# KJV ---> NKJV



## blhowes (Dec 19, 2005)

We've always used the KJV in our home. Often, as we read and we come across an outdated word, one of my sons will ask what the word means. Lately, I've been considering buying and using the NKJV so that it'll read more like how we talk. I was wondering if anybody knew how closely the KJV and NKJV track (ie., essentially translated the same, except using more modern words to replace outdated words)? Is the NKJV also translated from the TR?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Dec 19, 2005)

I'm NKJV only  it is the best translation I have. Although I think ESV is quite popular.


----------



## bond-servant (Dec 19, 2005)

The NKJ is an excellent translation. There is a great book about the making of the NKJV. I highly recommend it

[urlhttp://tinyurl.com/8k6de[/url]

{MODERATOR:
Long url changed to tinyurl. Please check length of links. USE TINYURL! }

[Edited on 12/21/2005 by fredtgreco]


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> We've always used the KJV in our home. Often, as we read and we come across an outdated word, one of my sons will ask what the word means. Lately, I've been considering buying and using the NKJV so that it'll read more like how we talk. I was wondering if anybody knew how closely the KJV and NKJV track (ie., essentially translated the same, except using more modern words to replace outdated words)? Is the NKJV also translated from the TR?



The NKJV is basically modernized KJV, with some changes based on manuscript evidence.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 19, 2005)

I usually preach from the NKJV. I enjoy the translation very much and find it very reliable. I also like the ESV. And for the Psalms, and some of the poetic/prophetic books, the KJV.


----------



## Peter (Dec 19, 2005)

Actually, I think the prophetic books are difficult in the KJV, the didactic books (proper) to a lesser extent too. Otherwise I dont know what all the hub bub about the KJV being 'outdated' is about (besides a word here or there but context usually reveals the meaning)


----------



## Jie-Huli (Dec 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> From http://www.ibs.org/niv/mct/14.php, here is a list of just a few of these outdated words that might be updated:
> 
> 
> ....what is the meaning of "œchambering" (Rom. 13:13), "œchampaign" (Deut. 11:30), "œcharger" (Matt. 14:8"”it is not a horse), "œchurl" (Isa. 32:7), "œcieled" (Hag. 1:4), "œcircumspect" (Exod. 23:13), "œclouted upon their feet" (Josh. 9:5), "œcockatrice" (Isa. 11:8), "œcollops" (Job 15:27), "œconfection" (Exod. 30:35"”it has nothing to do with sugar), "œcotes" (2 Chron. 32:28), "œcovert" (2 Kings 16:18), "œhoised" (Acts 27:40), "œwimples" (Isa. 3:22), "œstomacher" (Isa. 3:24), "œwot" (Rom. 11:2), "œwist" (Acts 12:9), "œwiths" (Judg. 16:7), "œwont" (Dan. 3:19), "œsuretiship" (Prov. 11:15), "œsackbut" (Dan. 3:5), "œthe scall" (Lev. 13:30), "œscrabbled" (1 Sam. 21:13), "œroller" (Ezek. 30:21"”i.e., a splint), "œmuffler" (Isa. 3:19), "œfroward" (1 Peter 2:18), "œbrigadine" (Jer. 46:4), "œamerce" (Deut. 22:19), "œblains" (Exod. 9:9), "œcrookbackt" (Lev. 21:20), "œdescry" (Judg. 1:23), "œfanners" (Jer. 51:2), "œfelloes" (1 Kings 7:33), "œglede" (Deut. 14:13), "œglistering" (Luke 9:29), "œhabergeon" (Job 41:26), "œimplead" (Acts 19:38), "œneesing" (Job 41:18), "œnitre" (Prov. 25:20), "œtabret" (Gen. 31:27), "œwen" (Lev. 22:22)?



Why not just bring these words back into common usage, so they will not be outdated anymore? Why let modern media and entertainment govern the direction of the English language? What better governor of the English language than the great Authorised Version of the Bible?


----------



## Jie-Huli (Dec 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> Jie-Huli
> 
> I do not think that media and gov't "govern" language usage. They merely reflect it.
> ...



Thank you for the reply. 

I am not in a position to give a full thesis of the development of the English language at present. But I do believe that modern media and entertainment (which are, by and large, quite vulgar and godless) do indeed have a very strong influence over the development of the English language, and are guiding and redefining more than merely reflecting. The flavour given to words, the disposal of perfectly good words which are not of use to a lazy and pleasure-seeking society, excessive casualness and frivolity in communication, the loss of politeness and eloquence, a distaste for the noble and refined in favour of the silly and irreverent, a cold sarcasm pervading communications even between friends . . . all of these horrid things have a direct tie to the modern popular entertainment culture and media, I believe. 

So my point is not that the Bible should not be close to our vernacular, which is of course a vital thing if we are to understand and be affected by God's Word. But what is to define and govern our vernacular? I would suggest we would be better off were it governed by the Authorised Bible (as indeed it was for several centuries before the 20th Century) rather than by the popular culture.

I am not suggesting anything drastic which would cut us as Christians off from fruitful communication with the heathens around us. But I think there are steps we can take to stand against the tide and be a positive influence for the resurrection and preservation of a more godly English language.

Incidentally, most of the English-language churches I have attended in recent years do use a more "Old English" speaking style during prayer . . . and though I do not suggest this is requisite, I do think it is a good thing, and it is quite easy to become accustomed to it. It is not merely an effort to sound religious. There is at once a reverence and an intimacy in speaking to God with the traditional "thee" and "thou" that makes it a custom worth retaining I believe.

In written communications with certain friends we also use the older style, and find it greatly enhances our discourse, raising it in both form and thought.

Blessings,

Jie-Huli


----------



## Mike (Dec 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> We've always used the KJV in our home. Often, as we read and we come across an outdated word, one of my sons will ask what the word means.


You are right to be concerned here. Besides specific vocabulary, the KJV can really be confusing for kids because of the grammar and syntax. A translation being hard for them to understand is excusable if this is because it is faithfully representing the Word of God, but the issue with the KJV is that it is choosing words that were the common vernacular then rather than now. It's not that I am against it part and parcel, but it can be an unnecessary stumbling block for kids.



> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> Lately, I've been considering buying and using the NKJV so that it'll read more like how we talk. I was wondering if anybody knew how closely the KJV and NKJV track (ie., essentially translated the same, except using more modern words to replace outdated words)?


The NKJV is a ground up translation. 



> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> Is the NKJV also translated from the TR?


It is.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Dec 20, 2005)

I like the NKJV for the New Testament, but I don't think any English translation does the OT better than the ESV. I could be wrong.


----------



## Mike (Dec 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jie-Huli_
> I am not in a position to give a full thesis of the development of the English language at present. But I do believe that modern media and entertainment (which are, by and large, quite vulgar and godless) do indeed have a very strong influence over the development of the English language, and are guiding and redefining more than merely reflecting.


What of it? Was Koine Greek unaffected by a pagan culture?



> _Originally posted by Jie-Huli_
> The flavour given to words, the disposal of perfectly good words which are not of use to a lazy and pleasure-seeking society, excessive casualness and frivolity in communication, the loss of politeness and eloquence, a distaste for the noble and refined in favour of the silly and irreverent, a cold sarcasm pervading communications even between friends . . . all of these horrid things have a direct tie to the modern popular entertainment culture and media, I believe.


1. I fail to see how that is anything but reflecting the culture at hand.
2. At what point does this transformation become unwanted? Shall we use the Wycliffe Bible? The vulgate? 



> _Originally posted by Jie-Huli_
> So my point is not that the Bible should not be close to our vernacular, which is of course a vital thing if we are to understand and be affected by God's Word. But what is to define and govern our vernacular?


This is not something we have control over.



> _Originally posted by Jie-Huli_
> I would suggest we would be better off were it governed by the Authorised Bible (as indeed it was for several centuries before the 20th Century) rather than by the popular culture.


Can you please give some proof that the kind of development has done more in the 20th century than the 19th? When I read stuff from 100 years ago (the ASV, for example,) it seems far more familiar than stuff from around 300 years ago (Gill, for example.)



> _Originally posted by Jie-Huli_
> I am not suggesting anything drastic which would cut us as Christians off from fruitful communication with the heathens around us. But I think there are steps we can take to stand against the tide and be a positive influence for the resurrection and preservation of a more godly English language.


This is not accomplished by reverting to the older forms of English. We are not somehow worse today than we were then. Despite what we like to think, there are no good old days.



> _Originally posted by Jie-Huli_
> Incidentally, most of the English-language churches I have attended in recent years do use a more "Old English" speaking style during prayer . . . and though I do not suggest this is requisite, I do think it is a good thing, and it is quite easy to become accustomed to it. It is not merely an effort to sound religious. There is at once a reverence and an intimacy in speaking to God with the traditional "thee" and "thou" that makes it a custom worth retaining I believe.


I agree this is a beautiful and poetic way of addressing God. However, this is precisely because it is not the vernacular anymore.



> _Originally posted by Jie-Huli_
> In written communications with certain friends we also use the older style, and find it greatly enhances our discourse, raising it in both form and thought.


The fact is, the Bible was written in the daily language of the people, especially the New Testament. It was not high and lofty, it was plain and clear. It's power is not in its beauty to the ear but its innate truth.


----------



## Herald (Dec 20, 2005)

Has the NASB fallen out of favor? I use the NASB in my study. I will refer to the KJV and ESV, but the NASB is my translation of choice.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Dec 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> Has the NASB fallen out of favor? I use the NASB in my study. I will refer to the KJV and ESV, but the NASB is my translation of choice.



Not for me. I prefer the NASB, ESV and NKJV. My primary Bible is NASB.


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> Has the NASB fallen out of favor? I use the NASB in my study. I will refer to the KJV and ESV, but the NASB is my translation of choice.



I think mine is even more out of favor: The ASV. I think it is a good update, myself. The NASB claims to be an update of the ASV.

And, (putting on my flack gear) has anyone seen Darby's translation? I have it and find it pretty good. The ASV committee even acknowledged referring to it. In our day, however, Darby is almost akin to anathema because of his dispensationalism. But the guy was something of a genius at languages.

I like the KJV most of all. But I do go running to my Greek and Hebrew texts a lot just to check up on it. My wife has the NKJV and loves it.

Vic


----------



## blhowes (Dec 20, 2005)

Thank-you for your feedback, comments, advice, and the book recommendation. I appreciate it.

I hesitated starting the thread, not wanting to start another KJV-only type debate. As I've mentioned, I come from a KJV-only background, and much of what I've read about the issue has tainted my thinking. With my wife and kids, KJV-only teachings are all they've really been exposed to from the pulpit and Sunday school classes. (in the more recent churches we've attended that don't use the KJV, Bible version preferences aren't even mentioned)

Fred wrote:

_The NKJV is basically modernized KJV, with some changes based on manuscript evidence._

The books I've read seem to pounce all over the latter part of that comment and see it as corrupting the scriptures. 

I think now I lean towards the idea of introducing the NKJV or a similar version into the Bible reading time. I've had limited exposure to the NKJV at the church we've been attending. They use the NKJV and, when I read along with my KJV, I haven't noticed yet where the meaning has changed drastically. The word order at times is a little different and a different word is used at times, but all-in-all the same message is there. I've yet to have the pastor expound upon a text of scripture from the NKJV and not get the same meaning out of my KJV.

If my thinking is wrong, maybe someone can give examples of teachings you'd get from the NKJV you wouldn't see in the KJV, or vice versa.

Added later:
As an after thought, Fred mentioned some changes made based on manuscript evidence. Is there a handy list somewhere that lists these verses?

[Edited on 12-20-2005 by blhowes]


----------



## Mike (Dec 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> Has the NASB fallen out of favor? I use the NASB in my study. I will refer to the KJV and ESV, but the NASB is my translation of choice.


I primarily use the NASB.


----------



## Jie-Huli (Dec 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> _The NKJV is basically modernized KJV, with some changes based on manuscript evidence._
> 
> The books I've read seem to pounce all over the latter part of that comment and see it as corrupting the scriptures.
> ...



Bob,

I would not fault you for wanting to look at the "New King James" version as a reference. But at the least I would say it is important to make yourself aware of the important variances between the Authorised version and the "New King James". While the translators made reference to the Authorised version and the Textus Receptus, they certainly incorporated a lot of changes based on other manuscripts and other English translations as well. It is not simply an updating of the Authorised version, and hence, whatever one may think of the result, I do not believe "New King James" was ever an appropriate title for it.

At any rate, here is a site I found in a quick search which points out some of the deficiencies in the "New King James" translation: http://www.av1611.org/NKJV.html. The site is entitled "The New King James Bible: Counterfeit", so it is not difficult to guess what the author's position is. 

Many of the statements on this site are quite extreme and I certainly do not endorse this site in its entirety. But I did think the list of changes made between the AV and the NKJV (which appears about halfway down the page) was useful, and link it here for those purposes. I am sure there are many statements on this cite which could be disputed, but the list of changes itself is useful, irrespective of the web author's commentary.

Some of the more significant changes cited: 



> Genesis 2:18: The NKJV ought to make Hillary Clinton proud: "And the Lord God said, It is not good that man should be alone; I will make a helper COMPARABLE TO HIM"
> 
> Genesis 22:8: One of the greatest verses in the Bible proclaiming that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh: "God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering:" The NKJV adds that little word "for": "God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering" And destroys the wonderful promise! Where'd they get their little "for"? From the NASV!
> 
> ...



[Edited on 12-21-2005 by Jie-Huli]


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 21, 2005)

As an advocate of the Majority Text, I wish some of these "Bible Defenders" would actually try and learn a little bit of the language before pontificating. The vast majority of these "horrible errors" are shown to be nothing with about minutes of review:



> 1 John 5:13: The NKJV reads: "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may CONTINUE TO believe in the name of the Son of God." They add "CONTINUE TO" without any Greek text whatsoever! Not even the perverted NIV, NASV, NRSV and RSV go that far! A cruel, subtil (see Genesis 3:1) attack on the believer's eternal security!



Well, that is because the NIV, NASB, NRSV and RSV have a slightly different text. They use the USB/NA27 critical text, which has:
 Ï„Î¿á¿–Ï‚ Ï€Î¹ÏƒÏ„ÎµÏÎ¿Ï…ÏƒÎ¹Î½ Îµá¼°Ï‚ Ï„á½¸ á½„Î½Î¿Î¼Î± Ï„Î¿á¿¦ Ï…á¼±Î¿á¿¦ Ï„Î¿á¿¦ Î¸ÎµÎ¿á¿¦ 

the MT/TR (Byzantine) has:
 Î¹Î½Î± Ï€Î¹ÏƒÏ„ÎµÏ…Î·Ï„Îµ ÎµÎ¹Ï‚ Ï„Î¿ Î¿Î½Î¿Î¼Î± Ï„Î¿Ï… Ï…Î¹Î¿Ï… Ï„Î¿Ï… Î¸ÎµÎ¿Ï…

The difference is obvious to a 1st year Greek student: the former is a participle, the latter a subjunctive. The subjunctive is a present subjunctive, which implies continuous aspect, as opposed to an aorist, which is punctilliar. So the change is *entirely based* on Greek, unlike what the author says.



> 1 Tim. 6:20: change "science" to "knowledge" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)



This is interesting, especially since the word translated here by the KJV as "science" is  Î³Î½Ï‰ÏƒÎ¹Ï‚ . It is used 28 times in the NT. Guess how the KJV translates  Î³Î½Ï‰ÏƒÎ¹Ï‚ the other 27 times? Yep. "Knowledge"

What about:


> 1 Cor. 6:9: removes "effeminate" (NIV, NRSV, RSV)



Well the NKJV makes the huge compromise of using "homosexuals." Now which is more counter 21st century culture?



> Phil. 3:8: change "dung" to "rubbish" (NIV, NASV, NRSV)



Does anyone actually use the word "dung" anyone?



> Gal. 2:20: omit "nevertheless I live" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)



The Greek text (even Stephanus' 1550 version) does not support "nevertheless I live." It has:
Î§ÏÎ¹ÏƒÏ„á¿· ÏƒÏ…Î½ÎµÏƒÏ„Î±ÏÏÏ‰Î¼Î±Î¹Â· 20 Î¶á¿¶ Î´á½² Î¿á½ÎºÎ­Ï„Î¹ á¼Î³ÏŽ, Î¶á¿‡ Î´á½² á¼Î½ á¼Î¼Î¿á½¶ Î§ÏÎ¹ÏƒÏ„ÏŒÏ‚
literally, "I am crucified with Christ. And ( Î´á½² ) I ( á¼Î³ÏŽ ) no longer ( Î¿á½ÎºÎ­Ï„Î¹ ) live ( Î¶á¿¶ ), but Christ lives in me"

If I had time, I could pick apart all of these statements. The problems is that I actually like the KJV, but these types of fools are doing it a grave disservice. When it only takes me 20 minutes to show how ridiculous these things are, it makes people say "the KJV is not good" instead of "that KJV only advocate is a lying moron."

If you like the language of the KJV Jie-Huli, you should use it. But don't fall for the tricks of these fools.


----------



## Jie-Huli (Dec 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> If I had time, I could pick apart all of these statements. The problems is that I actually like the KJV, but these types of fools are doing it a grave disservice. When it only takes me 20 minutes to show how ridiculous these things are, it makes people say "the KJV is not good" instead of "that KJV only advocate is a lying moron."
> 
> If you like the language of the KJV Jie-Huli, you should use it. But don't fall for the tricks of these fools.



I understand what you mean, and I agree with you that some of the items on the list are easy to pick apart. Perhaps I ought not to quote someone who has dodgy statements alongside the valid ones . . . I just found it in a quick search and thought the list did highlight _some_ useful points. For example, changing "narrow is the way" to "difficult is the way", and omiting some references to people worshipping Christ. And I do think "dung" is a much more powerful word than "rubbish", and I understand a more faithful translation of what the Greek actually says. But I do not mean to begin debating the translation of individual verses. I just posted the list for what it is worth, but again I am not endorsing all the author says.

If using the NKJV in family worship, I do think it would be useful to refer to the KJV text as well during preparation, because the KJV and the NKJV do diverge in meaning or emphasis sometimes, that is inescapable, and one might wish to bring this up in important instances.

Blessings,

Jie-Huli

[Edited on 12-21-2005 by Jie-Huli]


----------



## blhowes (Dec 21, 2005)

Jie-Huli,
Thanks for providing the list. 

That's an interesting site where the list came from. Here's a pretty strong statement they make right at the beginning:


> The greatest method of deception is to counterfeit.
> And the master of counterfeit and deception is Satan.



What they contend about the inaccuracies of the translation may be correct, but my impression was that statements like this detract from their credibility (especially after you look into some of the verses).

The first verse I picked to check out was Mark 13:6. Here's what they said about it:



> Mark 13:6 & Luke 21:8: removes "Christ" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)


When you read this, it seems a little shocking that the NKJV (and other modern versions) would remove the word Christ from the verse. But the shock value wears off when you compare the two verses.

Mark 13:6
(NKJV)For many will come in My name, saying, "˜I am _He_,´ and will deceive many.
(KJV) For many shall come in my name, saying, I am _Christ_; and shall deceive many.

Italics are used in both the KJV (for Christ) and the NKJV (for He) to indicate words that the original texts do not contain but which English requires for clarity. Maybe others who know greek can help me out here, but it doesn't appear that there's any strong reason to use the word Christ instead of He. Christ certainly seems to fit, as would "the Savior" or "the Messiah" or "He".

I'll continue to look at other verses, but this first verse certainly doesn't seem to support the idea of the NKJV being corrupted, much less a Satanic deception.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 21, 2005)

The Trinitarian Bible Society has a good balanced critique of the NKJV called _What today's Christian needs to know about the New King James Version_. It avoids unnecessary hyperoble while highlighting areas of concern.


----------



## blhowes (Dec 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> The Trinitarian Bible Society has a good balanced critique of the NKJV called _What today's Christian needs to know about the New King James Version_. It avoids unnecessary hyperoble while highlighting areas of concern.


Andrew,
You don't happen to have a link, do you? I can't seem to find it.
Thanks,
Bob


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 21, 2005)

It appears to be for sale only:

http://biz.ukonline.co.uk/trinitarian.bible.society/branches/uk/uk-artic.htm


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



It's not available in electronic form on their website, but you can order it for 60 cents. It's under the section called "other publications"/"articles"/"modern version reviews".


----------



## blhowes (Dec 21, 2005)

Fred and Andrew,
Thanks. 
Bob


----------



## Steve Owen (Dec 24, 2005)

> Phil. 3:8: change "dung" to "rubbish" (NIV, NASV, NRSV)



It appears that the Greek word _skubalov_ can mean either. Thayer's Lexicon gives:-


> Any _refuse_, as the excrement of animals, offscouring, rubbish, dregs etc.: [A.V. _dung_] i.e. worthless and detestable.



If _skubalov_ means literally 'thrown to dogs' then the modern translations are correct. Other sources suggest that it comes from the root word _skwr_ which really does mean 'dung'.

You pays your money and you takes your choice! :bigsmile: But 'Rubbish' isn't necessarily a euphemism.

Blessings,

Martin

[Edited on 12-24-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Herald (Dec 24, 2005)

My wife has been using the NIV for years and our homeschool daughter the KJV. We are all in agreement that one version should be used. My wife is sympathetic to the doctrines of sovereign grace and is coming around slowly. Not desirous of pushing the issue too hard and losing her, we agreed to provide two NKJV bibles (one to each of them) for Christmas. I took great care in reviewing some key passages in the NKJV and find them to be faithful to the doctrines of grace. In any event I find the NKJV to be superior to the NIV. In the words of the great theologian, Forrest Gump, "That is all I have to say about that."


----------



## bond-servant (Dec 24, 2005)

> My wife has been using the NIV for years and our homeschool daughter the KJV. We are all in agreement that one version should be used.



MT vs CT aside and translation issues aside...It is nice for the house to be in agreement on a translation. We had a similar issue. A few years ago, the kids were memorizing out of the NIV or NIrV for Sunday School, the NKJV for Awanna's, and the KJV for homeschool memorization and Bible Work. Last year our house switched over to the ESV for our family and homeschool work. It is nice to all be on one page as they say. 

The adults also use the KJV and NASB for word studies and my dh and I use the NKJV as our 'second' Bibles. All four are excellent translations. We have been happy with the ESV as our default Bible. Another advantage of the ESV for our little ones is they don't get lost in the never ending pronouns present in some of the other translations.


----------



## Casey (Jan 9, 2006)

Anyone know of a place where (website, etc.) the primary differences between the MT and TR are explained? Thanks!


----------



## Casey (Jan 9, 2006)

Thanks!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 11, 2006)

blhowes said:


> Andrew,
> You don't happen to have a link, do you? I can't seem to find it.
> Thanks,
> Bob





VirginiaHuguenot said:


> It's not available in electronic form on their website, but you can order it for 60 cents. It's under the section called "other publications"/"articles"/"modern version reviews".



Found the link here.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 11, 2006)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Found the link here.




That's their take on the NIV. I think we were looking for the article on the NKJV (known as the Revised Authorised Version in Britain, etc.). I remember reading it a year or two ago, but apparently it is no longer available online, at least not for free. It was generally balanced, offered some criticisms of the NKJV and stopped short of endorsing it.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 11, 2006)

Pilgrim said:


> That's their take on the NIV. I think we were looking for the article on the NKJV (known as the Revised Authorised Version in Britain, etc.). I remember reading it a year or two ago, but apparently it is no longer available online, at least not for free. It was generally balanced, offered some criticisms of the NKJV and stopped short of endorsing it.



You're right! It is article #110 that addresses the NKJV and it still does not appear to be online. My bad.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 11, 2006)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> You're right! It is article #110 that addresses the NKJV and it still does not appear to be online. My bad.



Others more familiar with the situation may correct me, but my best guess is that the NKJV has never really gained that wide of a following in Britain whereas use of the NIV there was probably even more widespread among evangelicals there than in the USA. So perhaps that is one reason why the TBS article on the NKJV no longer appears online. The NKJV seems to have really gained ground in the USA over the past decade or so. This is probably a combination of people switching from the KJV, the popularity of the MacArthur Study Bible and maybe some other factors.


----------



## ADKing (Nov 11, 2006)

Pilgrim;215680 The NKJV seems to have really gained ground in the USA over the past decade or so. This is probably a combination of people switching from the KJV said:


> Yes, and the New Geneva Study Bible originally appeared in the NKJV as well. One minister in Northern Ireland made the same observation to me as you did, that the NKJV never really gained the same popularity there as it did here.
> 
> I have read the TBS booklet on the NKJV. The criticisms basically boil down to the following points:
> 
> ...


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 12, 2006)

I'm in a strange position as regards the NKJV -- with some others I am planting a church in my city, to commence in a week, and though y'all know my stand with the KJV I do not (and cannot) _impose_ it on others. The ESV was a choice for the pew Bibles, but I strongly opposed that, opting instead for the NKJV, knowing the AV wouldn't fly with my colleagues. I had a difficult experience on a teaching assignment in Africa last year; before my arrival (it was a five-month training session, and I arrived for the last two) the class had been given NIVs, and when in the course of instruction one of the men -- being familiar with the AV -- noticed the omission in Acts of the entire verse of 8:37, it became necessary to _continually_ explain the numerous omissions, which characterize the other modern versions as well.

I did not want to have this same situation in the church, for those using pew Bibles. I can work with the NJKV, although it has some few errors in translation, and the OT is not the same Hebrew text as the KJV uses. Nonetheless, I can well work with it. I have no problem with the marginal notes (these pew Bible don't have them), as they afford me a running reminder of what those using modern versions are reading; I find them helpful, though others are offended by them.

I consider it an acceptable compromise. One of my fellow elders uses the NASB, and the other the NKJV (and is leaning toward the ESV, coming from an OPC background), and time will tell how well we deal with this.

I am of an irenic bent in such matters. I have no desire to lord it over those who use different versions -- preferring a laissez-faire approach. I aim to give my views on the respective texts on those occasions where serious differences arise, keeping in mind that our primary objective is to show the living Savior to our people, and so root them in Him and His love that they bear much fruit to the glory of our Father. 

I will trust Him for wisdom and grace. Perhaps I should say I am used to being in the minority as regards the version issue. This has helped me to (usually) generate more light than heat.

Steve


----------

