Thread: My new NKJV Bible.

With a little help from my friends on PB, I ordered a NKJV, due to me adjusting to a new med, I have not felt well enough to get "deeply" into it. it is a thinline made by Cambridge so it is a quality binding, I read about 5 chapters from Romans, it flows well, the English is pleasing, I was pleased to read in a book I have on translations that in some cases, it is as accurate as the NASB, I like the footnote that show variants in the CT and MT, I feel some are "spooked" by the use of the TR in the Text proper, a shame really, I am starting to feel that the NKJV may well be a very under-rated Bible. Blessings.

-----Added 12/12/2008 at 09:33:23 EST-----

Little update for all who helped in the selection of a new Bible Translation, I continue to be very pleased with my (our) choice of the NKJV. It is a great translation, (as Fred Greco noted the only flaw being rather shoddy editions in the past, thankfully Cambridge does one and quite well at that), it feels like a Bible that gives a lot of "bang for the buck", with notations on MT and CT variants and not feeling like a parallel edition. Most critics are (oddly) either KJO, or those who feel it is irresponsible to publish a Bible with the TR in the Text-Proper.(Actual words of one critic.) He ignored the footnotes in his review I should add. I have a number of commentaries with the KJV in the text, it works quite well with those. SO, overall, I am becoming a bit of NKJV fan. Blessings.

Glad to hear you're enjoying your new Bible.

I recently bought a small, basic, text-only NKJV Bible as well, so I can follow along with the translation my pastor uses every Sunday.

I'm definitely enjoying it along with my ESV Reformation Study Bible, and for comparison's sake, my NIV Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible.

Oh, I think the NKJV is a worthwhile translation all around.

Jon,
I believe both the ESV and NJKV are two of the best overall translations. I hold that the ESB is slightly more accurate, although the NKJV is closer to the Byzantine Priority Text.

Both are a superior alternative to the NIV.

Cool! How about a picture? I hear it's a calfskin leather, and us Bible-ophiles want to know how it smells.....

Originally Posted by Grymir

Cool! How about a picture? I hear it's a calfskin leather, and us Bible-ophiles want to know how it smells.....

Originally Posted by Grymir

Cool! How about a picture? I hear it's a calfskin leather, and us Bible-ophiles want to know how it smells.....

Absolutely!

I agree that the NKJV is one of the better translations available today. I think that the ESV would be judged more accurate only if accuracy is judged on the basis of the Critical Text. Both are essentially literal or formal equivalence, but the NKJV is generally more literal. I like the practice of using italics and the practice of setting off OT quotations in the NT in oblique type, similar to the NASB's use of bold type. But the cross references in NKJV reference editions are not as thorough as those in the NASB or ESV.

Interesting to hear. My own main Bible is, of course, Dutch; I use the Estates Translation (SV), which is a little older than the KJV, with "Kanttekeningen", which can be roughly translated to 'sidescribblings', a sort of notes compiled by the translators while translating, to show the full meaning of the text. I have a few KJV's, though, and an ESV Study Bible. I like them both; I've not seen a lot of the NKJV as yet, but I will have a look into that. Interesting...

As a side note, I find English commentaries strangely silent on the original languages; they give no alternative translations, or literally literal renderings of the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic, which is mainly why, despite the advances of modern scholarship, I still use my 17th century commentary.

Interesting thing, ESV vs NKJV in accuracy, I have a number of books and read a few articles exploring this:In terms of fidelity to the Greek, the NKJV actually trumps the ESV on a few counts, there IS A BIAS....a lot f people will not recognize the NKJV as accurate because it uses the TR in the text proper. A rather unfair evaluation IMHO. NOW for those ho wish to see some REALLY good pics, Google is your buddy! Visit my friend Mark Bertrand! Type:Mark Bertrand Cambridge NKJV Pitt Minion goatskin. THe man has some great photos of this Bible and some others.

Yea, but how does it smell. Google is not smell-o-vision.!

Jon, my comments about accuracy bore no relation to textual criticism as such. I believe both the NKJV and the ESV are both excellent translations but generally I have found the ESV to be more accurate.
Some examples:
* The NKJV sometimes shows a dispensational bias, eg 2 Thess 2:7, the ESV is superior here. Also in Rom 11:26 the ESV brings out the clarity of the original much better - "and in this way all Israel ..." See Hoekema Bible and the future for clarity on this position.
* The ESV gives the best translation of the hebrew word 'Hesed' I have seen. The NKJV sometimes uses mercy and sometimes lovingkindness. Unfortunately the NKJV is not consistent using one word to translate the same Hebrew word , and also these words do not really capture the essence of the hebrew word. The ESV's steadfast love is clearer and is more consistent using the same english word for the same Hebrew word.
* 2 Tim 3:16 The NKJV word Inspired is quite unfortunate. The ESV 'breathed out by God is both much clearer and also precisely reflects the original.
* In a number of places in 1 John and other epistles the NJKV uses brotherly love and love of the brethren for the same greek word, something I found confusing, rather than using one consistent phrase. The ESV is much better here.
* Jonah 1:4 The NKJV 'the Lord sent' misses the force of the Hebrew, unfortunate in a great passage on the sovereignty of God. cf ESV hurled captures the Hebrew much better.
* Eph 2:1, the NKJV adds the words He made alive (not in the original) which obscures Paul's argument - he does not talk about spiritual life until v 5. The ESV again brings out the clarity of the original.
I could list others but this will suffice. Yes, i hae found some places in the NKJV where I think it is better, but overall prefer the ESV. I think the strong endorsement of the Reformed community for the ESV speaks strongly in its favour.

Originally Posted by Jon Lake

Interesting thing, ESV vs NKJV in accuracy, I have a number of books and read a few articles exploring this:In terms of fidelity to the Greek, the NKJV actually trumps the ESV on a few counts, there IS A BIAS....a lot f people will not recognize the NKJV as accurate because it uses the TR in the text proper. A rather unfair evaluation IMHO. NOW for those ho wish to see some REALLY good pics, Google is your buddy! Visit my friend Mark Bertrand! Type:Mark Bertrand Cambridge NKJV Pitt Minion goatskin. THe man has some great photos of this Bible and some others.

Good post. I don't think there's any question that the NKJV is overall more literal than the ESV. I agree that those who say otherwise typically do so on the basis of an anti-TR bias. It's not hard to find passages where the NKJV is more literal than even the NASB, usually in instances when the NASB translators chose to use more idiomatic English.

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Originally Posted by Jon Lake

Interesting thing, ESV vs NKJV in accuracy, I have a number of books and read a few articles exploring this:In terms of fidelity to the Greek, the NKJV actually trumps the ESV on a few counts, there IS A BIAS....a lot f people will not recognize the NKJV as accurate because it uses the TR in the text proper. A rather unfair evaluation IMHO. NOW for those ho wish to see some REALLY good pics, Google is your buddy! Visit my friend Mark Bertrand! Type:Mark Bertrand Cambridge NKJV Pitt Minion goatskin. THe man has some great photos of this Bible and some others.

Good post. I don't think there's any question that the NKJV is overall more literal than the ESV. I agree that those who say otherwise typically do so on the basis of an anti-TR bias. It's not hard to find passages where the NKJV is more literal than even the NASB, usually in instances when the NASB translators chose to use more idiomatic English.

I am looking at a neat little book right now by Robert L. Thomas, "How To Choose a Bible Version" his book is dedicated to....Dewey Lockman who pulled together the NASB project, Thomas is CT to the core, and he favours the NASB, but even he (to credit him for fairness) gives some credit to the NKJV, from him the "heady" praise is that he shows the NKJV often outclasses the NASB in terms of fidelity towards the text! In the END, Dr. Thomas puts the NASB on top....based on it's use of the critical text.

Dear Friends

I find the ESV more appealing than the NKJV, mainly because of the sometimes very archaic language of the NKJV (obviously in keeping with the KJV legacy). Another Bible that I find very interesting is the Schocken Bible. Unfortunately only the Pentateuch has been translated (as far as I am aware). It has a different take than the ESV or the NKJV as it even tries to imitate the Hebrew. Proper names are usually transcribed and in most cases it is a more word-equivalent translation than other Bibles on the market.

Back to the NKJV, I found sentence structure to be a problem at times. In general, I think for most of the time I'll stick to the ESV if I don't use a translation in another language or when I'm reading the original languages. (Even the NKJV and the ESV make me want to go back to Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, because I've build up too much of a distrust in translations.)

Kind regards


Elimelek

Originally Posted by Elimelek

Dear Friends

I find the ESV more appealing than the NKJV, mainly because of the sometimes very archaic language of the NKJV (obviously in keeping with the KJV legacy). Another Bible that I find very interesting is the Schocken Bible. Unfortunately only the Pentateuch has been translated (as far as I am aware). It has a different take than the ESV or the NKJV as it even tries to imitate the Hebrew. Proper names are usually transcribed and in most cases it is a more word-equivalent translation than other Bibles on the market.

Back to the NKJV, I found sentence structure to be a problem at times. In general, I think for most of the time I'll stick to the ESV if I don't use a translation in another language or when I'm reading the original languages. (Even the NKJV and the ESV make me want to go back to Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, because I've build up too much of a distrust in translations.)

Kind regards


Elimelek

What of those of us who are not well versed in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek?

Originally Posted by Rocketeer

Interesting to hear. My own main Bible is, of course, Dutch; I use the Estates Translation (SV), which is a little older than the KJV, with "Kanttekeningen", which can be roughly translated to 'sidescribblings', a sort of notes compiled by the translators while translating, to show the full meaning of the text. I have a few KJV's, though, and an ESV Study Bible. I like them both; I've not seen a lot of the NKJV as yet, but I will have a look into that. Interesting...

As a side note, I find English commentaries strangely silent on the original languages; they give no alternative translations, or literally literal renderings of the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic, which is mainly why, despite the advances of modern scholarship, I still use my 17th century commentary.

The word you would use for 'kanttekeningen' is 'annotations'. You will also find those, if not as extensive, in the Geneva Bible, as well as the Haak Bible (a english translation of the SV). Those annotations in the Geneva Bible were the impetus for the KJV, as King James hated them. As such, he ordered the KJV not to have annotations.

I forgot another example I should have added re the accuracy of the NKJV and the ESV - in Daniel 9:27 it reads that he will make a covenant (NKJV); strong covenant (ESV). The ESV, again, follows the Hebrew more closely. Unfortunately the NKJV lends itself to a dispensational interpretation. Actually the text, as per the ESV or NASB, endorses a covenantal approach - the strong covenant is a recomfirmation of the covenant of Grace. See Riddlebargers book on Amillennialism.

Personally I am closer to the NKJV on its text. I hold to the Byzantine Priority position though this differs a little from the Received Text position. However for both readability and accuracy, I prefer the ESV.

Wow, I was not aware that Cambridge had started publishing NKJV Bibles...some years ago when i last looked at them, they were only in KJV and NASB. i am pleased to see them venture out into the NKJV.

I found a first printing of the NKJV some years ago, new in box. The very first printing that came out in August, 1982. This was in the mid 90s, and it had been in the store since 1982. The first one off the press of that edition went to President Reagan, and the 2nd one went to the at the time President of Dallas Theological Seminary.

Dear Jon Lake

You wrote:

What of those of us who are not well versed in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek?

I didn't think about that... at least for the Pentateuch there is the Schocken Bible, for the rest

Kind regards


Elimelek