Why I don't use the NKJV

[GodisgraciousR325]

It is difficult to communicate sarcasm in a forum

For those that consider the KJV the ultimate translation this presents a bit of a problem - but as you said. It’s simply a heading and easily dismissed.
But the author of the article mentioned in the opening post brought up the weakness of the NKJV’s extra-biblical additions as a reason to return to the KJV.

Rob

Paul wrote Hebrews, and so did many other Reformation Bibles put that.

Interesting,

I was watching a video once that addressed the caps issue, there are times when it could be God, and it could also be man.

Yes, there was no such thing as this when in Greek/Hebrew, but I believe God inspired the verse system.

The NKJV seems to be not putting that Song of Solomon is about the Church and Christ. Trintian Bible Society did an article on that.

There are also places where the NKJV depart from the T.R., I do not agree with Will Kenny's doctrine on Calvinsim but he have good articles on this issue.

 

[Conan]

Paul wrote Hebrews, and so did many other Reformation Bibles put that.

Interesting,

I was watching a video once that addressed the caps issue, there are times when it could be God, and it could also be man.

Yes, there was no such thing as this when in Greek/Hebrew, but I believe God inspired the verse system.

The NKJV seems to be not putting that Song of Solomon is about the Church and Christ. Trintian Bible Society did an article on that.

There are also places where the NKJV depart from the T.R., I do not agree with Will Kenny's doctrine on Calvinsim but he have good articles on this issue.

The NKJV never departs from a Textus Receptus. They certainly used an edition slightly different than the many different ones used by the KJV translators. But they all follow Erasmuses 5th edition, all with slight differences. Stephanus, Beza, Erasmus, so on and so forth.

Collation of Received text readings

 

[37818]

The NKJV never departs from a Textus Receptus. They certainly used an edition slightly different than the many different ones used by the KJV translators. But they all follow Erasmuses 5th edition, all with slight differences. Stephanus, Beza, Erasmus, so on and so forth.

Collation of Received text readings

The NKJV missed the "of thee" after "born" in Luke 1:35.

 

[Conan]

The NKJV missed the "of thee" after "born" in Luke 1:35.

Yes, it wasn't in the Textus Receptus edition that they used. In fact the words "of thee" are missing from Stephanus and Erasmus editions of the Textus Receptus. I believe it was imported from the Latin by Beza.

 

[37818]

My two main issues with the NKJV are, singular pronouns are not identified and that it apparently following the NIV translation "over all" in Colossians 1:15. Otherwise the NKJV is currently the primary modern English Bible translation I might recommend.