# NKJV??



## reformed28

I,m sure this is a question that has been discussed on the board in the past, but I was wondering why the NKJV doesn't seem to get as much discussion as other translations? It seems to me that most folks in reformed circles are using the ESV or KJV, which I do use the KJV and NKJV myself, while referencing the other translations. I guess my question is, since NKJV is mostly based on the TR, why it's not as popular as other modern translations?

Sorry if this is a redundant question, but just wondering!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I think it is a good question. The NKJV is my regular Bible translation for both study and preaching.


----------



## Edward

My preference is for the NKJV for its retention of the poetry of the KJV with modern readability, but since the congregation of which I'm a member uses the ESV, that's my carry Bible and what I have on my Kindle. 

To some extent, it's going to be a question of the texts used, rather than the English expression.


----------



## JP Wallace

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I think it is a good question. The NKJV is my regular Bible translation for both study and preaching.



Me too - I think every translation should have the textual notes relating to the other manuscript translations that the NKJV has, and it's a good compromise on KJV/modern language debate in my opinion.


----------



## KMK

reformed28 said:


> I guess my question is, since NKJV is mostly based on the TR, why it's not as popular as other modern translations?



That's easy. The TR itself is not very popular.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

JP Wallace said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is a good question. The NKJV is my regular Bible translation for both study and preaching.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me too - I think every translation should have the textual notes relating to the other manuscript translations that the NKJV has, and it's a good compromise on KJV/modern language debate in my opinion.
Click to expand...


I agree. The textual notes have been very helpful in bible studies at church. Especially when folks notice a difference between what I have read and what is in their ESV/NASB/NIV etc...


----------



## Bethel

reformed28 said:


> I,m sure this is a question that has been discussed on the board in the past, but I was wondering why the NKJV doesn't seem to get as much discussion as other translations? It seems to me that most folks in reformed circles are using the ESV or KJV, which I do use the KJV and NKJV myself, while referencing the other translations. I guess my question is, since NKJV is mostly based on the TR, why it's not as popular as other modern translations?
> 
> Sorry if this is a redundant question, but just wondering!



Sad to say, but I think it has to do with marketing. The publishers of the NIV and ESV translations have done a much better job of convincing people that their version is the best (or in this case, one of the best).

I found this article by Michael Marlowe compelling: New King James Version We use the NKJV for our family devotionals and read alouds. However, this year, I've been reading more from the KJV for my personal study and decided to switch because I find this version more enjoyable and enriching (and I agree with the use of the underlying text).


----------



## JimmyH

From a layman's perspective, I read KJV, NKJV, NASB and the ESV. More or less in that order, depending on the day. The KJV is the one I prefer, because I grew up with it, and for the literary quality of the text. President Harry Truman, when asked what he thought of the new translations said,"They took the poetry out of the Bible." 

I don't read dynamic equivalency translations such as the NIV although I have one. I am not in the ministry so reading aloud is not something I do, outside of Bible class, but I've read more than one pastor say that the ESV is superior for reading aloud. I do like the flow of the ESV. I've also read opinions that the NASB, because of the more literal translation, doesn't read as well aloud, and is 'stilted'. The reading aloud issue aside, I don't find the NASB stilted, and I like both the pre 1977, and the subsequent translation very much.


----------



## Philip

I've recently been reading the KJV (Revised Version) mostly just because I'm not as familiar with it as I am with the NKJV or the ESV. All of them are good translations, in my opinion.


----------



## nicnap

Because R.L. Allan hasn't printed it up yet.  Okay, that being said, after the NASB, the NKJV is my favorite translation. I prefer the textual basis of the NKJV. I use the NASB, but do my own translations from the TR and the Byz. If they differ, I use the TR or Byz. reading. 

I believe the NKJV never gained a foothold because they didn't market themselves very much, and they don't seem to produce as large a variety as many other translations (NASB the same thing.) Unfortunately, most people don't think of the translation styles when purchasing a Bible -- they look at the cute flowers or other "cool" cover design.


----------



## Jake

The King James Version (KJV) and Revised Version (RV) are two different translations; perhaps you meant the AV (Authorised Version), as the KJV is often referred to in Britain especially?


----------



## 3John2

KMK said:


> reformed28 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess my question is, since NKJV is mostly based on the TR, why it's not as popular as other modern translations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's easy. The TR itself is not very popular.
Click to expand...


Funny, but I hadn't thought of that. I'm a KJV man myself but if I have to give a bible to someone I make it a NKJV & we also use it at church.


----------



## Philip

Jake said:


> The King James Version (KJV) and Revised Version (RV) are two different translations; perhaps you meant the AV (Authorised Version), as the KJV is often referred to in Britain especially?



I think you're right---I was under the impression that the KJV had been revised in the 1800s, but looking slightly deeper, the only changes are in spelling (though my British edition does seem to have some differences from the standard American editions of the AV).


----------



## fredtgreco

As someone who used the NKJV for 5 years or more of preaching, and now has used the ESV for 5+ years (and appreciates both) for me much of it comes down to publisher quality. The NKJV had the hard Providence to be exclusively a Nelson product. My experience has been that Nelson makes very bad Bibles. I went through four during a two year span of regularly preaching. In each instance the binding came undone. It was very annoying. It was also hard to get different type of Bibles. I'm not talking about "specialty" Bibles, but rather things like large print, basic study Bibles, non-red letter Bibles, etc. That was also frustrating, because my congregation would ask about things like a Reformed Study Bible, or non-red letter, and I could give them no options.

The ESV, on the other hand, may be *too* market savvy. It can feel forced at times, but they have a wide variety of types, excellent publishers (Allan!), and many helps (Study Bible, etc.). The ESV also has top rate smartphone/tablet apps, and an excellent website. It is very user friendly. Finally, so many church oriented materials (Sunday school, Bible study materials, etc.) have integration with the ESV, and not with the NKJV. Basically, the ESV won the race to replace the NIV. I'm glad for that (I dislike the NIV), but I would have also like if the NKJV would have won.

In the end, I find both translations good, and helpful. I consider them about equal - and often they have very close translation results. You all can attack me now, but the NASB is nearly inaccessible to youth and below (and most adults!) and the KJV has simply passed out of the common parlance for most. Both of those translations are excellent, but I look at translations for a combination of faithfulness and usability for the congregation. A great Bible that is not used is a bad Bible, in my opinion.


----------



## Elimelek

Dear friends

As you may know, I prefer the critical text above the textus receptus. Though that is not the reason why I don't use the NKJV. Where I live the only NKJV that I've seen on the shelves of bookshops are _Thomas Nelson gift editions. _The quality and durability of these Bibles and their price makes it just not worthwhile. The reason I say it, was because I owned a NKJV a few years ago.

I won't go back to the NKJV. The ESV generally reads better and it is based on the ground texts I prefer.

Kind regards


----------



## DMcFadden

I actually like the NKJV better than the ESV, in part for the wonderful textual footnotes, and in part for the fluidity of sound when it is read. But, it is a losing battle to try to overcome the momentum on the side of the ESV.

Fred nailed it as to the reasons for the success of the ESV: top-notch marketing (e.g., they still give away the Kindle version for FREE; have all of the "right" endorsements, etc.), various options, and quality bindings. For bindings, only my Signature series NKJV seems to have any durability to it. And, we live in an era where the critical text is the prohibitve favorite among conservative scholars.

Too bad, really. But, game, set, match . . . ESV.


----------



## KMK

DMcFadden said:


> Too bad, really. But, game, set, match . . . ESV.



But for how long? Seriously, do you see the ESV living up to its name and becoming the Standard Version of the English language as the KJV is now? That would be a real plus for the English speaking church. It would be nice if we all spoke the same language again.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

I personally prefer the NKJV as well, although there are other good versions out there. It is true that there is not as much variety in NKJV Bibles, but if you can get your hands on a New Geneva Study Bible, which is the original version of the Reformation Study Bible only in NKJV, then you will have a great Bible. They are out of print, but can usually be found on Amazon or Ebay.


----------



## JP Wallace

KMK said:


> But for how long? Seriously, do you see the ESV living up to its name and becoming the Standard Version of the English language as the KJV is now? That would be a real plus for the English speaking church. It would be nice if we all spoke the same language again.



I do wonder if that will ever be the case again, sadly. I do think the ESV has a better 'chance' than most as it is not so dynamic as the NIV which was a non-starter for many.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Bill The Baptist said:


> I personally prefer the NKJV as well, although there are other good versions out there. It is true that there is not as much variety in NKJV Bibles, but if you can get your hands on a New Geneva Study Bible, which is the original version of the Reformation Study Bible only in NKJV, then you will have a great Bible. They are out of print, but can usually be found on Amazon or Ebay.


Yes there is that one, or the RSB NKJV edition, which happens to be my own personal bible for study. The Thompson NKJV bindings hold up much better than the Nelson and it is versified not paragraph formatted.

Some Cambridge versions are available:

NKJV-Cambridge : EvangelicalBible.com

Also the deluxe Minister's version of the NKJV by Hendrickson has a decent binding (also own this one):

Amazon.com: Minister's Bible-NKJV-Deluxe (9781598561142): Hendrickson Publishers: Books

AMR


----------



## au5t1n

JP Wallace said:


> I think every translation should have the textual notes relating to the other manuscript translations that the NKJV has



Rev. Wallace,

I'd be interested to discuss this point. I wouldn't feel comfortable giving an unbeliever or a new believer a Bible that had a bunch of notes about varying manuscripts if I had the option of giving him one that didn't. Those notes may be useful for pastors and educated laymen, but for others they can be an unnecessary hindrance toward receiving the Word with faith. I'm a bit skeptical that the average believer really needs to have all those variants in front of him, unless he is willing to study Greek and manuscript history. I will study those things eventually out of mere interest, but one very accurate English translation, along with a pastor educated in the original languages to minister the Word to me, is enough. In your pastoral experience, have you found that this has not been a problem?

Thanks,


----------



## Philip

JP Wallace said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> But for how long? Seriously, do you see the ESV living up to its name and becoming the Standard Version of the English language as the KJV is now? That would be a real plus for the English speaking church. It would be nice if we all spoke the same language again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do wonder if that will ever be the case again, sadly. I do think the ESV has a better 'chance' than most as it is not so dynamic as the NIV which was a non-starter for many.
Click to expand...


At the very least, I think it may become the standard for the Reformed world.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

It is already the standard of the Reformed Intelligentsia. I can't think of anyone other than Joel Beeke that does not use the ESV among the more well known theologians/scholars/professors/writers.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist

The NKJV has qualities that - In my humble opinion - could make it the best candidate to truly be a "New Authorized Version" for the modern church. It's my personal favorite - it reads well, the theology is thoroughly Bible Christian, it is conformable to the old AV in many ways, and while it uses the TR/Byzantine text as the standard, it does refer to the others. I think it's got the best of all worlds, except for marketing and binding quality.

Incidentally, I could say almost as good about the ESV for the Critical Text, except they're better made and marketed.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I have never had the binding problems with any of my NKJV's, even the one Nelson-bound pocket NKJV I have.


----------



## Dearly Bought

A few articles regarding the NKJV from Traditional Text perspective:

An Examination of the New King James Version (Part 1, Part 2)
The New King James Version and the Song of Solomon
The New King James Version: A Critique
What Today's Christian Needs to Know About the New King James Version


----------



## Gloria Dei

Well, personally the NKJV is my go-to Bible for comparing different texts like the CT with the TR or MT... In that sense, it is great, and reads quite wonderfully while still being decently literal. Overall though, I prefer the ESV while just reading, as I prefer the CT, but both are great translations. I believe the NKJV is not being discussed as much because it is so similar to the KJV, although it isn't an exact modern redo of it.


----------



## Pilgrim

The NKJV is my favorite modern translation as well. 

With regard to quality editions, there is supposed to be an Allan edition in the works, but it's supposed to be based on a Holman text block that has maybe 8 pt. print. If it has red letters there's no way I'm going to shell out that kind of $$ for one. The only "black letter" NKJV's I can think of are the MacArthur Study Bible, the NKJV Study Bible and the recently published single column edition. There is a Cambridge Pitt Minion NKJV edition but it has red letters, as most Cambridge editions do these days. I see there is a Cambridge Wide Margin edition too. The Thompson Chain Reference should be better quality than Nelson but I've seen people complain that Kirkbride's construction isn't what it used to be either. 

Nelson's construction used to be a lot better but at some point over the past 15 years or so they figured out the people will still buy even if the quality is low. (Perhaps that's a reflection of people buying Bibles that don't get used much except on Sundays.) I've seen NKJV's from the early 90's that were Smyth sewn. That even includes a hardcover Study Bible that I have that is copyright 1991. Now you can't find a leather bound Nelson Bible in any translation that is sewn, with the exception maybe of commemorative KJV editions from 2011. My NKJV MacArthur that I bought in 1999 is sewn and has a high quality genuine leather binding. By contrast, my wife's that was purchased about 3 years ago is much more worn out, and it's not from more use. I do have a glued NKJV edition that I bought around 2002 that hasn't started falling apart yet. Maybe it just has more glue than some others! I notice the spine is more flexible (without breaking) than some other glued editions from various publishers, so that is probably a big help. 

I haven't kept up with it lately, but the most recent CBA list of bestsellers still has the NKJV outselling the ESV. I've never seen the ESV outsell the NKJV on that list. But ominously the NLT is #2 in unit sales! But I don't know if that the usual breakdown now or if it's just a one month anomaly. When I would check it a year or two ago, typically it would be NIV, KJV, NKJV, NLT and maybe ESV at number 5. But the NLT is a big seller regardless. 

Maybe the NKJV isn't used much in Presbyterian and Reformed churches. That was my experience when I was in those circles (PCA, OPC and EPC.) I don't recall ever seeing anyone preach from it as opposed to the NASB, NIV and ESV. Even there, the NKJV New Geneva/Reformation Study Bible never caught on the way the ESV one has. 

A lot of Baptists use the NKJV. But overall, I won't be surprised to see the ESV start outselling the NKJV in the next few years. The younger Baptists I know predominately use the ESV. While there are certainly exceptions, typically the men who preach from the NKJV are older, maybe 40+ if not 50+ on average. I know at least one preacher who has switched from the KJV straight to the ESV without stopping in between with the NKJV. A lot of preachers still use the NASB too, but that's probably mostly men who cut their teeth on that version. 

Crossway seems to have figured out that people prefer quality. That's something they have now over Nelson and Zondervan. (Holman is better than those two, with most editions being sewn albeit almost all in red letter.) When the ESV was first released in 2001 their construction was no better than Nelson's and was worse in some cases. The first ESV I had started falling apart after a year or two and it wasn't really my go to Bible. Now even the ESV Value Thinline has a sewn binding, although it has no ribbon marker. (Does omitting the ribbon really save that much $$ for them?) More of their editions have "black letter" too. They've also been receptive to input in that regard.

While it's certainly no literary masterpiece, I don't think the NASB is as bad as some assert unless the person is has difficulty reading in general. (But that's in the eye of the beholder as well.) The 1995 version reads smoother than the 1977. I find that in most cases it doesn't read that poorly until you compare it to another version. It reads better than it sounds. That being said, the vocabulary of the NASB is sometimes more modern than the NKJV and occasionally moreso than the ESV, which sometimes favors what some would consider to be somewhat archaic poetic expressions over more modern phraseology. It's the sentence structure of the NASB that is more awkward. And I've never really been able to stomach its translation of the Psalms compared to other versions. But that's due more to aesthetics than inaccessibility. 

All of the formal equivalent editions are going to look relatively inaccessible next to the NIV, HCSB or NLT. One reason that I abandoned the NAS in favor of the NKJV was continually seeing footnotes in the NASB that said _Lit. xyz_ and seeing that rendering in the text of the NKJV, with the NKJV usually being more memorable as well. This seemed to be more pronounced in the OT but can also be seen in the NT with the NKJV literally translating Hebrew expressions like "gird up the loins of your mind" whereas the NASB will have something more modern and accessible like "prepare your minds for action." 

Even though I prefer the Byzantine text, for some reason when reading the NASB I've tended to have more "Aha" moments than with any other version. (It seems to happen most often in the Epistles.) Maybe that's because I don't read it as much anymore or because the language is less familiar to me (albeit more modern in some cases) than the NKJV or KJV.

Someone had linked to Michael Marlowe's site. The NKJV review there is a revision of his original article. His original one was rather negative because he favors the critical text. But obviously he's reevaluated and recognizes the merits of the NKJV now, textual issues aside. The ESV article is actually a little more negative now than it was initially.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Pilgrim said:


> Someone had linked to Michael Marlowe's site. The NKJV review there is a revision of his original article. His original one was rather negative because he favors the critical text. But obviously he's reevaluated and recognizes the merits of the NKJV now, textual issues aside. The ESV article is actually a little more negative now than it was initially.


After quite a tear through the ESV, he recommended the NASB or the NKJV as the "most useful for detailed and careful study". See conclusions at bottom of page here, which was dated about two years before he even updated the NKJV review. 

AMR


----------



## Pilgrim

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone had linked to Michael Marlowe's site. The NKJV review there is a revision of his original article. His original one was rather negative because he favors the critical text. But obviously he's reevaluated and recognizes the merits of the NKJV now, textual issues aside. The ESV article is actually a little more negative now than it was initially.
> 
> 
> 
> After quite a tear through the ESV, he recommended the NASB or the NKJV as the "most useful for detailed and careful study". See conclusions at bottom of page here, which was dated about two years before he even updated the NKJV review.
> 
> AMR
Click to expand...


Thanks for bringing that up. I now remember seeing that and wondering if he was in the process of changing his mind about the NKJV, the NT textual issue notwithstanding. If I recall correctly in his previous review he stated that he couldn't recommend the NKJV because of its textual basis, but I may be confusing that with another site. Even though I don't know any Greek, based on the footnotes in both versions I could tell that the NKJV was more literal than the NASB in some cases, (like the ones I noted above) and Marlowe notes this in his revised review. I'm guessing he will further revise the article on the ESV now that the 2011 text edition has been released. Perhaps a updated review of the HCSB could be forthcoming as well given its recent revision.


----------



## JP Wallace

austinww said:


> Rev. Wallace,
> 
> I'd be interested to discuss this point. I wouldn't feel comfortable giving an unbeliever or a new believer a Bible that had a bunch of notes about varying manuscripts if I had the option of giving him one that didn't. Those notes may be useful for pastors and educated laymen, but for others they can be an unnecessary hindrance toward receiving the Word with faith. I'm a bit skeptical that the average believer really needs to have all those variants in front of him, unless he is willing to study Greek and manuscript history. I will study those things eventually out of mere interest, but one very accurate English translation, along with a pastor educated in the original languages to minister the Word to me, is enough. In your pastoral experience, have you found that this has not been a problem?



Austin

The point you make is an important one. The last thing we need is confusion on the part of God's people on this matter, and so they need to be taught a little about textual variants etc. Unless that happens encountering such things will really shake their faith in the authority of Scripture. In my opinion once instructed people have no problems with this, on the other hand if the normal Christian in the pew hears Bart Erhman or such saying the Scriptures are unreliable because of textual variants then they could be blindsided because they are ignorant about them.

I guess I also like the transparency of the editors 'admitting' this word or phrase may or may not be included, rather than ignoring the problem. I also for example like the practice of italicising words inserted for understanding for the same reason.

The bible's function is to deliver God's Word and our printed editions should do so humbly and transparently and honestly. The original AV included a host of notes on word meanings etc. (and I think some textual notes as well?) so this stands in a good tradition.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I preach from a Cambridge Wide Margin edition NKJV and a Thompson Chain Reference , Kirkbride edition, NKJV is my "regular" reading Bible.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Perhaps this is why the NKJV hasn't caught on like the ESV, no slick commercials starring superstar pastors. http://youtu.be/zVVJeeg8hYY


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I preach from a Cambridge Wide Margin edition NKJV


Is this version in verse or paragraph form?

AMR


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

http://churchrelevance.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/wide-margin-NKJV-bible-cambridge-press-10.jpg


----------



## reformed28

Bill The Baptist said:


> Perhaps this is why the NKJV hasn't caught on like the ESV, no slick commercials starring superstar pastors. http://youtu.be/zVVJeeg8hYY



Ditto! As was mentioned in an earlier post, it's about $. Bible publishing is a big business! It just seems to me that in the last 40 plus years, we've had enough translations published for what ever reasons, such as more literal, more easy to read, and so on!


----------



## J. Dean

NKJV is a good version, although I think the ESV flows a bit better for reading.

That being said, I also use the NKJV for my morning study.


----------



## ADKing

Those who are persuaded of the superiority of the TR are usually (though not always) KJV users and generally don't use the NKJV. They think the textual notes compromise a consistent testimony to providential preservation. Also, those from this perspective note several theological inaccuracies in translation. In other words, it does not seem to be an improvement on the TR translation we already have in the KJV. 

Those who are not persuaded of the superiority of the TR either prefer the critical text translations to the NKJV or are completely unaware of the issues and thus use what is most popular, marketed etc. At one time study Bibles like the "New Geneva" were NKJV but has changed into the ESV and "Reformation Study Bible". Since a majority of evangelicalism is influenced (wittingly or not) but critical text theory that is what is most often used in many churches. 

The NKJV then, in my opinion, has a very small niche left over to market to.


----------



## Bethel

Pilgrim said:


> Ask Mr. Religion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone had linked to Michael Marlowe's site. The NKJV review there is a revision of his original article. His original one was rather negative because he favors the critical text. But obviously he's reevaluated and recognizes the merits of the NKJV now, textual issues aside. The ESV article is actually a little more negative now than it was initially.
> 
> 
> 
> After quite a tear through the ESV, he recommended the NASB or the NKJV as the "most useful for detailed and careful study". See conclusions at bottom of page here, which was dated about two years before he even updated the NKJV review.
> 
> AMR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for bringing that up. I now remember seeing that and wondering if he was in the process of changing his mind about the NKJV, the NT textual issue notwithstanding. If I recall correctly in his previous review he stated that he couldn't recommend the NKJV because of its textual basis, but I may be confusing that with another site. Even though I don't know any Greek, based on the footnotes in both versions I could tell that the NKJV was more literal than the NASB in some cases, (like the ones I noted above) and Marlowe notes this in his revised review. I'm guessing he will further revise the article on the ESV now that the 2011 text edition has been released. Perhaps a updated review of the HCSB could be forthcoming as well given its recent revision.
Click to expand...


I e-mailed Mr. Marlowe because his recommendation page here: Recommended Theological Books and Booksellers stated the NKJV was the best all-round, but the ESV page did not reflect that recommendation. He did say that he changed his mind and would update his website.


----------



## Pilgrim

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> http://churchrelevance.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/wide-margin-NKJV-bible-cambridge-press-10.jpg



Now, why did you have to go and post that for?  But as I suspected, it has red letters. 

The other day I was in a store and noticed that the latest edition of Nelson's NKJV Study Bible is actually Smyth Sewn. And this was the hardcover edition, which in my experience are usually not constructed as well. A faint glimmer of hope! The quality of the first year or two of ESV's produced were no better than Nelson's usual fare but now they are considered one of the better quality publishers. Hopefully Nelson will figure it out! I remember being almost cynical when I saw the promotional case for Nelson's Signature Series several years ago. (Apparently now discontinued.) It said something like, "In an age when quality is hard to come by, the Signature Series is an exception." I thought "But you're basically the company that led the race to the bottom!" 

I think another issue is that some probably prefer the ESV's paragraphed format as opposed to the verse per line format usually found with the KJV, NKJV and NASB. That's probably especially the case with those who are looking to switch from the NIV, which is almost always paragraphed. Until recently, the only paragraphed NKJV's available were a handful of Study Bibles. Many will argue that it's easier to preach or teach from a version with verse per line formatting, as it's easier to quickly locate a particular verse that way. I tend to agree. But I think that for many, especially those who haven't been use to reading the Bible often, the paragraph formatting flows more smoothly.

(Edit: I see that the Cambridge edn. that Ben posted is paragraphed. If I recall correctly the Pitt Minion is as well.)

---------- Post added at 10:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 PM ----------




JP Wallace said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rev. Wallace,
> 
> I'd be interested to discuss this point. I wouldn't feel comfortable giving an unbeliever or a new believer a Bible that had a bunch of notes about varying manuscripts if I had the option of giving him one that didn't. Those notes may be useful for pastors and educated laymen, but for others they can be an unnecessary hindrance toward receiving the Word with faith. I'm a bit skeptical that the average believer really needs to have all those variants in front of him, unless he is willing to study Greek and manuscript history. I will study those things eventually out of mere interest, but one very accurate English translation, along with a pastor educated in the original languages to minister the Word to me, is enough. In your pastoral experience, have you found that this has not been a problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Austin
> 
> The point you make is an important one. The last thing we need is confusion on the part of God's people on this matter, and so they need to be taught a little about textual variants etc. Unless that happens encountering such things will really shake their faith in the authority of Scripture. In my opinion once instructed people have no problems with this, on the other hand if the normal Christian in the pew hears Bart Erhman or such saying the Scriptures are unreliable because of textual variants then they could be blindsided because they are ignorant about them.
> 
> I guess I also like the transparency of the editors 'admitting' this word or phrase may or may not be included, rather than ignoring the problem. I also for example like the practice of italicising words inserted for understanding for the same reason.
> 
> The bible's function is to deliver God's Word and our printed editions should do so humbly and transparently and honestly. The original AV included a host of notes on word meanings etc. (and I think some textual notes as well?) so this stands in a good tradition.
Click to expand...


Paul,

I agree. The KJV does have a host of notes on word meanings/equivalents, "Heb: xyz," some textual notes, etc. (Well, better reference editions have them, but some will substitute other notes.) There are a ton of notes in the book of Job in particular. I've even noticed a reference or two to certain Church Fathers! (I want to say it was Chrysostom.) 

I recently noticed that the ESV does not so much as even have a marginal note in 1 John 5 regarding the _Comma._ Given the controversy over that verse, I don't see that as being responsible, no matter what side of the debate one is on. Someone who didn't know better (such as one who isn't "up" on textual controversies) might think that is an indication that they are trying to hide something. That's where Ehrman or Ruckman could come in.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Well said Chris.


----------



## nicnap

Bill The Baptist said:


> Perhaps this is why the NKJV hasn't caught on like the ESV, no slick commercials starring superstar pastors.




Ay ay ay; this again?


----------



## J. Dean

Pilgrim said:


> I recently noticed that the ESV does not so much as even have a marginal note in 1 John 5 regarding the _Comma._ Given the controversy over that verse, I don't see that as being responsible, no matter what side of the debate one is on. Someone who didn't know better (such as one who isn't "up" on textual controversies) might think that is an indication that they are trying to hide something. That's where Ehrman or Ruckman could come in.



Comma? Elaborate, please.


----------



## JML

J. Dean said:


> Comma? Elaborate, please.



Johannine Comma. 1 John 5:7

KJV: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

ESV: "For there are three that testify:"

The Trinity reference in this verse is referred to as the Johannine Comma. The Textus Receptus based Bibles have it, the Critical Text Bibles do not.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Bethel said:


> I e-mailed Mr. Marlowe because his recommendation page here: Recommended Theological Books and Booksellers stated the NKJV was the best all-round, but the ESV page did not reflect that recommendation. He did say that he changed his mind and would update his website.


"Changed his mind" in which direction?

AMR


----------



## J. Dean

John Lanier said:


> J. Dean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comma? Elaborate, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johannine Comma. 1 John 5:7
> 
> KJV: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
> 
> ESV: "For there are three that testify:"
> 
> The Trinity reference in this verse is referred to as the Johannine Comma. The Textus Receptus based Bibles have it, the Critical Text Bibles do not.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes. I know what you're talking about now. 

But even if the Critical Text is correct, that does not negate the doctrine of the Trinity as set forth in other passages.


----------



## tlharvey7

it's true... my bible is falling apart after only a couple years. but i always find myself going back to the NKJV


View attachment 2674


----------



## Bill The Baptist

nicnap said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this is why the NKJV hasn't caught on like the ESV, no slick commercials starring superstar pastors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ay ay ay; this again?
Click to expand...


I know, I know, but can you really watch those cheesy ESV commercials without getting a little sick to your stomach?


----------



## MW

J. Dean said:


> But even if the Critical Text is correct, that does not negate the doctrine of the Trinity as set forth in other passages.



Are you sure? First, At the least, it doesn't help it. Secondly, it must weaken it, given that there is no other statement like 1 John 5:7 in Scripture. Thirdly, it has had the tendency to change it. Many who reject 1 John 5:7 will only go so far as to allow an economic Trinity. If one makes a careful examination of the Confessional doctrine it will be seen that the omission of the Comma has a transforming effect on the doctrine. WCF 2.3 teaches, "In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost." It then appeals to 1 John 5:7, Matt. 3:16, 17, Matt. 28:19, and 2 Cor. 13:14. The Jordan baptism establishes three persons; the great commission establishes equal power; the apostolic benediction establishes economic equality. If 1 John 5:7 is omitted, it is not possible, by sound exegetical and theological method, to prove an "essential ontological unity" of the three persons. Where this exegetical and theological support is missing it effectively means people are receiving the doctrine on the sole basis of tradition.


----------



## Zork

Elimelek said:


> Dear friends
> 
> As you may know, I prefer the critical text above the textus receptus. Though that is not the reason why I don't use the NKJV. Where I live the only NKJV that I've seen on the shelves of bookshops are _Thomas Nelson gift editions. _The quality and durability of these Bibles and their price makes it just not worthwhile. The reason I say it, was because I owned a NKJV a few years ago.
> 
> I won't go back to the NKJV. The ESV generally reads better and it is based on the ground texts I prefer.
> 
> Kind regards



Hi.
Good to see another Fellow South African.


----------



## J. Dean

armourbearer said:


> Are you sure? First, At the least, it doesn't help it. Secondly, it must weaken it, given that there is no other statement like 1 John 5:7 in Scripture. Thirdly, it has had the tendency to change it. Many who reject 1 John 5:7 will only go so far as to allow an economic Trinity. If one makes a careful examination of the Confessional doctrine it will be seen that the omission of the Comma has a transforming effect on the doctrine. WCF 2.3 teaches, "In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost." It then appeals to 1 John 5:7, Matt. 3:16, 17, Matt. 28:19, and 2 Cor. 13:14. The Jordan baptism establishes three persons; the great commission establishes equal power; the apostolic benediction establishes economic equality. If 1 John 5:7 is omitted, it is not possible, by sound exegetical and theological method, to prove an "essential ontological unity" of the three persons. Where this exegetical and theological support is missing it effectively means people are receiving the doctrine on the sole basis of tradition.


I did not think of this that way. Your argument is taken and well-done as usual 

But even so, aren't we warned to not set up doctrine solely upon one verse?


----------



## MW

J. Dean said:


> But even so, aren't we warned to not set up doctrine solely upon one verse?



A verse should be understood in its context and its teaching should be received in conjunction with the system of Scripture as a whole; but it is often the case that a clear statement is made the leading witness and other statements are brought in to corroborate its testimony.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

armourbearer said:


> A verse should be understood in its context and its teaching should be received in conjunction with the system of Scripture as a whole; but it is often the case that a clear statement is made the leading witness and other statements are brought in to corroborate its testimony.


Indeed, hence _locus classicus_.

AMR


----------



## Bethel

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Bethel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I e-mailed Mr. Marlowe because his recommendation page here: Recommended Theological Books and Booksellers stated the NKJV was the best all-round, but the ESV page did not reflect that recommendation. He did say that he changed his mind and would update his website.
> 
> 
> 
> "Changed his mind" in which direction?
> 
> AMR
Click to expand...


Sorry that my comment wasn't very clear. He now (or still) recommends the NKJV (as reflected on his summary page). I believe that his original recommendation was for the NKJV; however, the ESV page indicated a change in his recommendation. When I asked which one (NKJV or ESV) was his top recommendation (because the pages contradicted each other), he told me that the summary page was correct which recommended the NKJV. He has since revised the conclusion paragraph on the ESV webpage.


----------



## E Nomine

There are two high quality single column NKJVs beginning production (hopefully for release later this year): a Schuyler edition from Evangelicalbible.com and a Clarion edition fron Cambridge.


----------



## JM

Thomas Nelson has some YouTube commercials for the NKJV.


----------



## baron

reformed28 said:


> I was wondering why the NKJV doesn't seem to get as much discussion as other translations?



The NJKV revisers eliminated the best feature of the KJV (its marvelous expression of the English language) and kept the worst (its flawed text). Gordon D fee & Douglas Stuart in How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth.

I have My Utmost devotional bible includes works by Oswald Chambers in NKJV and it was the worst read to me. It just dosen't flow for me.


----------



## kodos

I have a Clarion KJV (which I love!). I didn't hear there'd be a NKJV - do you have any more info on it?


----------



## E Nomine

I read about both on Evangelicalbible's facebook page evangelicalbible.com | Facebook

I see they also refer to an upcoming Allan 2-column reference edition So What’s New? « The RL Allans Bibles Direct Blog


----------



## Pilgrim

E Nomine said:


> There are two high quality single column NKJVs beginning production (hopefully for release later this year): a Schuyler edition from Evangelicalbible.com and a Clarion edition fron Cambridge.



Yes, I saw this from Evangelical Bible. Apparently they are going to start producing their own editions under the name Schulyer. The ESV with the confessions is to be the first. I was very interested to see that the NKJV is single column. It is the same text block as to the single column paragraphed edition issued a few years ago by Nelson. (They also issued a KJV single column paragraphed edition too. Predictably both have low quality covers and bindings, but the paper seems to be a little above average. Distributors still have both but I've heard that one or both are going out of print soon.) I find that with single column printings that the font has to be bigger for me to be able to read it at any length. This may be just big enough for me. If it's supposed to read more like a regular book I say the print should be about that size too. But in many cases it is not. 

Allan is supposed to be working on a NKJV using a Holman text block, which appears to be the same as NKJV Nelson Reference editions that have center column references. I don't know what the status of that project is. But I'll have a hard time justifying the Allan price if it is red letter. I'm about 75% sure it is the same text block that I currently have in my Nelson reference edition, which has somehow held up for 10 years. If that's the case, I may opt for a rebind instead if it comes to that. The pages are a bit thicker than what you usually see now, so going that route may be worthwhile. I like mine because it has the "Cyclopedic Index" from the Open Bible too. It's called the "Quick-Find Topical Index" in this edition but it's the same thing. I find that to be a very helpful resource. 

Here's a sample of the forthcoming Schuyler edition: http://evangelicalbible.com/documents/65-Jude-NKJV-Text.pdf


----------



## KSon

Pilgrim said:


> E Nomine said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are two high quality single column NKJVs beginning production (hopefully for release later this year): a Schuyler edition from Evangelicalbible.com and a Clarion edition fron Cambridge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I saw this from Evangelical Bible. Apparently they are going to start producing their own editions under the name Schulyer. The ESV with the confessions is to be the first. I was very interested to see that the NKJV is single column. It is the same text block as to the single column paragraphed edition issued a few years ago by Nelson. (They also issued a KJV single column paragraphed edition too. Predictably both have low quality covers and bindings, but the paper seems to be a little above average.)
> 
> Allan is supposed to be working on a NKJV using a Holman text block, which looks the same as Nelson Reference editions to me. I don't know what the status of that project is. But I'll have a hard time justifying the Allan price if it is red letter. I'm about 75% sure it is the same text block that I currently have in my Nelson reference edition, which has somehow held up for 10 years. If that's the case, I may opt for a rebind instead if it comes to that. The pages are a bit thicker than what you usually see now, so going that route may be worthwhile.
> 
> Here's a sample of the forthcoming Schuyler edition: http://evangelicalbible.com/documents/65-Jude-NKJV-Text.pdf
Click to expand...


Yeah, I opted for purchasing the single-column (black letter) from Nelson when they released it and had it shipped right to Ace Bible Bindry to be sewn and covered in cowhide. Having one $150 Allan in the fleet, in a translation (ESV) I've really grown to dislike no less, is enough.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Will the Allan version be verse by verse or paragraph format?

AMR


----------



## nicnap

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Will the Allan version be verse by verse or paragraph format?
> 
> AMR



From the sample pages it appears to be paragraph.


----------



## jogri17

I don't use the NKJV on principle given by conviction I like critical texts over the TR.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

nicnap said:


> Because R.L. Allan hasn't printed it up yet.



I think Allan is slated to do a version next year.


----------



## kodos

I am truly growing to like the NKJV. I used to read from the ESV (my church uses it) but the more I read the NKJV and see the arguments for the Majority Text (and Received Text) the more I fall in love with it. I have always had a hard time with the ESV, it just never flowed well to me. 

Can't wait for these new editions to come out. I only have a Cambridge Pitt Minion currently and would love a well bound single column!


----------



## Pilgrim

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Will the Allan version be verse by verse or paragraph format?
> 
> AMR



AMR,

My understanding is that the Allan version is going to be the standard two column verse by verse format with center column cross references. As far as I know every one of their editions uses another company's text block, whether it's Oxford, Crossway or whoever. We've got word straight from the horse's mouth that the NKJV is going to be the Broadman and Holman (B&H) Large Print Ultrathin text block. That being the case you can pretty much book it that it will be red letter since that's all that B&H and Nelson print. Nevertheless I hope it turns out otherwise as it will be more justifiable for me to spring for this edition if it is "black letter." But for me these red letters are more readable than the fire engine red or nearly pink colors you see in many newer red letter editions. (Evangelical Bible has more photos here but since none of the shots are straight on and because they are taken from various distances, those photos are less helpful, in my opinion.) Large Print in this case is definitely a misnomer. "Large Print" keeps getting smaller and smaller! I guess "Giant Print" is what Large Print used to be. 

This Holman text block is exactly the same text block as my trusty Nelson NKJV Quick Reference Edition. For many years (perhaps from the very beginning?) it has been the standard two-column NKJV reference edition. CBD and Evangelical Bible (and evidently the publisher) says it is 10 point type but I am not sure if it is even 9 point. I have a Zondervan NASB that is variously listed as 8.7 or 9 pt. and it is noticeably larger than this NKJV. However it's possible that the typeface is throwing me off as some of them look bigger to me than others (and are certainly more readable) even if they are the same size. You can click on "Additional Views" at CBD to have a look inside. About the only difference between the Holman and the Nelson Reference Editions is that the Holmans typically have much better quality covers and I think their Bibles always have sewn bindings. (But yet another glimmer of hope from Nelson is the relatively low budget KJV Reference edition I saw in Walmart today that has a sewn binding! It has a plum colored synthetic cover which of course will not suit all tastes. They had copies that were glued and others that were sewn, with the sewn ones being a little taller.) 

It is the Schuyler NKJV (a project of Evangelical Bible themselves) that is going to be single column paragraphed. As seen in the available photos, it is not a reference edition but it does include the textual notes. Evangelical Bible is not to be equated with R.L. Allan. They are merely the American distributor for Allan and at last count they don't carry all of Allan's KJV editions. One can order direct from Allan if desired. I think at times it might actually be cheaper to order direct depending on the current exchange rate. 

The Cambridge Pitt Minion NKJV is a two column paragraphed NKJV, albeit with much smaller print. (It's listed as 6.75/7 pt and in this case that seems to be accurate. That's way too small for me to use on a regular basis so I didn't purchase one) But despite the smaller print the Pitt Minion has more cross references, the same amount as in several of the NKJV Study Bibles like the MacArthur. Why Nelson's regular reference editions don't have the same number of cross references is a mystery to me since they would fit with no problem. Were they perhaps trying to save money on ink?  As may have been mentioned earlier, Cambridge also has a Wide-Margin NKJV that has the same layout as the Pitt Minion but with larger text.


----------



## DMcFadden

One of the BAD (i.e., expensive) aspects of my few years on the PB is that it has given me a taste for Allan Bibles. The KJV Atlantic Blue Longprimer, the nice red Reader's Edition ESV, the single column navy blue ESV (Christmas present from my dear wife), and soon (evidently) the NKJV!!!

I wonder if Wells Fargo would give me an equity line of credit . . . 
I wonder if Jeanette will stay married to me . . . 
I wonder if my kids will injure their eyes permanently from rolling them so violently . . .


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

I also have to fight the urge to purchase every nifty new Allan/Oxford/Cambridge bible that strikes my fancy. I sometimes worry it is a sin to have a big shelf of unread bibles. I probably need to give away some of my "bible stash" to the local substance abuse ministry or shelter. Less guilt, plus more space for new ones! I need help.


----------



## E Nomine

I thought the wide-margin Cambridge editions e.g. the NKJV have the exact text block (i.e. the same font size) as the Pitt Minion editions. I've never compared the two side-by-side. Can anyone confirm that the wide-margin versions have larger type than the Pitt Minions?


----------



## Pilgrim

GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> I also have to fight the urge to purchase every nifty new Allan/Oxford/Cambridge bible that strikes my fancy. I sometimes worry it is a sin to have a big shelf of unread bibles. I probably need to give away some of my "bible stash" to the local substance abuse ministry or shelter. Less guilt, plus more space for new ones! I need help.



How about I make the drive down I-12/I-10 and take some of them off your hands? 

---------- Post added at 03:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:15 PM ----------




E Nomine said:


> I thought the wide-margin Cambridge editions e.g. the NKJV have the exact text block (i.e. the same font size) as the Pitt Minion editions. I've never compared the two side-by-side. Can anyone confirm that the wide-margin versions have larger type than the Pitt Minions?



I wasn't able to confirm what size the type is in the Wide-Margin. I didn't see that noted on the Cambridge site. But their site (along with J. Mark Bertrand's review) state that it's the same layout as the Pitt Minion and the same pagination but with larger print.


----------

