NKJV

I don't use the NKJV. I have a Geneva Study Bible, (now the Reformation Study Bible, marketing move, and a good one) but only for the notes, not the text.
My feeling is that when making the NKJV they said it would be a TR based translation, but it isn't (read the preface) also they changed the stuff you could "understand" and left the stuff you couldn't. I have an easier time reading the KJV.

 

The NKJV is a pretty good translation of the TR. It is based on the slightly different OT text (BHK vice BHS) but that results in only 8 places where translation is affected.

The NT Greek text is the same as the KJV, but I have a few minor problems with the translation. The first is its treatment of the present passive participle. In Greek the present passive participle implies an action acomplished in the past with continuing action or result. When a state of being verb it gives the sense of being in a certain state. 1 Cor 1:18 is a good example of this. The NKJV says "to us who are being saved." The KJV says "unto us which are saved." The NKJV gives the impression that salvation is a process. The KJV indicates that salvation is a state of being not a process.

My second reservation is the elimination of the different pronouns which deliniate between the subjective/objective and singular/plural. The Greek pronouns are so deliniated, but the NKJV loses that deliniation in the translation process using a generic "you" in all instances.

 

An excellent translation and still the one I am most comfortable with, as it was my first translation as a new Christian. It reads like the KJV which makes it a good pulpit Bible for those in the congregation who are still using the KJV. Corrects the errors of the KJV. Excellent textual footnotes. Retains a little too much of the KJV when it could have improved it (Phil 2:5-11, for example).

 

Overall, not bad. It is not based on the best mss, but is better than the KJV all-in-all. If you prefer this family of mss, it is a wise choice.

 

I think the NKJV is a very good update of the KJV. Contrary to the KJV-Only group (who mostly despise it) I like the textual notes showing where the NU (critical text) and M (majority text) differ from the Textus Receptus.

-kman

 

And possibly the best preaching Bible, as it conforms to people using the KJV and the NASB. (Sorry NIV folks )

 

Warm Christian greetings!

In my quiet times I use the AV, but when preaching always use the NKJV as it is a lot easier for people to understand. In my usage of it I find that it is very similar in its word order to the AV. The only pity is that, in England, it came out about 3 years later than the NIV. I honestly believe that if it had come out 5-10 years earlier it may well have become a standard English Bible in the same way as the AV was for several centuries.

Kind regards

Robert J Hutton

 

[ July 30, 2002, 08:46 AM: Message edited by: Japheth ]

 

What I like about the NKJV is that it shows the AV THE final authority(missing & partialy missing verses).

 

It does no such thing. Do you have any NKJV literature which says the AV is the final authority? The NKJV preface speaks against such a notion.

 

Can you point out any verses that are in the KJV but missing from the NKJV?

 

Sirach 51:1?

 

I believe the 1611 KJV had 7 more books(Apocrypha) than the NKJV.

 

It does no such thing. Do you have any NKJV literature which says the AV is the final authority? The NKJV preface speaks against such a notion.</font>[/QUOTE]If the KJV IS NOT the final authority, then neither is the NKJV. I was told it came from the same text..Right??? The last thread I commented on got deleted;but I leave you with this, do YOU think we have a final authority???

[ July 30, 2002, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Japheth ]

 

I believe the 1611 KJV had 7 more books(Apocrypha) than the NKJV. </font>[/QUOTE]The books of the Apocrypha were placed in between Malichi and Matthew, but that does not mean that the were reconized as scripture. No more than the concordance or the maps in your bible. The NA texts ALSO contained the Apocrpha,so where is it in the so called better translations????

 

Japheth, you still have not answered my question:

 

Recognizing that those books were not part of the Bible and should not be misconstrued as such, they didn't include them. Originally, the KJV included the Apocrypha. At one time, it was illegal to print a KJV without it. This doesn't make the KJV a bad translation but it does destroy the notion that the KJV translators were under some special divine providence to make perfect decisions regarding the text of the Bible.

 

The Apocrypha was also left out of ALL of the other "easy to read" translations. Then that discounts the Divine inspiration that all of the OTHER Bibles. If none of the bibles are inspirations of God, then what are we to do???