New King James Version

NKJV--an OK translation

Strengths:
1. Familiar structure for those used to the KJV
2. Formal equivalence, but not overly wooden

Weakness:
1. Other modern versions are based on older and better manuscripts.

Personally, I do not use the NKJV very often because of the manuscript issues. I prefer the NASB for literal renderings and the NIV for dynamic renderings.

But--if the choice is between the KJV and the NKJV--go NKJV every time. The NKJV has removed archaic language which does not carry the same meaning as in contemporary English.

 

David Norris, a KJV defender, acknowledged that the NKJV can "be classed largely as a revision rather than a retranslation" (BIG PICTURE, p. 367). In his list of formal equivalent translations, William Einwechter included the NKJV along with the KJV and he noted that the NKJV is "based on the TR" (ENGLISH BIBLE TRANSLATIONS, pp. 17, 29). Samuel Gipp, a KJV-only author, acknowledged that the NKJV "is based on the correct Antiochian manuscripts" (ANSWER BOOK, p. 104). Gary Zeolla confirmed that the NKJV is "based on the same Greek text as the KJV, the TR" (DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BIBLE VERSIONS, pp. 20, 66). Kerby Fannin, a KJV defender, listed the NKJV and MKJV as being "based on the Received Text" (WHILE MEN SLEPT, pp. 469-470).

 

If I had my choice between KJV, NKJV, NASU and NAS I would pick NASU every time.

 

As an older woman who learned all her scripture in KJV, I really like the useability of my NKJV. I can still quickly search for verses where I remember portions of the verse but not the exact location.

I've had our youngest child learn his scripture in NKJV and I use it in teaching my S/S class of 4 year olds and AWANA Cubbies.

 

While there is a basis of truth in your quotes there are also a few errors. Although the NKJV was translated from the TR (no question there), the KJV was not necessarily translated from the TR. The KJV is more of an upgrade of the Bishop's Bible than it was a full translation. Not only this, but certain sections (particularly the last six verses in Revelation) could not be found in the Greek and were taken from the Latin Vulgate. Although the TR may be close to the KJV and use some of the same documents there are differences.

 

The NKJV is a solid, valid translation. The "rule" that a valid translation MUST use ONLY the sources the AV used is horse feathers.

 

TCassidy wrote,

Although I believe that the Greek text of the New Testament used in more academic translations of the Bible is a distinctly superior text, the NKJV is in a number of ways an improvement over the KJV. The biggest improvement, of course, is in the use of current English, but it also improves upon some translation inadequacies in the KJV. The two present, passive participles in 1 Cor. 1:18 are a good example. No competent New Testament scholar today would translate these two participles in the manner in which they are translated in the KJV because the true temporal force of the present participle is either not understood or is simply ignored as was also the case in both the Geneva Bible and the Bishops’ Bible, and as well as in other old translations. And of course TCassidy has it precisely backwards.

(KJV) For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

(NKJV) For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

(ESV) For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

(HCSB) For to those who are perishing the message of the cross is foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is God's power.

(NIV) For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

(RSV) 1 Corinthians 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

(NASB, 1995) 1 Corinthians 1:18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

(NJB) 1 Corinthians 1:18 The message of the cross is folly for those who are on the way to ruin, but for those of us who are on the road to salvation it is the power of God.

(NAB) 1 Corinthians 1:18 The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

(NRSV) 1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

(NEB) This doctrine of the cross is sheer folly to those on their way to ruin, but to us who are on the way to salvation it is the power of God.

(REB) The message of the cross is sheer folly to those on the way to destruction, but to us who are on the way to salvation, it is the power of God.

(C. K. Barrett) For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are on the way to destruction, but to us who are on the way to salivation it is God’s power.

(R.C. H. Lenski) For the word of the cross is to them that perishing foolishness, yet unto us who are being saved it is the power of God.

 

The NKJV is an excellent translation. I recommend it over the KJV because it is a better translation in my opinion. You will not go wrong using the NKJV.

I prefer the NASB 1995 but I also like the NKJV.

 

I agree with CBTS on 1 Co. 1:18. The aspect of the participles is imperfective which most likely is best rendered as the majority of translations have done. If the participles were in the aorist tense, which carries with it a neutral or punctiliar aspect, I would use the KJV's translation.

Yours, Bluefalcon

 

I used to have a copy, just been looking for it, dont know where it is, mainly NRSV these days.

David

 

Although I believe that the Greek text of the New Testament used in more academic translations of the Bible is a distinctly superior text, the NKJV is in a number of ways an improvement over the KJV. The biggest improvement, of course, is in the use of current English, but it also improves upon some translation inadequacies in the KJV. The two present, passive participles in 1 Cor. 1:18 are a good example. No competent New Testament scholar today would translate these two participles in the manner in which they are translated in the KJV because the true temporal force of the present participle is either not understood or is simply ignored as was also the case in both the Geneva Bible and the Bishops’ Bible, and as well as in other old translations. And of course TCassidy has it precisely backwards.

(KJV) For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

(NKJV) For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

(ESV) For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

(HCSB) For to those who are perishing the message of the cross is foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is God's power.

(NIV) For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

(RSV) 1 Corinthians 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

(NASB, 1995) 1 Corinthians 1:18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

(NJB) 1 Corinthians 1:18 The message of the cross is folly for those who are on the way to ruin, but for those of us who are on the road to salvation it is the power of God.

(NAB) 1 Corinthians 1:18 The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

(NRSV) 1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

(NEB) This doctrine of the cross is sheer folly to those on their way to ruin, but to us who are on the way to salvation it is the power of God.

(REB) The message of the cross is sheer folly to those on the way to destruction, but to us who are on the way to salvation, it is the power of God.

(C. K. Barrett) For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are on the way to destruction, but to us who are on the way to salivation it is God’s power.

(R.C. H. Lenski) For the word of the cross is to them that perishing foolishness, yet unto us who are being saved it is the power of God.

</font>[/QUOTE]CBTS, are you saved, being saved or perhaps still on the road to salvation?

 

The NKJV is my version of preferance for several reasons. For one, I lean towards the Byzantine text type rather than the Alexandrian (though I do accept the Alexandrian as legit and do referance it and translations in study). Secondly I grew up with the KJV, and the wording and strutcture remain similar. I love the way the Psalms are laid out in the NKJV.

Finally, my MaCarthur Study Bible is a NKJV, and it is my favorite study Bible.

 

NKJV: OK. It needs a couple hundred years of revision like the AV.

Let's re-evaluate it then.



HankD

 

While there is a basis of truth in your quotes there are also a few errors. Although the NKJV was translated from the TR (no question there), the KJV was not necessarily translated from the TR. The KJV is more of an upgrade of the Bishop's Bible than it was a full translation. Not only this, but certain sections (particularly the last six verses in Revelation) could not be found in the Greek and were taken from the Latin Vulgate. Although the TR may be close to the KJV and use some of the same documents there are differences. </font>[/QUOTE]Your attacks on the KJV are completely unwarranted. Eramus did not use the Latin Vulgate as you suggest. [Attack on the Word of God snipped]

[ April 17, 2005, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]

 

The NKJV translators did not try to decieve people. Your notion that this is the case is aburd and based upon an emotional response and non-facts.

I am amazed how many people think they are mind readers around here. They have this uncanny ability to discern what others are thinking and what their motive is behind certain actons.

 

Then why did the use the name when they obviously preferred manuscripts rejected by KJV's translators?

 

The "Textus Receptus" or "received text" has no singular identity. The family of manuscripts before the label "Textus Receptus" was put upon it was know as the Traditional Text of Byzantine origin.

This label (Traditional Text) generally covers all the other labels such as Byzantine Text, the Textus Receptus, Syrian, Antioch Text and sometimes even the Majority Text (minus the Comma).

In 1895 Scrivener put together from the several Greek sources from which the AV was translated a unified text that aligns with the AV English text.

This "TR" assembled by Scrivener is the underlying Greek source of the New King James Version. Therefore it does not contain anything "rejected" by the KJV translators.

Proof text : 1 John 5:7.
The singularly "rejected" verse in all other non-TR "modern versions".

HankD

 

Kjv66 about the nKJV: "it's authors used the name in an attempt to decieve people into believing that it was merely an updated version of the KJV."

Be sure to vote in the inerrancy poll at:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/2191.html

I know the whole history of the nKJV. I've expressed it on this board
already, but will do it again cause it might have fallen off the bottom
(maybe into the archives?).

Shortly: the nKJV was made using specifications generated by
King James Version Onliests (KJVOs). The KJVOs said if you used
the TR = textus receptus, then they would 'buy' the new version.
The nKJV did so. The KJVOs didn't like it.

The most common argument
one sees against the nKJV is the Thiskelion on the title page.
Of course, the title page isn't part of the work of the translators
of the nKJV, but logic isn't most radical KJVOs strong suit

More later ....