Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
Some would mention differences in the OT as well. One that comes to mind is the Song of Solomon. Many of our KJV-Preferred brethren take the traditional view of that book being "a poetic representation of the spiritual relationship between the Lord and His people" in the words of the Reformation Heritage Study Bible. That is not the interpretation of most modern commentators, and it shows in most if not all versions. If it isn't apparent in the text, then it is in the marginal notes, subject headings, etc.
The NKJV has "The Beloved", "The Shulamite", "The Daughters of Jerusalem" in the text, (as subject headings or as the equivalent of actors in a play) which is at least somewhat interpretive. Those headings are not technically in the Bible text, I suppose, but most other modern translations put these in the margin, and I think I've seen some translations differ on who is supposed to be speaking in a particular passage. So if I'm right about that, this practice in the NKJV is questionable even from a modern standpoint, especially in a formal equivalent translation that is supposed to leave more of that kind of interpretation to the reader as opposed to what we'd expect to find in a dynamic equivalent version.
Another issue is the NKJV's capitalization of pronouns that refer to the Lord. This gets the translators into situations in which they are forced to make an interpretation in doubtful cases, as it is at least occasionally a question of interpretation as to whether or not the Lord is being referred to or not.
EDIT: You can read an article from the Trinitarian Bible Society on the Song of Solomon and the NKJV here.
The NKJV has "The Beloved", "The Shulamite", "The Daughters of Jerusalem" in the text, (as subject headings or as the equivalent of actors in a play) which is at least somewhat interpretive. Those headings are not technically in the Bible text, I suppose, but most other modern translations put these in the margin, and I think I've seen some translations differ on who is supposed to be speaking in a particular passage. So if I'm right about that, this practice in the NKJV is questionable even from a modern standpoint, especially in a formal equivalent translation that is supposed to leave more of that kind of interpretation to the reader as opposed to what we'd expect to find in a dynamic equivalent version.
Another issue is the NKJV's capitalization of pronouns that refer to the Lord. This gets the translators into situations in which they are forced to make an interpretation in doubtful cases, as it is at least occasionally a question of interpretation as to whether or not the Lord is being referred to or not.
EDIT: You can read an article from the Trinitarian Bible Society on the Song of Solomon and the NKJV here.
Last edited: