parsonBob said:
I enjoy reading the NKJV. Does it change the meaning or leave out verses like the NIV does.
Bro Tony said:
No parsonbob, the NKJV does not change words or meaning. As a matter of fact it is from the same Greek Text (Stephens 1550) that was used for the KJV.
Bro Tony
I agree with brother Tony. The NKJV is simply a revision of the KJV, though a significant one (which was desperately needed due to the way the language and words have changed in nearly 400 years). They are both based on the Stephanus mild revision of Erasmus' 3rd edition of his Greek text, often referred to as the textus receptus.
Though, and perhaps you are aware, many modern textual critics - almost all of them - see many problems with the textus receptus. The NIV did not change the meaning of verses (due to the Greek text) or leave out verses as some say. IMO it is more likely that the KJV added, removed or left out text - because it was not based on the oldest or most reliable Greek texts. Other areas in which they differ are due to the very old language the KJV used and the style of translation employed by the NIV - a "dynamic equivalent" one which places more value on meaning that "form."
I've had KJV-only guys list verses in which the NIV has erred, but they can all be easily addressed, usually showing the KJV instead to be amiss. It all comes down to which Greek textual family you adhere to. But what needs to be made clear is that the textus receptus was compiled by Erasmus from only 6 or 7 manuscripts, only one for Paul's letters, and only one for the gospels. The one he had for Revelation (only one again) was incomplete, so he apparently back-translated from the Latin for the last few verses of chapter 22. Also, though those who hold to the family that the textus receptus represents, called the "majority text," is actually not in the majority in older manuscripts. The vast majority of the Greek texts of the majority text are very recent (in the past few hundred years - after 1000AD). If you look at those manuscripts before say 900AD the critical text is in the majority, and the older you get very few "majority text" manuscripts are found.
So you've got to consider what the experts on such things say and then make your choice. I used to support the majority text, and I still like it. I have a few copies of it in my library. But now I hold more to the "critical text." I see advantages to both.
There are tons of websites out there which have put down the NIV. Most of them are run by amateurs, as is true on the web for most topics these days, and are running with outdated and inaccurate information which they cannot support. I am not a fan of the NIV. But most of the criticisms you read about it are not valid, IMO.
The KJV (and NKJV) strictly follow a "formal equivalent" method of translation while the NIV is more "dynamic equivalent" or "meaning based." That is what accounts for 90 - 95% of the differences between the two translations. I would say that you could pick almost any text in the NT at random and compare the KJV and the NIV. Sometimes the KJV (and NKJV) will be more accurate, and often the NIV will be closer to the original intended meaning.
But back to the original question... No, the NKJV is not based on the critical text. It is strictly textus receptus all the way.
FA
"Roger" that