Why I Like The NKJV

[Blueridge Believer]

While I for the most part am a KJV man, I will from time to time read from the NKJV as well as the Geneva. I found the following two part article to be very instructive for those TR folks who are a bit critical of the NKJV.
Your thoughts?

Why I Like the NKJV - Part One

 

[DMcFadden]

James,

Thanks for the link. The Part Two comparing the CT, MT, and TR was one of the most helpful summaries I have ever read. Thanks for sharing it.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The only thing I don't like about the NKJV is the Americanism. Why do they have to capitalise the divine names, use red-letters etc?

 

[Blueridge Believer]

The only thing I don't like about the NKJV is the Americanism. Why do they have to capitalise the divine names, use red-letters etc?

Overall though brother would you regard it as an accurate translation for someone who wanted to stay with the TR?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The only thing I don't like about the NKJV is the Americanism. Why do they have to capitalise the divine names, use red-letters etc?

Overall though brother would you regard it as an accurate translation for someone who wanted to stay with the TR?

Yes, its just me being fussy. BTW, the NKJV is the pulpit Bible in my church.

 

[MW]

The NKJV has a number of flaws, but the most obvious one is the fact that the reader is left confused as to who is being addressed when personal pronouns switch between singular and plural. Understanding who is being addressed is fundamental to context, and context is essential to correctly interpreting any writing. I also think the uniform use of "you" encourages Bible readers to develop an individualistic approach to the Christian life which is not healthy.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Here is a TBS article on the subject.

 

[etexas]

Here is a TBS article on the subject.

Thank you Andrew, great article! TBS is great. My "primary Bible" is the AV, but I do sometimes use the NKJV. A lot to think about.

 

[Pilgrim]

The only thing I don't like about the NKJV is the Americanism. Why do they have to capitalise the divine names, use red-letters etc?

Overall though brother would you regard it as an accurate translation for someone who wanted to stay with the TR?

Yes, its just me being fussy. BTW, the NKJV is the pulpit Bible in my church.

Isn't there a British edition of the NKJV called the Revised Authorised Version, or is that just the name and the Americanisms remain intact?

 

[SolaGratia]

This is why I use the KJV/NKJV parallel Bible. KJV/NKJV Parallel Center Column Reference Bible, Bonded Leather Black - - Christianbook.com

I am stilled waiting patiently for the KJV/ESV parallel Bible.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Overall though brother would you regard it as an accurate translation for someone who wanted to stay with the TR?

Yes, its just me being fussy. BTW, the NKJV is the pulpit Bible in my church.

Isn't there a British edition of the NKJV called the Revised Authorised Version, or is that just the name and the Americanisms remain intact?

Yes I have one of those, it has no Americanisms but sadly its no longer in print.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The NKJV has a number of flaws, but the most obvious one is the fact that the reader is left confused as to who is being addressed when personal pronouns switch between singular and plural. Understanding who is being addressed is fundamental to context, and context is essential to correctly interpreting any writing. I also think the uniform use of "you" encourages Bible readers to develop an individualistic approach to the Christian life which is not healthy.

As far as I am aware, the footnotes of the NKJV indicate when the word "you" is being used in the plural. Moreover, the use of the word "thou" erects an unnecessary barrier to the gospel. This is the real problem I have with AV people, they need to spend more time focusing on the weighter matters of the law rather than wasting their time in pedantic debates over trifles.

I also heard Brian Schwertley say once that 80% of the time when the NKJV and AV differ, the NKJV is more accurate. Sometimes the AV is better, but as the NKJV is only a translation then this is to be expected.

 

[AV1611]

I'll be sticking with the AV

 

[etexas]

A question (from a dumb Texas Businessman) to you Theological great ones: Is there much of an anti Reformed slant in the NKJV as accused? Thank You.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

A question (from a dumb Texas Businessman) to you Theological great ones: Is there much of an anti Reformed slant in the NKJV as accused? Thank You.

Some say that there is a Dispensational bias; especially in 2 Thess. 2 where "He that restrains" is intentionally capitalized. This is why I dislike capitalization.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

This is why I use the KJV/NKJV parallel Bible. KJV/NKJV Parallel Center Column Reference Bible, Bonded Leather Black - - Christianbook.com

I am stilled waiting patiently for the KJV/ESV parallel Bible.

The Essential Evangelical Parallel Bible has the NKJV and ESV in parallel. Sadly, however, it also includes the Message and the NLT.

 

[MW]

As far as I am aware, the footnotes of the NKJV indicate when the word "you" is being used in the plural. Moreover, the use of the word "thou" erects an unnecessary barrier to the gospel. This is the real problem I have with AV people, they need to spend more time focusing on the weighter matters of the law rather than wasting their time in pedantic debates over trifles.

I have two different editions of the NKJV and neither of them have the footnotes you describe. They do, however, possess footnotes which cast doubt on the preservation of the text of Scripture.

I ask you, Mr. Ritchie, to now pick up your NKJV, and to tell me what *it* says in Gen. 9:9 and John 3:7. I could quote any number of instances, as the correct interpretation of Scripture is called into doubt in literally thousands of places by the uniform adoption of "you" for second person pronouns; but these two should suffice to get the point across that the ordinary reader of the NKJV has no idea who is being described when the text shifts from a singular to plural referent.

I don't know why the integrity of Scripture should not be considered by you a weighty matter, especially given the reformed doctrine of sola Scriptura. The authority, sufficiency and perspicuity of Scripture renders this a weighty matter worth much time and effort. The faith and assurance of God's elect depends on it.

 

[bookslover]

Sometimes the AV is better, but as the NKJV is only a translation then this is to be expected.

The AV is also only a translation...

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

As far as I am aware, the footnotes of the NKJV indicate when the word "you" is being used in the plural. Moreover, the use of the word "thou" erects an unnecessary barrier to the gospel. This is the real problem I have with AV people, they need to spend more time focusing on the weighter matters of the law rather than wasting their time in pedantic debates over trifles.

I have two different editions of the NKJV and neither of them have the footnotes you describe. They do, however, possess footnotes which cast doubt on the preservation of the text of Scripture.

I ask you, Mr. Ritchie, to now pick up your NKJV, and to tell me what *it* says in Gen. 9:9 and John 3:7. I could quote any number of instances, as the correct interpretation of Scripture is called into doubt in literally thousands of places by the uniform adoption of "you" for second person pronouns; but these two should suffice to get the point across that the ordinary reader of the NKJV has no idea who is being described when the text shifts from a singular to plural referent.

I don't know why the integrity of Scripture should not be considered by you a weighty matter, especially given the reformed doctrine of sola Scriptura. The authority, sufficiency and perspicuity of Scripture renders this a weighty matter worth much time and effort. The faith and assurance of God's elect depends on it.

Well then I better ditch the AV as well since the 1611 edition also has footnotes which question textual variants. Moreover, it has certain books in it which according to the Confession are not canonical.

According to your logic, the apostles were wrong to quote from the LXX.

I do consider the integrity of Scripture to be a weighty matter (hence I am severely critical of those who twist the plain meaning of Scripture by denying six-day creation etc.), however, I do not consider disputes about translations to be a weighty matter since no translation of the Bible is perfect. I spent a number of years in AV churches, and I have to say getting out of them was the best thing I ever did. Meditation on Romans 14:1 (in the NKJV translation) should be enough to convince anyone that the dogmatism of AV onlyites is unbiblical.

Moreover, using the word "thou" in the places you mention does not solve the problem as you will have to add footnotes explaining to modern readers what the significance of the distinction is since that distinction no longer exists in modern English. Maybe you have a valid point and the NKJV could be improved by a revision, but I see no reason to slate a good translation of the Bible over such a minor point. Anyway, as we are probably not going to agree there is really no point discussing it much further.

 

[MW]

Well then I better ditch the AV as well since the 1611 edition also has footnotes which question textual variants. Moreover, it has certain books in it which according to the Confession are not canonical.

According to your logic, the apostles were wrong to quote from the LXX.

I do consider the integrity of Scripture to be a weighty matter (hence I am severely critical of those who twist the plain meaning of Scripture by denying six-day creation etc.), however, I do not consider disputes about translations to be a weighty matter since no translation of the Bible is perfect. I spent a number of years in AV churches, and I have to say getting out of them was the best thing I ever did. Meditation on Romans 14:1 (in the NKJV translation) should be enough to convince anyone that the dogmatism of AV onlyites is unbiblical.

Moreover, using the word "thou" in the places you mention does not solve the problem as you will have to add footnotes explaining to modern readers what the significance of the distinction is since that distinction no longer exists in modern English. Maybe you have a valid point and the NKJV could be improved by a revision, but I see no reason to slate a good translation of the Bible over such a minor point. Anyway, as we are probably not going to agree there is really no point discussing it much further.

The first part of your response is mere reaction -- a desperate attempt to discredit the AV by random and unresearched ideas. This is unworthy of reply.

Your second last paragraph is simply prejudice. You have obviously had a bad experience with people who use the AV. That is neither here nor there as to the merits of the AV as a faithful translation.

Concerning your last paragraph, I still find it hard to believe that you would make the correct understanding of holy Scripture a minor point. How can it not be of concern to you that the reader of the NKJV is unwittingly led into a misunderstanding of the intent of the Holy Spirit time and again?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The first part of your response is mere reaction -- a desperate attempt to discredit the AV by random and unresearched ideas. This is unworthy of reply.

That is not true; please read the marginal note on Luke 17:36 in the 1611 edition of the Authorized Version:

This 36 verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies.

We also find the books known as the Apocrypha placed in the middle of the 1611 AV without any note to say that they are not canonical, which contradicts the Westminster Confession.

If I really wanted to discredit the AV, then there are a load of "below the belt" arguments that I could have employed; however, since I have no intention of discrediting any translation of God's word, I refrained from using them.

 

[MW]

Mr. Ritchie, how is this supposed to reflect on the AV as a *translation* of holy Scripture? You are clasping at straws. I provided you with sound criticism on the translation of the NKJV, and you have reacted by producing irrelevant facts which add nothing to the discussion as to the relative merits of the AV as a translation of holy Scripture in comparison to the NKJV.

The first part of your response is mere reaction -- a desperate attempt to discredit the AV by random and unresearched ideas. This is unworthy of reply.

That is not true; please read the marginal note on Luke 17:36 in the 1611 edition of the Authorized Version:

This 36 verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies.

We also find the books known as the Apocrypha placed in the middle of the 1611 AV without any note to say that they are not canonical, which contradicts the Westminster Confession.

If I really wanted to discredit the AV, then there are a load of "below the belt" arguments that I could have employed; however, since I have no intention of discrediting any translation of God's word, I refrained from using them.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Mr. Ritchie, how is this supposed to reflect on the AV as a *translation* of holy Scripture? You are clasping at straws. I provided you with sound criticism on the translation of the NKJV, and you have reacted by producing irrelevant facts which add nothing to the discussion as to the relative merits of the AV as a translation of holy Scripture in comparison to the NKJV.

The first part of your response is mere reaction -- a desperate attempt to discredit the AV by random and unresearched ideas. This is unworthy of reply.

That is not true; please read the marginal note on Luke 17:36 in the 1611 edition of the Authorized Version:

This 36 verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies.

We also find the books known as the Apocrypha placed in the middle of the 1611 AV without any note to say that they are not canonical, which contradicts the Westminster Confession.

If I really wanted to discredit the AV, then there are a load of "below the belt" arguments that I could have employed; however, since I have no intention of discrediting any translation of God's word, I refrained from using them.

Mr Winzer you raised the issue of the NKJV having footnotes pointing out textual variants. You cannot raise issues like this and then not expect a response.

Moreover, I myself have provided criticisms of the NKJV, but I did not want to get into a slanging match by pointing out problems with the AV as I do not want to slate a faithful translation of God's word as to do so is profanity.

The NKJV has problems, the AV has problems. Since neither were translated by men who were inspired this is to be expected.

 

[MW]

Mr Winzer you raised the issue of the NKJV having footnotes pointing out textual variants. You cannot raise issues like this and then not expect a response.

Please read again what it was I actually raised. The NKJV does not merely point out variants, but provides a text critical apparatus at the foot of the text which casts doubt on the original. The AV margin does nothing of the kind, and onyone with an ounce of common sense will see that your example does not approach anything like the footnotes of the NKJV.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Mr Winzer you raised the issue of the NKJV having footnotes pointing out textual variants. You cannot raise issues like this and then not expect a response.

Please read again what it was I actually raised. The NKJV does not merely point out variants, but provides a text critical apparatus at the foot of the text which casts doubt on the original. The AV margin does nothing of the kind, and onyone with an ounce of common sense will see that your example does not approach anything like the footnotes of the NKJV.

The AV margin questions whether a verse in the TR is part of the original text. This is the same thing in principle. The fact that the footnotes of the NKJV are more detailed is not fundamentally different. Moreover, you can buy NKJVs without textual footnotes.

 

[MW]

The AV margin questions whether a verse in the TR is part of the original text. This is the same thing in principle. The fact that the footnotes of the NKJV are more detailed is not fundamentally different. Moreover, you can buy NKJVs without textual footnotes.

You are reading text critical assumptions into the AV marginal note when you maintain the AV margin questions whether the verse is a part of the original text. The TR is an inclusive text. It does not depend on the number and age of MSS., but on what the church has received as canonical. The margin of the AV merely notes the few witnesses which exist for the reading. The NKJV, however, provides a critical apparatus for the critically inexperienced reader to doubt whether what he is reading is the Word of God -- a procedure which is not lacking in madness.

 

[Pilgrim]

The AV margin questions whether a verse in the TR is part of the original text. This is the same thing in principle. The fact that the footnotes of the NKJV are more detailed is not fundamentally different. Moreover, you can buy NKJVs without textual footnotes.

You are reading text critical assumptions into the AV marginal note when you maintain the AV margin questions whether the verse is a part of the original text. The TR is an inclusive text. It does not depend on the number and age of MSS., but on what the church has received as canonical. The margin of the AV merely notes the few witnesses which exist for the reading. The NKJV, however, provides a critical apparatus for the critically inexperienced reader to doubt whether what he is reading is the Word of God -- a procedure which is not lacking in madness.

For what it's worth the way I see it, any alternate reading in the margin that is not simply a translational choice could serve to cast doubt on the text to the inexperienced reader or those inclined not to trust the Bible. At best it is a difference in degree, but not in kind.

 

[MW]

For what it's worth the way I see it, any alternate reading in the margin that is not simply a translational choice could serve to cast doubt on the text to the inexperienced reader or those inclined not to trust the Bible. At best it is a difference in degree, but not in kind.

I tend to agree with this as a general comment; but in the context of this discussion one must not assume that the AV margin aims to accomplish the same objective as the NKJV footnotes. To show that it is in fact a different "kind" of note one only needs to pioint out that the NKJV specifically refers to different readings, i.e., NU- and M-texts. It is simply gratuitous to assume the AV marginal note intended anything like this.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The only thing I don't like about the NKJV is the Americanism. Why do they have to capitalise the divine names, use red-letters etc?

I recently had to take issue with the NKJV publishers/printers when preaching Isaiah 7. V16 they have "Child" (capitalized) instead of "child" (KJV) or "boy" (ESV), and so have prejudiced the interpretation in one particular direction--the wrong one, in my opinion.

In v16, I believe the "child" referenced is his young son whom God told Isaiah to take with him to "the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field" (v3), in preparation to speak to Ahaz.