differentiate. A system like that used in my KJV to differentiate the different terms for God/Lord (Elohim, YWHW, and Adonai [sp?]) where the terms LORD, Lord, and God flow smoothly in English, but the use of capital letters indicates the exact term represented by the generic terms. This would give an accurate system without ambiguity that is much more readable.

Contrary to what many believe, it is a two-way problem. Accuracy at the cost of readability or readablilty at the cost of accuracy. The KJV is not necessarily the answer to this exaggerated "problem."

Sincerely,

 

I agree Blade that this is not a huge problem, in fact it is not a problem at all; we talk everyday using the plural and singular "you". However, if some are over-concerned about this, a simple translation tool would be to use a superscript next to "you" such as * for singular and ** for plural, just like the NASB uses asterisks to mark the historical present tense verbs in Greek, translated as English past tense.

 

In discussions about bible version some folks tend to have the "blues brothers" mentality. Some feel it is their personal "mission from God" to change everyones mind about the version they study/pray over/learn how to live life by/go to in times of trouble/rejoice over/cry over/experience life change by and love. I might add from both sides the KJVO topic, these folks are visible.

Last time I checked, our job is to exhort and edify the body, at least that's in my KJV. {I know for a fact it's in some of these other versions as well}

Folks that take cheap shots and judge others, whether it be for bible version or whatever, generally mirror their character as a whole.

If you feel slighted for folks grilling you about the version you use, be encouraged. It means there is enough there to challenge.

 

Blade, Please don't consider this an attack. I am really asking for clarification to your following statement:

"The main reason most KJV defenders prefer the KJV is that the KJV is based on superior manuscripts, was translated by superior translators, using a superior translation technique which best preserves the grammar and syntax of the Greek in the receptor language. The NKJV is based on the same Greek texts, was translated by good, but not superior translators"

Why are the manuscripts superior just because they did not go through Egypt (Alexandria), Jesus went through Egypt to get away from King Herod when he was a baby, was he corrupted like the manuscripts (please, no lightning bolts -- just a point) Why were the translaters superior?
Another interesting point is what Bible did Jesus use? (obviously, the old testament of course, but I think he did quote from the Septuagint.) Finally, I have translated many manuscripts myself and I cannot see that much difference. The big complaints about changing words is not clarified by the KJV crowd that truly understandable and accurate words are used. I've read them all and my theory is the Holy Spirit can use them all to give the gospel of "grace" Jesus Christ has so graciously given us.
By the way, I have many different copies of pages of old Bibles (I collect them) and several complete Bibles dating to the 1500 through the KJV in the 1611 era (just a few years after translation). You know the funny thing? I bet half of the KJV people can't even read one single complete page of an original KJV printed in the 1600s. Believe me, they are NOT the same, spelling and language HAS changed.

 

Bro Chris, I love the NKJV, having read through it from cover to cover over twenty-five times.I use it almost exactly for what you said in your first post here. Our church replaced our KJV Pew Bibles about two months ago with NKJV Pew Bibles, and what a breath of fresh air! I realize it's not a perfect translation, and some of the criticisms by Bro Cassidy may (or may not) be warranted, however, in my view, it's a "trade". What I mean by that is that since it is an excellent update of the KJV (imho), since the fact is that as the years go by, more folks have difficulty with the KJV, therefore, may I use the phrase, "lesser of two evils"? (hey, don't any reader take me literally here, the KJV/NKJV is not 'evil'in any way! I am using a figure of speech!) sincerely,

 

Bro Cassidy, Would you let me know what your problem is with 1 Cor 1:18 in the NKJV? I know you know the Greek much better than I so I'd appreciate your feedback.I had thought that the tense of the verbs were continous present, so they're translated "are perishing" and "being saved".I remember my Corinthians class at TTU where the professor said that "are saved" (KJV) in the Greek carries the idea of process of salvation, i.e. present sanctification (if memory serves). What is your view on this verse, or if you have already answered on another thread, let me know and I'll read your view there, thanks.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
The "anti-KJV" faction makes much to-do about the "misinformation" of the KJV defenders, yet they usually go unchallanged when they post pure unsubstantiated nonsense, such as robycop just posted. Let's look at his "points."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"anti-KJV"??? I see you're not above using hyperbole yourself. I don't think I've ever met an anti-KJV person. Well... there was one kooky guy in our Sunday school once who reportedly made an intemperate remark concerning the KJV, which I missed hearing, but I digress.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Point #2 The KJV preserves the grammar/syntax of the Greek giving us additional information regarding case/number of the pronouns. Why do I keep hearing the assertion that the modern versions are more accurate, then the superior accuracy of the KJV in the area of pronouns is attacked? Is that a double standard?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So it's more accurate in one regard, so what? It stands to reason, EVERY translation is probably more accurate in SOME regard, else we wouldn't quote them would we?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Point #3 is equally applicable to all bibles published by for-profit publishing houses. My first choice is not-for-profit local church based printers which make no profit on their bibles, but they are not always available nor of the best quality.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The profit issue, is very nearly a non-issue altogether, created for the sake of controversy, in my view. In America, we want certain publishing amenities, and we have to pay for them.

It would be more of an issue if in some way folks were denied access to the Bible. But there are enough free Bibles through Christian para-church organizations, through churches themselves, and through individual believers. How many Christians either have not or would not give a Bible to someone? Very few, if they are Christian at all!

I remember getting a new Bible, and it was sitting in my car during a shopping trip; someone asked, "aren't you gonna lock your car, someone might steal your new Bible?" I said, "I hope so!"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Point #4 is pure hyperbole. The main reason most KJV defenders prefer the KJV is that the KJV is based on superior manuscripts...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can't be serious? Most KJV defenders haven't a clue as to what the real issues are.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
... was translated by superior translators using a superior translation technique which best preserves the grammar and syntax of the Greek in the receptor language.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just recently ran accross a point on this aspect that I found interesting. They(the KJV men) were superior to members from MV committees as men broadly learned in the classics. But that doesn't mean that they were superior translators.

Which is to say, the science of textual criticism, AND of language translation in general, is far advanced beyond the KJV translators facility. Put another way, Sir Issac Newton was a scientific genius, but I doubt that he could explain atomic principles as well as Dr. Cassidy.

 

"Anti KJV" sounds like those who don't believe KJV Only or don't believe the KJV is the best translation are against people using the KJV or the think the KJV is heretical. That s wrong! Just because I believe the NKJV to be a superior translation than the KJV, NIV, NLT, AMPLIFIED does not make me "Anti KJV" "Anti NIV" "Anti NLT" "Anti AMPLIFIED "

The problem is that some KJV advocates trash other translations but when criticism of the KJV is launched then it is considered "Anti KJV" The KJV is a great translation but like all translations has it's flaws. That's not being anti KJV.

 

Dear Phillip,

You posted(and I hope you don't mind me responding)...

&gt;&gt;Why are the manuscripts superior just because they did not go through Egypt &gt;&gt;

In John Burgon's now famous book (actually a collection of articles)The Revision Revised (1883), in Article I under "The oldest copies of NT (B and ALEPH) which are among the most depraved extant, are now blindly followed..." pages 9 through 17, Burgon goes through a litany of reasons as to why he makes this charge. It is very compelling.

HankD

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kiffin:
[QBThe problem is that some KJV advocates trash other translations but when criticism of the KJV is launched then it is considered "Anti KJV"[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I noticed that double standard also. And, in general, more vile things are said by KJVO's against the modern versions than the critical things said by non-KJVO's about the KJV. Like you suggested, that's mainly because most non-KJVO's still think highly of the KJV, but few KJVO's have anything good to say about the modern translations.

It's hard to say who started the battle, but KJVO's have won the mud-slinging contest hands down.

TLB