New KJV

[Askjo]

Dr. Bruce Cummons wrote his essay, "A Critique of the New KJV." He rejected the NKJV

because of many changed that are not warranted by referring to the TR.

I noticed what he wrote:

The NKJV is not a literal up-dating of the AV, or KJV of 1611, but a translation made from many texts and sources!

Any thoughts?

 

[AVL1984]

Most of what I have read on the NKJV agrees with a portion of the quote "The NKJV is not a literal updating of the AV, or KJV of 1611" .
Dr. David H. Sorenson states on pg 240 of his book, "Touch Not the Unclean Thing: The Bible Translation Controversy and the Principle of Separation"
"The New King James Version (NKJV)is significantly different from most modern language versions of the Bible. To it credit, the New Testament portion thereof is translated from the Textus Receptus. Moreover, its translators rejected the system of dynamic equivalence in translation."

It's still a viable, usable translation.

 

[Phillip]

I don't think anybody claimed that it is a "literal update" of the KJV1611. Its claim is that it uses the Textus Receptus as the basis for the NT as did the KJV. However, this might be stretching the truth somewhat since the KJV was not just the TR, it pulled forward verses directly from the Geneva and Bishop's Bible as well as comparison from the Vulgate. Otherwise, it did use the TR for the NT.

I still predict that the NKJV will be accepted as the NEW KJV as soon as one generation passes.

Just watch.

That is what happened every time a revision was made to the KJV, rejected by the status quo, accepted by the next generation.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by AVL1984:
Most of what I have read on the NKJV agrees with a portion of the quote "The NKJV is not a literal updating of the AV, or KJV of 1611" .
Dr. David H. Sorenson states on pg 240 of his book, "Touch Not the Unclean Thing: The Bible Translation Controversy and the Principle of Separation"
"The New King James Version (NKJV)is significantly different from most modern language versions of the Bible. To it credit, the New Testament portion thereof is translated from the Textus Receptus. Moreover, its translators rejected the system of dynamic equivalence in translation."

It's still a viable, usable translation.

Yes, I have that book.

 

[Johnv]

The NKJV has been around for a few decades now. The fact that the NKJV did not exclusively use the TR is no new news. I'm curious as to when Dr.Cummons's essay was written. Not that it makes a difference on the subject matter, I'm just curious.

What I'm more curious about is whether anyone has critiqued the MKJV, which, unlike the NKJV, is a literal updating of the KJV.

 

[AVL1984]

I'm not sure, John. David Cloud seemed to contradict himself over it. I haven't read Dr. Cummon's essay. Is it online? If so, is there a link?

 

[Askjo]

JohnV, it was in Revival Fire newspaper in 1992. I do not like Revival Fire newspaper because of overly strict.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by AVL1984:
I'm not sure, John. David Cloud seemed to contradict himself over it. I haven't read Dr. Cummon's essay. Is it online? If so, is there a link?

No, it was in Revival Fire newspaper in 1992. I had to throw them out of my house because I can't keep too many newspapers like Sword of the Lord, Target, Revival Fire and others.

 

[AVL1984]

Yes, askjo, but it's also on David Clouds website and in his eletters. I get them on a regular basis.

 

[williemakeit]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think the NKJV is just not good reading? I'm not talking about the translation, but just from a general reading standpoint. I bought a copy, and I didn't think it read that well.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by AVL1984:
Yes, askjo, but it's also on David Clouds website and in his eletters. I get them on a regular basis.

I guess I overlooked it, sorry!

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by williemakeit:
Is it just me, or does anyone else think the NKJV is just not good reading?

I don't have a problem with it, but it's not my translation of choice.

 

[Phillip]

Askjo: I am not a Greek scholar, but I do have an interlinear TR. With that and the help of some of the scholars on the board, why don't you provide a list of variations from the TR. (Not from the KJV---From the TR)

I am willing to agree with you and look at this if you can give me examples.

 

[Bro Tony]

I like reading the NKJV, it is my version of choice. I also like reading the KJV. I really don't care reading the NIV, don't care for the way it reads. Just my preference.

Bro Tony

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by williemakeit:
Is it just me, or does anyone else think the NKJV is just not good reading? I'm not talking about the translation, but just from a general reading standpoint. I bought a copy, and I didn't think it read that well.

I think the translation is a little more literal to the Greek text, rather than on a thought-for-thought basis. This may make it a little more difficult to read--not necessarily better, but just the style of translation.

I tend to like it, but I know that I can read an NIV much easier, but the NIV is not my favorite MV.

The ESV fits somewhere between, I tend to like it the most. Just my opinion.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

The ESV is not a popular version and I doubt that it will be available many more years.

 

[robycop3]

Is it really a crime for the NKJV to not follow the TR exclusively? Remember, sports fans, Dean Burgon did NOT think highly of the TR, assuming he was reading the last of the umpteen revisions made of it.

The TR is NOT the be-all and the end-all Greek text. I've NEVER heard any Greek expert say WHICH REVISION was the "official" one. Nor have I heard anything but EXCUSES about the differences between the TR & The Traditional Text.

 

[rsr]

The MKJV is not a literal updating of the KJV. The translators freely claim that the KJV translators made some poor choices.

It was decided to retranslate some words that had been badly misrepresented to the reader. For instance, in Numbers 6:4, the AV reads, "made of the vine tree, from the kernels even to the husk," but the Hebrew translates as follows, "made of the grapevine, from grape seeds even to a stem." In Exodus 28:30 is the word "breastplate" in the AV, there the verse says, "you shall put the Urim and the Thummin into the breastplate." It is impossible to put anything into a plate. Actually the original word means "pocket". Therefore it has been changed to "breast pocket" in this version. In Leviticus 16:10 the AV reads, "let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness." Yet neither "scape" nor "goat" are contained in the Hebrew word. Instead, the meaning is plainly "complete removal." So Leviticus 16:10 reads like this, "send it away for a complete removal into the wilderness."

...

(In reference to John 3:8)

By translating pneuma as wind here, the entire verse is made to deprive the Spirit of God of His mysterious moving upon men, and His power to generate spiritual life. Wycliffe knew this centuries ago. Modern translators would do well to take note and follow the Greek instead of tradition.

 

[Ed Edwards]

I'm at a total loss to figure the objections
of KJVOs to the NKJV.
The specification of the NKJV was written in
the late 1970s by KJVOs.
The "includes Baptists" translators used the
specifications written by the KJVOs.
The KJVOs within two years of the release
of the release of the NKJV approved of the
NKJV. Only later did the KJVOs decide they
made a mistake writing specifications for
a product other than the KJV.

It is a real shame when the worse thing
that the anti-NKJVs can thing of is the
NON-TRANSLATION symbol shown on the title
page: the tristriskelion, ancient symbol
of the Blessed Trininty.

 

[Dr. Bob]

This is odd. My NKJV says it DOES follow the Majority Text/TR as had the KJV (when not following the Vulgate).

Did the NKJV translators lie in their own preface?

I have studied it (it is my version of choice for preaching) and not found any place where it did NOT follow the MT/TR. Could we get a few passages to evaluate before we call them liars.