# What do you think of the NKJV?



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 23, 2022)

There has been some stimulating discussion about Bible translations in recent times. I was wondering what PB users think of the NKJV. Pros? Cons? Those of you who lean towards the Confessional Text position, what do you think of it?


----------



## Polanus1561 (Feb 23, 2022)

https://byfaithweunderstand.com/202...ys-examination-of-the-new-king-james-version/

to supplement the above post. For your assessment.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 23, 2022)

*Moderating*:

I am not interested in a KJV only type of debate. I was well aware of the Trinitarian Bible Society critiques. I personally found them unconvincing. I am interested in a broader discussion of the merits (or lack of them) of the NKJV. Certainly discuss the NKJV use of the Received Text. But do not turn this into a KJV only debate, please.

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 2


----------



## Polanus1561 (Feb 23, 2022)

I will add the NKJV is abit more literal in some places than the NASB. Both are good. Using both really gives you a good picture of translational and manuscript variance.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Deleted member 12415 (Feb 23, 2022)

Sorry I posted them, Stephen. I thought I was helping. I see now I wasn't. I had no intention of debating anyone about anything here. Sorry to have wasted your time. I'll go ahead and delete the post.

EDIT: Post containing the TBS articles has been removed.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 23, 2022)

gelacyjr said:


> Sorry I posted them, Stephen. I thought I was helping. I see now I wasn't. I had no intention of debating anyone about anything here. Sorry to have wasted your time. I'll go ahead and delete the post.
> 
> EDIT: Post containing the TBS articles has been removed.


No worries brother. Just to clarify if you think there are places where the KJV has translated a word or two better than the NKJV, feel free to say this. I am making a distinction here between the KJV only position (which is not appropriate for this particular thread) and freedom to praise and/or critique the NKJV.


----------



## hammondjones (Feb 23, 2022)

I like the textual notes and the italics for supplied words

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Deleted member 12415 (Feb 23, 2022)

Yeah, I'm not engaging any more here, brother. You asked for info, I posted it, and you immediately replied with, "please no KJV only debates," which is your right, as the original poster.

I wasn't trying to debate. I was trying to answer the question. Others can engage with you if they want to, that's fine with me, but I'm bowing out. Have a good one.


----------



## Taylor (Feb 23, 2022)

I am out and about right now, so not much time to make a detailed post. For now I will just say this: the greatest weakness of the NKJV, in my opinion, is the capitalized pronouns for deity.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 23, 2022)

Not arguing just providing some resources here. Except to say one thing:

By going away from the proof texts and the version used for the Confession, by going to the NKJV some doctrinal proof texts are actually lost. E.g. Heb. 2:16 that proves Christ assumed a human nature is lost in the NKJV.


----------



## pmachapman (Feb 23, 2022)

Our church changed to the NKJV from the ESV two years ago and it has been a welcome change for nearly everyone in the congregation. I for one have found it an excellent change, as not only do I prefer the TR, but the NKJV is an excellent literal translation (I would argue more literal than the NASB77).

One pastor in our denomination, who is retiring very soon, once told me he chose the NASB because it matches his Greek translation in his head. I have found this to be the case for my own self-translation and the NKJV and can only think of one case where I have had to elaborate further when explaining a text (Phil 2:6 - "did not consider it *robbery *to be equal with God", a classic rendering from the KJV). I can't say the same for my time using the ESV!

My only real problem with the NKJV is the restrictive licencing and copyright. I have found other Bible rights holders (such as Charisma House who license the MEV, another TR translation) to be much more affordable and accessible than Zondervan/Thomas Nelson/HarperCollins. Crossway used to be very permissive and affordable for licensing (which is why I and many other content providers flocked to them in the mid-2000's), but I have had to cancel historic licensing agreements as I just couldn't afford what they were asking (they do have excellent turnaround for enquiries, though, unlike every other rights holder I have engaged with!)

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Edward (Feb 23, 2022)

I prefer the NKJV, but swtiched to the ESV because that is the standard translation at our congregation.


----------



## Logan (Feb 23, 2022)

I think the NKJV is a fine translation and I don't really understand the distaste some have toward it. I feel like it is a good bridge between "familiar language" in commentaries and understandability. I use it quite regularly.

That's an interesting note about Hebrews 2:16, it appears the KJV is different from almost all other translation except the Webster Bible and maybe the Geneva Bible. Wycliffe is different from the KJV as well. The KJV reads "For verily he took not on _him the nature of_ angels; but he took on _him_ the seed of Abraham" where the words in italics are their interpolation / interpretation. It seems to follow the Vulgate's translation/interpretation.

Within the passage, either interpretation seems to make sense and the rest of the passage also confirms Christ's human nature (e.g., 2:17), and it doesn't appear to be any textual difference.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 23, 2022)

I raised my kids on the NKJV. I liked the Geneva Study Bible a lot. So does my son Samuel. He is still using it. My congregation uses the ESV. I hold on to my KJV. I read from an ESV ever now and again. I prefer the TR / Majority stuff. Actually my Son Sam is using the Reformation Heritage Study Bible too. His Pastor took Mine.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TooManySystematics (Feb 23, 2022)

My congregation uses the NKJV. It's a personal favourite of mine.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C4MERON (Feb 23, 2022)

Our congregation makes use of the KJV but also the MEV (moved over from the ESV). For personal reading I favour the KJV & NASB.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Feb 23, 2022)

I would add that the red letter of a lot of NKJV bibles is a minus for me it has to be said


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Feb 23, 2022)

The NKJV is a great translation, poetic, accurate, and readable. It has the best of the KJV in modern speech. In my humble opinion it’s a better read than the ESV, seems to be just as literal as the NASB but with more natural language, and its textual basis is both traditional (the Received Text) and honest that there are other text types.

Had the NKJV been put together 10 years sooner (pre NIV and before the NKJV was finished), it very well might be the evangelical Protestant standard.



John Yap said:


> I would add that the red letter of a lot of NKJV bibles is a minus for me it has to be said


Agreed. There are some good black letter editions these days. The Maclaren Bibles are superb.


----------



## pmachapman (Feb 23, 2022)

John Yap said:


> I would add that the red letter of a lot of NKJV bibles is a minus for me it has to be said


Yes, I agree - I had forgotten that. I still use an old Bagster "Revised Authorised Version" (their title for the NKJV) as it is clear, verse by verse, and black letter.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Feb 23, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> To clarify if you think there are places where the KJV has translated a word or two better than the NKJV, feel free to say this. I am making a distinction here between the KJV only position (which is not appropriate for this particular thread) and freedom to praise and/or critique the NKJV.


Maybe this is slightly off the subject. But I have been using the ESV for the last four years where I learned a number of things where the KJV was unclear. My wife is currently going through the NASB and is seeing things, like me, that were unclear in the KJV. But now I'm going through the whole Bible again with the KJV. With all of its faults I love it dearly.


----------



## ZackF (Feb 23, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I raised my kids on the NKJV. I liked the Reformation Study Bible a lot. So does my son Samuel. He is still using it. My congregation uses the ESV. I hold on to my KJV. I read from an ESV ever now and again. I prefer the TR / Majority stuff.


I think early New Geneva Study Bibles, predecessors to Reformation Study Bibles, were NKJV.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover (Feb 23, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I am out and about right now, so not much time to make a detailed post. For now I will just say this: the greatest weakness of the NKJV, in my opinion, is the capitalized pronouns for deity.



I like the capitalized pronouns for deity. I think it's respectful, and there are a few places where there will be two mentions of "he" in a text - one human and one divine - and the capitalization shows who is whom for clarity.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Feb 23, 2022)

bookslover said:


> I like the capitalized pronouns for deity. I think it's respectful, and there are a few places where there will be two mentions of "he" in a text - one human and one divine - and the capitalization shows who is whom for clarity.


I don’t think capitalizing them is any more respectful than not capitalizing. No English translation before the YLT did it. And capitalizing forces the translators to make decisions in passages where the pronouns’ referents are unclear grammatically (see 2 Thess. 2:7, which the NKJV gets wrong).

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 1


----------



## gjensen (Feb 23, 2022)

I love the NKJV. 

Until recently, a primary concern was the lack of quality purchase options. Now that concern has shifted to a lack of affordable options that are not printed in China. 

I prefer the pronouns for deity being capitalized though I understand the pitfalls. I do not like red-letter Bibles, and apparently, a majority of their customers prefer it. 

Once I eliminate the red letter Bibles and the Bibles printed in China, I am back to a lack of affordable purchase options.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 24, 2022)

I read an article some time ago where a Hebrew scholar argued that the NKJV consistently translated the Old Testament to a higher level of accuracy than the ESV. Unfortunately I did not note the reference so I cannot look it up to verify. But I clearly remember this statement.


----------



## Taylor (Feb 24, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I read an article some time ago where a Hebrew scholar argued that the NKJV consistently translated the Old Testament to a higher level of accuracy than the ESV. Unfortunately I did not note the reference so I cannot look it up to verify. But I clearly remember this statement.


I don’t doubt that the NKJV is generally more literal than the ESV. I have found that to be the case myself. However, is the NKJV more literal _where it matters_? I don’t necessarily care that the NKJV is more literal in places where literalness doesn’t make a difference.

I’m thinking of a particular example. The ESV consistently translates זֶרַע as “offspring.” This is significant because the English “offspring,” just like the Hebrew זֶרַע, can be either singular, collective singular, or plural, which makes Paul’s argument in Gal. 3:16 make sense from an English perspective.

The NKJV translates זֶרַע as “seed,” “offspring,” and “descendant,” which ends up, in my opinion, masking the biblical-theological significance of זֶרַע.

I say all this as someone who loves and uses the NKJV primarily, and who goes to a church which primarily uses the NKJV. It’s a great translation, but it has flaws that I really wish weren’t there.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## ZackF (Feb 24, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I don’t doubt that the NKJV is generally more literal than the ESV. I have found that to be the case myself. However, is the NKJV more literal _where it matters_? I don’t necessarily care that the NKJV is more literal in places where literalness doesn’t make a difference.
> 
> I’m thinking of a particular example. The ESV consistently translates זֶרַע as “offspring.” This is significant because the English “offspring,” just like the Hebrew זֶרַע, can be either singular, collective singular, or plural, which makes Paul’s argument in Gal. 3:16 make sense from an English perspective.
> 
> ...


Which flaws do you wish it had?

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Taylor (Feb 24, 2022)

ZackF said:


> Which flaws do you wish it had?


Brother, there is only room for one @jw on this board.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## jw (Feb 24, 2022)

Taylor said:


> Brother, there is only room for one @jw on this board.


You callin' me fat?! I'll have you know . . . it's all true.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 6


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Feb 24, 2022)

Taylor said:


> Brother, there is only room for one @jw on this board.


At first glance I read this as a highly anti-Semitic statement!

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Theosophia (Feb 24, 2022)

I like the NKJV quite a bit--it's a pretty true-to-the-text translation, and I see that as a benefit (I do agree that sometimes the capitalized pronouns in scripture, though respectful, can be a weakness). I also like to vary my translations. For example, ESV next to my NKJV and sometimes even pulling up NLT online. It can help to examine what different translations say. Fee and Stuart address it very well in the book _How To Read The Bible For All Its Worth. _That's a really great resource for those looking into translations.
I felt it worth mentioning though--I have felt convicted recently of over-researching and "splitting hairs" over this topic sometimes. Most of the inter-translation differences do not present any major theological disagreements, at least, not any that would merit deep concern. I know it sounds silly, but sometimes I find myself losing the meaning of scripture in the research. I lose sight of the Gospel when I zoom in and micro-examine. That may not be the case for all, and I definitely don't want to encourage "glossing over" deeper meanings...but the Lord begins to show me that sometimes I find the most profound truths even in simplicity. In this He keeps me humble, as well.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 24, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I don’t doubt that the NKJV is generally more literal than the ESV. I have found that to be the case myself. However, is the NKJV more literal _where it matters_? I don’t necessarily care that the NKJV is more literal in places where literalness doesn’t make a difference.


True


Taylor said:


> I say all this as someone who loves and uses the NKJV primarily, and who goes to a church which primarily uses the NKJV.


You have made reference to a number of translations (pros and cons) so I was wondering what was your primary translation. I assume you like the NKJV because of its commitment to the traditional text?


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 24, 2022)

pmachapman said:


> Our church changed to the NKJV from the ESV two years ago and it has been a welcome change for nearly everyone in the congregation. I for one have found it an excellent change, as not only do I prefer the TR, but the NKJV is an excellent literal translation (I would argue more literal than the NASB77).


I am fascinated because I do not know of many RCNZ who use the NKJV. Most use the ESV or NASB.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Feb 24, 2022)

I think the 1980's was a big point for churches: NIV or NKJV (from RSV/KJV)? Some/Most? Reformed NIV churches would then proceed to go to the ESV. The NASB never had that accessibility for various reasons.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Feb 24, 2022)

It's too bad the NKJV or NASB didn't end up in more churches. Those are my two favorites.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 24, 2022)

I recently wrote an article for _Unio Cum Christo_, in which I argued that there are five acceptable translations for English-speaking churches to use: KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, and CSB. These all have various strengths and weaknesses, but all are done in good faith, have no liberal bias, are done by a broad cross-section of evangelical scholars, and have broad support in Reformed churches (the CSB is more supported in Baptist circles, but deserves a broader reach than just Baptists).

Reactions: Like 6 | Informative 2


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 24, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> I recently wrote an article for _Unio Cum Christo_, in which I argued that there are five acceptable translations for English-speaking churches to use: KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, and CSB.


Is this also because most of them try to be as formal as possible?


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 24, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Is this also because most of them try to be as formal as possible?


No. They don't all, actually. It is known (the preface to the KJV says so) that the KJV uses quite a few different English words to translate Hebrew and Greek words, since there is often no easy direct one-to-one correspondence. The meaning of a word is tied to its usage in context. The extreme formal equivalence of the NASB is its greatest weakness, in my opinion. The very best translation philosophy of any of these translations is the CSB, hands down. Every level of the text contributes meaning: word, phrase, sentence, verse, pericope, chapter, book, canon (what they call "optimal equivalence"). All of these have to be taken into account. 

In my opinion, both formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence get some things right and some things wrong. The formal equivalence gets it right that words do mean things, and that context cannot be an excuse to gut a word of its meaning. Formal equivalence gets it wrong if and when it doesn't recognize idiomatic expression and/or different meanings of words in different contexts. The dynamic equivalence gets it right when it says that words have meaning in context, and that therefore the thought of the phrase or sentence as a whole must be taken into account. Dynamic equivalence gets it wrong when it glosses over important words, or when it fails to take into account even larger contexts, or when it confidently pushes its own interpretation in the face of other possible interpretations that are equally plausible, thus putting the reader a bit more at the mercy of the translator, and making it difficult for preachers, when they have to say more often than they would like, "The actual Hebrew or Greek says this, instead of what the translation says."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## KMK (Feb 24, 2022)

What I like best about the NKJV is that it is "New".

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Feb 24, 2022)

I like the NKJV. It's my favorite translation in the TR/MT tradition and it's the translation that my church uses for all scripture citations (although our Elders make it a priority to point out when a passage has alternate translations or textual variants).


----------



## pmachapman (Feb 24, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I am fascinated because I do not know of many RCNZ who use the NKJV. Most use the ESV or NASB.


Yeah, we are the only church I am aware of in the RCNZ that uses the NKJV. I believe we were first to use the ESV, too as we were planted soon after the synod that approved the ESV for use in our churches.

Our pastor, Josh, prefers the NKJV, and when it came time to order new bibles, we discussed the idea of buying NKJV bibles, and phasing out the ESV. I discussed it with the men in the congregation who always come to church with their bibles, and the response was pretty unanimous - we miss the NKJV, which we had used in previous churches. I think Sproul did a lot to popularise the NKJV amongst Reformed folks with his New Geneva Study Bible. I think Josh grew to use the NKJV before he went to MARS, as he uses a nice Cambridge wide margin NKJV he bought in the UK, but I haven't really asked him about it.

I have noticed it has made a difference to his preaching, as he is working through Luke, so when he hit the Lord's Prayer, he was able to preach more fully on all of the points of the Lord's Prayer - only for the ending of the Lord's Prayer did he need to refer to Matthew. The literal nature of the NKJV also has made it easier for him to draw out biblical themes in Scripture, like seed/offspring, etc.

Our only problem has been sourcing pew bibles - our original batch of large print pew bibles has been discontinued by Thomas Nelson (their distributor in NZ was clean out of them), but I managed to track down a final box of 15 at Reformers Bookshop in Sydney, and get them sent over this last week.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 24, 2022)

KMK said:


> What I like best about the NKJV is that it is "New".


----------



## pmachapman (Feb 24, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I’m thinking of a particular example. The ESV consistently translates זֶרַע as “offspring.” This is significant because the English “offspring,” just like the Hebrew זֶרַע, can be either singular, collective singular, or plural, which makes Paul’s argument in Gal. 3:16 make sense from an English perspective.
> 
> The NKJV translates זֶרַע as “seed,” “offspring,” and “descendant,” which ends up, in my opinion, masking the biblical-theological significance of זֶרַע.


Interesting. Thanks to Logos' Bible Word Study feature, I have found the following...

The ESV is mostly consistent with offspring:



While the NKJV is about 50% descendant, 25% seed:



I realise context is everything, but as a point of comparison the KJV is nearly always seed:




Maybe this is a win for the KJV in terms of consistency? Assuming you adequately explain the meaning of seed first to the reader/listener...

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 24, 2022)

pmachapman said:


> I think Josh grew to use the NKJV before he went to MARS


I wonder what Josh's views on textual criticism are? He would have been taught the CT at MARS.


pmachapman said:


> While the NKJV is about 50% descendant, 25% seed:


= 100%? Where did you study Mathematics?


----------



## Polanus1561 (Feb 24, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I wonder what Josh's views on textual criticism are? He would have been taught the CT at MARS.
> 
> = 100%? Where did you study Mathematics?


Under what course would one learn CT at MARS?


----------



## pmachapman (Feb 24, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> = 100%? Where did you study Mathematics?


Ha ha, I failed Sixth Form Maths! There is the other 25% of assorted phrases, as you can see in the chart 


Stephen L Smith said:


> I wonder what Josh's views on textual criticism are?


We've talked briefly - he like me appreciates the fuller readings in the TR, but I haven't discussed the topic in-depth - I probably should, but it has never really come up. My main concern when selecting a translation for the pulpit and pew is whether or not the pastor is comfortable teaching from it (which led to our using the NKJV). I think it is terrible when a pastor has to wrestle with the congregation's translation saying things like "Well the pew bible says this, but what it really should say is..."


Stephen L Smith said:


> He would have been taught the CT at MARS.


Yeah, they definitely use the Critical Text at MARS.

What convinced me personally on the TR is the heavy use of it by Chrysostom, as I read his homilies. That told me that the TR renderings are at least as old as our earliest manuscripts, and so should age should not be a factor in weighing them. I realise Textual Criticism is more complex than just dating MSS, but that squashed my last objection to the TR as my primary text for study.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Feb 25, 2022)

pmachapman said:


> Interesting. Thanks to Logos' Bible Word Study feature, I have found the following...
> 
> The ESV is mostly consistent with offspring:
> View attachment 8977
> ...


Yes, the KJV is preferable here. That's actually one of the good things about the LSB—it renders זֶרַע as "seed" throughout. The NKJV, when זֶרַע is used in the context of offspring, alternates between "offspring," "descendant(s)," and "seed." It's very annoying. I know it's a small thing, but I do wonder if this, like 1 Thess. 2:7, is yet another indicator that the NKJV was translated primarily by Dispensationalists.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## aaronsk (Feb 25, 2022)

The NKJV is great for bible studies when you dont want to have to explain that you are not a KJV-only crazy person but prefer the TR. Otherwise the KJV is my preference.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 25, 2022)

One passage where the NKJV gives a wooden translation is 1 Pet 1:13 " gird up the loins of your mind". It is a wooden translation but it does preserve an important Hebraism.

The LSB is probably next with "having girded your minds for action".

Other translations I checked use the dynamic equivalent "prepare your minds for action" [NASB 95].

To my mind this is a good example of the pros and cons of a literal translation. The NKJV preserves an important Hebraism. I like that. But it is less readable.


pmachapman said:


> the NKJV is an excellent literal translation (I would argue more literal than the NASB77).


Hopefully someone does a study comparing the accuracy of the LSB to the NKJV.


greenbaggins said:


> The very best translation philosophy of any of these translations is the CSB, hands down. Every level of the text contributes meaning: word, phrase, sentence, verse, pericope, chapter, book, canon (what they call "optimal equivalence"). All of these have to be taken into account.


Lane, surely the LSB is the best optimal equivalent translation here. It attempts to be readable yet uses the word 'girded' to link to the Hebraism in the verse. The CSB translation here is basically a dynamic equivalent translation "Therefore, with your minds ready for action,"

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Post Tenebras (Feb 25, 2022)

I like the NKJV, I just hate the uninspired section headings. I can't even read the Song of Solomon in the NKJV. 

In its favor, the footnotes in the NKJV are excellent.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 3, 2022)

I am looking for a NKJV with the following:

Words of Christ in Black (I am having trouble finding one in the NKJV)
Leather bound but not too expensive
Centre column references
If anyone has pointers I would appreciate their insight


----------



## C4MERON (Mar 3, 2022)

Ive tried to find one with black letter text and have been unsuccessful. There are a couple of nice goatskin leather editions around with centre column references such as the Cambridge Pitt Minion and theres one Thomas Nelson do also.. kinda depends on whether red text is a deal breaker for you.


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 3, 2022)

C4MERON said:


> Ive tried to find one with black letter text and have been unsuccessful. There are a couple of nice goatskin leather editions around with centre column references such as the Cambridge Pitt Minion and theres one Thomas Nelson do also.. kinda depends on whether red text is a deal breaker for you.


The only black-letter edition that I have been able to find is the NKJV Deluxe Reader’s Bible.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Mar 3, 2022)

NKJV premium large print thinline preference


----------



## Logan (Mar 3, 2022)

I don't know if there are any with center column reference that are also _not _red letter. But there are some that are black letter and leather.
https://www.thomasnelsonbibles.com/product/NKJV-large-print-bible-maclaren-series/https://www.thomasnelsonbibles.com/product/NKJV-large-print-thinline-premier-collection/https://www.thomasnelsonbibles.com/product/NKJV-single-column-reference-bible/
That last one says it is red letter but all the reviews I've seen (and the image of the book of Matthew on that page) shows it's not, but it does have red highlights for footnote numbers and headers.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Mar 3, 2022)

Logan said:


> I don't know if there are any with center column reference that are also red letter. But there are some that are black letter and leather.
> 
> 
> https://www.thomasnelsonbibles.com/product/NKJV-large-print-bible-maclaren-series/
> ...


Some of these have red and black options.

For instance the large print thinline reference is both in black (black and brown covers) and red (blue cover)

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## beloved7 (Mar 3, 2022)

I may have to start reading it to get a better feel of it; my translation is KJV yet I have my wife and children read the ESV. So it’s ESV for family worship and our “Scripture of the week” chalk board. NKJV might just strike the perfect balance. Though I do love my KJV.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## CovenantPatriot87 (Mar 3, 2022)

It is also the word of God.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Mar 3, 2022)

beloved7 said:


> I may have to start reading it to get a better feel of it; my translation is KJV yet I have my wife and children read the ESV. So it’s ESV for family worship and our “Scripture of the week” chalk board. NKJV might just strike the perfect balance. Though I do love my KJV.


What does your church use?


----------



## beloved7 (Mar 3, 2022)

John Yap said:


> What does your church use?


My Pastor reads out of the NASB and that’s what our pew bibles are as well. But we all bring our own bibles for the most part.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C4MERON (Mar 3, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> There has been some stimulating discussion about Bible translations in recent times. I was wondering what PB users think of the NKJV. Pros? Cons? Those of you who lean towards the Confessional Text position, what do you think of it?


I haven’t read much of the NKJV admittedly, but, have you considered the MEV? The Modern English Version. I know its had mention on PB before but not seen so within recent threads. Our church has fairly recently begun making use of it within services along with our usual KJV readings. It’s served as a very good alternative as it is (obviously) re-translated into the modern Engliah vernacular but also from the Masoretic & TR.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 4, 2022)

Thank you for the recommendations re NKJV editions. I'll look at these with interest.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 4, 2022)

C4MERON said:


> I haven’t read much of the NKJV admittedly, but, have you considered the MEV? The Modern English Version.


I don't know a lot about it. I have used the NKJV on and off since 1989. I'm quite familiar with it.


----------



## pmachapman (Mar 4, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I don't know a lot about it. I have used the NKJV on and off since 1989. I'm quite familiar with it.


Come visit us in New Plymouth, and I will give you a copy of the MEV! It is one of my favourites. Also, it is currently undergoing a minor revision, with an ETA later this year.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Mar 5, 2022)

beloved7 said:


> I may have to start reading it to get a better feel of it; my translation is KJV yet I have my wife and children read the ESV. So it’s ESV for family worship and our “Scripture of the week” chalk board. NKJV might just strike the perfect balance. Though I do love my KJV.


We have always used the KJV in our family. We have raised our six children on it, and they love it very much. Even if you prefer a more modern translation, for educational purposes, I think it is wise to use the KJV with your kids. I think it is hard to say one has a well-rounded education if one has never read the text of the King James Bible. I never fail to be amused by the Christian homeschool parents that will have their kids study Latin and read Shakespear and then complain that "The King James is just too hard for them to understand!"

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Taylor (Mar 5, 2022)

pmachapman said:


> Also, it is currently undergoing a minor revision, with an ETA later this year.


I’m glad to hear this. I thought he project was essentially abandoned. Do you have a source for this info?


----------



## beloved7 (Mar 5, 2022)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> We have always used the KJV in our family. We have raised our six children on it, and they love it very much. Even if you prefer a more modern translation, for educational purposes, I think it is wise to use the KJV with your kids. I think it is hard to say one has a well-rounded education if one has never read the text of the King James Bible. I never fail to be amused by the Christian homeschool parents that will have their kids study Latin and read Shakespear and then complain that "The King James is just too hard for them to understand!"


We were already an ESV family for a long time before I personally transitioned to KJV. I think it’s important that people stick to one translation so I decided not to switch it up on them. For me personally, I switched because I prefer it for memorization and I find comfort in a locked translation.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## pmachapman (Mar 6, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I’m glad to hear this. I thought he project was essentially abandoned. Do you have a source for this info?


Yes, an email from Charisma House (the organisation that license/publish it).

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 7, 2022)

pmachapman said:


> Come visit us in New Plymouth, and I will give you a copy of the MEV! It is one of my favourites. Also, it is currently undergoing a minor revision, with an ETA later this year.


Thank you. Do intend to some time. Health uncertainties an issue at the moment. 

In terms of a Bible I am looking for a leather bound one, words of Christ in Black etc. But in no hurry.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 20, 2022)

pmachapman said:


> One pastor in our denomination, who is retiring very soon, once told me he chose the NASB because it matches his Greek translation in his head.


The Pastor who is retiring, do you mean Rev Paul Archibald of the Reformed Church of Silverstream?


pmachapman said:


> Come visit us in New Plymouth, and I will give you a copy of the MEV! It is one of my favourites. Also, it is currently undergoing a minor revision, with an ETA later this year.


Thank you. I had a good look at the MEV website. Rightly or wrongly it did not seem to grip me. I found the Bible I was looking for - NKJV, leather-bound, words of Christ in black, great print quality etc:

https://www.thomasnelsonbibles.com/product/NKJV-large-print-bible-maclaren-series/
Will look forward to a visit sometime when I am able.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Mar 20, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I am looking for a NKJV with the following:
> 
> Words of Christ in Black (I am having trouble finding one in the NKJV)
> Leather bound but not too expensive
> ...








New Bible


Friends, In studying more on English translations, I have decided to switch my family over to primarily using the NKJV (we were using the ESV). Recently I purchased the below bible for my wife. I have never owned a bible this nice and so far it has far exceeded my expectations. Currently sold...




www.puritanboard.com


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 20, 2022)

pmachapman said:


> One pastor in our denomination, who is retiring very soon


If you want to keep this confidential I understand. Sorry I should have been more careful.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 20, 2022)

Smeagol said:


> New Bible
> 
> 
> Friends, In studying more on English translations, I have decided to switch my family over to primarily using the NKJV (we were using the ESV). Recently I purchased the below bible for my wife. I have never owned a bible this nice and so far it has far exceeded my expectations. Currently sold...
> ...


Thanks Grant. That was useful. Our views are very similar. The Bible I purchased was US$56. A good all round quality Bible. It does not have a concordance but I look up verses on the Internet anyway.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## pmachapman (Mar 20, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> If you want to keep this confidential I understand. Sorry I should have been more careful.


No confidentiality - I try to avoid name dropping, and I figured this was enough info for you to figure out!


----------



## pmachapman (Mar 20, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I found the Bible I was looking for - NKJV, leather-bound, words of Christ in black, great print quality etc:
> 
> https://www.thomasnelsonbibles.com/product/NKJV-large-print-bible-maclaren-series/


Thank you for finding this one - I have been looking for a bible like this, as my current NKJV is far too hard to read in church (and red letter).

The other black letter NKJV I am looking at is https://www.thomasnelson.com/978078...ce-bible-genuine-leather-black-comfort-print/, which although out of print (but reasonably priced on Book Depository), has the same paper as their premium bibles for this print run.


----------



## Smeagol (Mar 20, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Thanks Grant. That was useful. Our views are very similar. The Bible I purchased was US$56. A good all round quality Bible. It does not have a concordance but I look up verses on the Internet anyway.


Yeah I figured I was a little late to the party, but still decided to share.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 21, 2022)

pmachapman said:


> Thank you for finding this one - I have been looking for a bible like this, as my current NKJV is far too hard to read in church (and red letter).
> 
> The other black letter NKJV I am looking at is https://www.thomasnelson.com/978078...ce-bible-genuine-leather-black-comfort-print/, which although out of print (but reasonably priced on Book Depository), has the same paper as their premium bibles for this print run.


I looked at the link you provided and all the Leather editions appear to be out of print. The one I purchased appears to be Thomas Nelson's standard NKJV quality Bible (McLaren series) at a reasonable price. I purchased a leather bound McLaren series NKJV Bible from Amazon for a 44% discount.


----------



## StevieG (Mar 21, 2022)

I hope you don't mind me piggy backing off this discussion, but does anyone know if its possible to get a NKJV in a wide margin format that doesn't have red letters?


----------



## Jemand (Mar 21, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> There has been some stimulating discussion about Bible translations in recent times. I was wondering what PB users think of the NKJV. Pros? Cons? Those of you who lean towards the Confessional Text position, what do you think of it?


The NKJV is a substandard translation that was thrown together without even reasonably good editorial oversight. Therefore, it includes ridiculous, inexcusable errors such as the blunder in Jeremiah 34:16,

Jeremiah 34:16 But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom *ye* had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids. (KJV)

Jeremiah 34:16 but then you turned around and profaned my name when each of you took back your male and female slaves, whom *you *had set free according to their desire, and you brought them again into subjection to be your slaves. (NRSV)

Jeremiah 34:16. ‘Then you turned around and profaned My name, and every one of you brought back his male and female slaves, whom *he *had set at liberty, at their pleasure, and brought them back into subjection, to be your male and female slaves.’ (NKJV)

We see here in the NKJV the use of the third person singular pronoun ‘he’ to translate the second person plural pronoun in the Hebrew text.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Taylor (Mar 21, 2022)

Jemand said:


> The NKJV is a substandard translation that was thrown together without even reasonably good editorial oversight. Therefore, it includes ridiculous, inexcusable errors such as the blunder in Jeremiah 34:16,
> 
> Jeremiah 34:16 But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom *ye* had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids. (KJV)
> 
> ...


That’s an interesting observation about Jer. 34:16. It appears that the NKJV editors uncritically admitted the reading into their text from the Oxford edition of the KJV, whereas the “Pure Cambridge” edition has “ye.”


----------



## iainduguid (Mar 21, 2022)

Jemand said:


> The NKJV is a substandard translation that was thrown together without even reasonably good editorial oversight. Therefore, it includes ridiculous, inexcusable errors such as the blunder in Jeremiah 34:16,
> 
> Jeremiah 34:16 But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom *ye* had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids. (KJV)
> 
> ...


That's a bad miss to be sure. However, they do seem to have fixed it in their current editions, at least based on Bible Gateway and Bibleworks.


----------



## Taylor (Mar 21, 2022)

iainduguid said:


> That's a bad miss to be sure. However, they do seem to have fixed it in their current editions, at least based on Bible Gateway and Bibleworks.


The Logos edition is still wrong. That’s interesting. I may report it as a typo.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Mar 21, 2022)

Taylor, our schuylers have it as you

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## pmachapman (Mar 21, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I looked at the link you provided and all the Leather editions appear to be out of print. The one I purchased appears to be Thomas Nelson's standard NKJV quality Bible (McLaren series) at a reasonable price. I purchased a leather bound McLaren series NKJV Bible from Amazon for a 44% discount.


Did you purchase the brown leather or the black goatskin? The brown leather edition looks like excellent value, although I have just purchased the goatskin mostly because I do not like brown coloured bibles. Do post a review when it arrives!


----------



## iainduguid (Mar 21, 2022)

Taylor said:


> The Logos edition is still wrong. That’s interesting. I may report it as a typo.


Yes, I see that. Bible Gateway is the e-version that the publishers, Thomas Nelson, link you to, which makes me think that they have made a change. But it can't be a particularly recent update if Bibleworks has it, since they haven't made any changes for some years. Either way, the publisher should be making the effort to correct all of the major forms in which the NKJV appears.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Jemand (Mar 22, 2022)

iainduguid said:


> Yes, I see that. Bible Gateway is the e-version that the publishers, Thomas Nelson, link you to, which makes me think that they have made a change. But it can't be a particularly recent update if Bibleworks has it, since they haven't made any changes for some years. Either way, the publisher should be making the effort to correct all of the major forms in which the NKJV appears.


Remaining for a while in the book of Jeremiah, we find another significant error in the NKJV,

Jeremiah 27:1 In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, this word came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying,

That the reign of Jehoiakim is not in view in this passage can be clearly seen in vv. 3, 12. and 28. The verse is absent in the Septuagint. The Syriac and Arabic texts of the passage read ‘Zedekiah’ instead of ‘Jehoiakim’, and hence,

Jeremiah 27:1 IN THE beginning of the reign of Zedekiah the son of Josiah, king of Judah, this word came to Jeremiah from the Lord. (RSV, 1972)

Jeremiah 27:1 In the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah the son of Josiah, king of Judah, this word came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying— (NASB, 2020)

Jeremiah 27:1 (At the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah son of Josiah, king of Judah, this word came to Jeremiah from Yahweh (NJB, 1985)

Jeremiah 27:1 [In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim . . . Judah] this message came to Jeremiah from the LORD: (NAB, 1970)

Jeremiah 27:1 In the beginning of the reign of King Zedekiah son of Josiah of Judah, this word came to Jeremiah from the Lord. (NRSV, 1989)

However, this same error is found in the KJV—even in the “pure” Cambridge edition. If the “translators” of the NKJV had done even a little bit of researching rather than simply “modernizing” the KJV, they certainly would have found this error.

For further information, please see the commentaries on Jeremiah by Leslie C. Allen in the OTL series (2008), and J. A. Thompson in the NICOT series (1980)


Question: Is either the KJV or the NKJV accurate enough to be used in our churches as pew Bibles?


----------



## pmachapman (Mar 22, 2022)

Jemand said:


> Question: Is either the KJV or the NKJV accurate enough to be used in our churches as pew Bibles?


I think that is a pretty bold claim to make on solely textual criticism grounds, not translational errors.

Both my TBS Bomberg/Ginsberg Hebrew OT (underpinning the KJV and NKJV) and my Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (underpinning most modern translations) read יהויקם (Jehoiakim).

The translators who chose Jehoakim were not misreading the text, or copy-pasting a transcriptional error found in another English bible - they were translating what they read - in the same way the translators who chose Zedekiah made an educated decision based on the evidence of the Syriac, Arabic, and a few Hebrew manuscripts (see the apparatus in the BHS).

Both are accurate translations, they just utilised a different methodology to yield different answers to the text critical decision present in the text. Translating Jehoakim is definitely not an error if that is what is in the Hebrew text!

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Logan (Mar 22, 2022)

Jemand said:


> Question: Is either the KJV or the NKJV accurate enough to be used in our churches as pew Bibles?



Yes.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## iainduguid (Mar 22, 2022)

Jemand said:


> Remaining for a while in the book of Jeremiah, we find another significant error in the NKJV,
> 
> Jeremiah 27:1 In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, this word came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying,
> 
> ...


Certainly the KJV and NKJV are accurate enough to use as pew Bibles and by ordinary believers. If I were trying to build a case to prefer a different version, I'm not sure I would choose this verse as a "Gotcha" text. It is true that there are good contextual reasons for preferring Zedekiah to Jehoiakim here, but the vast majority of Hebrew manuscripts have Jehoiakim. Calvin and Gill deal with the difficulty by proposing that the word was given to Jeremiah at the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign, but was kept hidden until the time of Zedekiah, which suggests that the translators of the KJV were aware of the issue. Most modern commentators are not convinced, given that the current form of 27:1 exactly matches 26:1, so it is easy to explain how a scribal error could have occurred, but it remains very much a minority reading in the MT tradition. And for those who hate the canons of text criticism, this is a clear example of the KJV preferring the harder reading, since it is very easy to explain why an original Jehoiakim would be changed to Zedekiah, but not the reverse. 

It does illuminate the fact that the KJV is very closely aligned to the Bomberg text (the Second Rabbinic Bible), though not slavishly so. There is a short passage missing from the Second Rabbinic Bible that they restored on the basis of the First Rabbinic Bible. And of course, famously, they deviated from the Majority Jewish text in Psalm 22:16, a text that Calvin and many others argued had been deliberately tampered with by the Jewish sources.

All of this illustrates how the issues are different in the OT from the NT regarding text criticism. Any view of the doctrine of textual preservation has to do justice to the OT text - largely preserved by Jewish scribes outside the church, which in many cases relied on the Septuagint - as well as the NT text.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 22, 2022)

pmachapman said:


> Did you purchase the brown leather or the black goatskin?


Brown leather. Amazon gave a 44% discount on this one.


pmachapman said:


> Do post a review when it arrives!


Do you have somewhere in mind?


----------



## pmachapman (Mar 22, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Do you have somewhere in mind?


Anywhere: Here, YouTube, Amazon review, maybe all of the above?

I found during my research to find a new bible (and I wouldn't have found out about this particular edition having black letter if not for your comment), is that local Christian book stores, as much as I try to support them, do not have the full range, so you have to look online for advice. I watched nearly a hundred reviews of NKJV bibles before settling on this one!


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 23, 2022)

pmachapman said:


> Anywhere: Here, YouTube, Amazon review, maybe all of the above?
> 
> I found during my research to find a new bible (and I wouldn't have found out about this particular edition having black letter if not for your comment), is that local Christian book stores, as much as I try to support them, do not have the full range, so you have to look online for advice. I watched nearly a hundred reviews of NKJV bibles before settling on this one!


I am presently doing a review of a book on Covenant Theology for Faith in Focus (Ruin and Redemption) and doing a series of articles on the Puritan Jeremiah Burroughs on how he dealt with persecution (also for Faith in Focus). Although I would love to review this Bible, I don't think I can take on any extra commitments at present.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 23, 2022)

Taylor said:


> That’s an interesting observation about Jer. 34:16. It appears that the NKJV editors uncritically admitted the reading into their text from the Oxford edition of the KJV, whereas the “Pure Cambridge” edition has “ye.”


My Cambridge has "you"


----------



## Taylor (Mar 23, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> My Cambridge has "you"
> 
> View attachment 9054


Yeah, so apparently a correction was made but not all companies have been notified, if they just haven’t made the change.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Mar 23, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> My Cambridge has "you"
> 
> View attachment 9054


Sweet Topaz brother

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 23, 2022)

John Yap said:


> Sweet Topaz brother


Good eye. Yes, I am very pleased with this Bible. I am even more pleased that it was not made in China.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## gjensen (Mar 23, 2022)

I have been considering the Topaz. Even though the NKJV is my preferred imperfect translation among all of our imperfect translations, I have had a hard time finding a copy that I was excited about.


----------



## bookslover (Mar 23, 2022)

Jemand said:


> The NKJV is a substandard translation that was thrown together without even reasonably good editorial oversight. Therefore, it includes ridiculous, inexcusable errors such as the blunder in Jeremiah 34:16,
> 
> Jeremiah 34:16 But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom *ye* had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids. (KJV)
> 
> ...



My NKJV - printed in 2006 - has "you" at that place in Jeremiah 34.16.


----------



## SeekerOfTruth (Mar 24, 2022)

NKJV is used by my church and seems to be the preferred modern translation of my church's denomination. I use it for my daily study and reading, and my goal is to transition into using the KJV more due to some shortcomings I have read about the NKJV having. I stick to using both the KJV and the NKJV.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 24, 2022)

pmachapman said:


> and I wouldn't have found out about this particular edition having black letter if not for your comment)


I ordered the Bible on Saturday. It arrived today. That is amazing speed considering it came from the USA. Amazon appears to use good shipping services.

The Bible is what you would expect paying for genuine leather. It is a nice edition. But it is not the same as Premium leather. The gold edges on the paper looked a little bland to me. But that is a minor criticism. Printing is very good, blue colour for headings, verse nos etc which which is nice. Comes with 3 ribbons.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 27, 2022)

Smeagol said:


> I have decided to switch my family over to primarily using the NKJV (we were using the ESV).





Smeagol said:


> Yeah I figured I was a little late to the party, but still decided to share.


According to the information you shared I understand you switched to the NKJV in 2019. How have you found the NKJV after using it for 3 years?


----------



## B.L. (Mar 27, 2022)

The Bible curriculum I use with my children is keyed to the NKJV, so we use that translation during Sunday afternoon lessons. The NKJV sits squarely in my Top 3 to read from, but I always find myself reaching for the KJV as my primary on most days.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Mar 27, 2022)

SeekerOfTruth said:


> NKJV is used by my church and seems to be the preferred modern translation of my church's denomination. I use it for my daily study and reading, and my goal is to transition into using the KJV more due to some shortcomings I have read about the NKJV having. I stick to using both the KJV and the NKJV.


have you read about any 'shortcomings' of the KJV to balance out your reading of the NKJV's 'shortcomings' - so that you make a balanced decision?


----------



## beloved7 (Mar 27, 2022)

Is the NKJV a locked translation? Locked meaning never will be updated again. If so, that is a huge selling point for some.


----------



## iainduguid (Mar 27, 2022)

beloved7 said:


> Is the NKJV a locked translation? Locked meaning never will be updated again. If so, that is a huge selling point for some.


I think I understand the attraction people have for locked translations; it's always awkward if you have memorized a verse and the translation then changes, and it can be confusing in a Bible Study when people reading from the same version have different readings. It also makes sense that nobody is tinkering with the KJV, while still calling it that. 

However, think about the downside of a locked translation. Every translation gets it wrong sometimes (including the KJV). A locked translation has no ability to fix those errors when people point them out. So what you are really saying when you ask for a locked translation is "I would rather have a wrong translation that doesn't change than a more accurate translation that has some minor changes periodically." Is that really what you want?

The CSB (of which I am part of the Translation Oversight Committee) regularly gets suggestions of corrections and improvements - often from committee members. Most of these are minor changes that you would hardly notice, but our commitment to being as accurate as possible in our translation is the reason why our translation is not locked.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2


----------



## beloved7 (Mar 27, 2022)

iainduguid said:


> I think I understand the attraction people have for locked translations; it's always awkward if you have memorized a verse and the translation then changes, and it can be confusing in a Bible Study when people reading from the same version have different readings. It also makes sense that nobody is tinkering with the KJV, while still calling it that.
> 
> However, think about the downside of a locked translation. Every translation gets it wrong sometimes (including the KJV). A locked translation has no ability to fix those errors when people point them out. So what you are really saying when you ask for a locked translation is "I would rather have a wrong translation that doesn't change than a more accurate translation that has some minor changes periodically." Is that really what you want?
> 
> The CSB (of which I am part of the Translation Oversight Committee) regularly gets suggestions of corrections and improvements - often from committee members. Most of these are minor changes that you would hardly notice, but our commitment to being as accurate as possible in our translation is the reason why our translation is not locked.


I think you raise some fair points, and I am grateful for the labors of faithful men such as yourself who strive for improved textual criticism. Though, and I am going to be very candid here, I personally find much comfort in the KJV because it is locked. I know that some might think that’s anti intellectual or antiquated, but for me it matters.


----------



## Taylor (Mar 27, 2022)

With the proliferation of electronic formats, I am far less opposed to “non-locked” translations than I used to be. Honestly, my main reason for wanting a locked translation is the fact that for whatever translation is my main one I want to have in a nice addition. I don’t want to have to spend $200 every few years.


----------



## Jemand (Mar 28, 2022)

iainduguid said:


> I think I understand the attraction people have for locked translations; it's always awkward if you have memorized a verse and the translation then changes, and it can be confusing in a Bible Study when people reading from the same version have different readings. It also makes sense that nobody is tinkering with the KJV, while still calling it that.
> 
> However, think about the downside of a locked translation. Every translation gets it wrong sometimes (including the KJV). A locked translation has no ability to fix those errors when people point them out. So what you are really saying when you ask for a locked translation is "I would rather have a wrong translation that doesn't change than a more accurate translation that has some minor changes periodically." Is that really what you want?
> 
> The CSB (of which I am part of the Translation Oversight Committee) regularly gets suggestions of corrections and improvements - often from committee members. Most of these are minor changes that you would hardly notice, but our commitment to being as accurate as possible in our translation is the reason why our translation is not locked.



Crossway, the publishers of the ESV, released the following statement about the locking of the ESV,

_In August 2016, we posted on our website that “the text of the ESV Bible will remain unchanged in all future editions printed and published by Crossway.” The goal behind this decision to make the text permanent was to stabilize the English Standard Version, serving its readership by establishing the ESV as a translation that could be used “for generations to come.” We desired for there to be a stable and standard text that would serve the reading, memorizing, preaching, and liturgical needs of Christians worldwide from one generation to another.

We have become convinced that this decision was a mistake. We apologize for this and for any concern this has caused for readers of the ESV, and we want to explain what we now believe to be the way forward. Our desire, above all, is to do what is right before the Lord.

Our goal at Crossway remains as strong as ever to serve future generations with a stable ESV text. But the means to that goal, we now see, is not to establish a permanent text but rather to allow for ongoing periodic updating of the text to reflect the realities of biblical scholarship such as textual discoveries or changes in English over time. These kinds of updates will be minimal and infrequent, but fidelity to Scripture requires that we remain open in principle to such changes, as the Crossway Board of Directors and the ESV Translation Oversight Committee see fit in years ahead….

We believe deeply that the translation and publication of the Bible is a sacred trust and unspeakable privilege, and we want to do all we can to steward this calling, before God, with the reverence and care that it deserves.

In the sufficiency of God’s grace,

Lane T. Dennis, PhD_









Crossway Statement on the ESV Bible Text


Understand the goal behind our decision to stabilize the English Standard Version.




www.crossway.org





The New King James Version New Testament dates back to 1979. The Psalms date back to 1980, and the complete Bible back to 1984! The English Standard Vision was first published in 2001, and was fine-tuned in the editions of 2007, 2011, and 2016. Each of these editions is identified on the copyright page. The New American Standard Bible underwent a major revision in 1995 and again in 2020. The New Revised Standard Version has been undergoing a major revision that is scheduled to be officially released in May of this year. Biblical research is not standing still; and the English language is changing at an alarming rate. The New King James Version is fast becoming an historical relic and locking it— or any other translation of the Bible—serves to make that translation less and less suitable for use in public worship and in private devotions and study.

I have taught and preached to congregations in which a variety of Bible versions was in use with the result that the minds of the congregants were stimulated and valuable discussions resulted.


----------



## beloved7 (Mar 28, 2022)

I remember when Crossway almost locked the ESV; if memory serves they backed away from that position after about a week or so. If that held, I probably would have never switched from ESV to KJV. Though now I’m settled with KJV for good due to memorization.


----------



## Taylor (Mar 28, 2022)

beloved7 said:


> I remember when Crossway almost locked the ESV; if memory serves they backed away from that position after about a week or so. If that held, I probably would have never switched from ESV to KJV. Though now I’m settled with KJV for good due to memorization.


I remember thinking this to be a moment of particular spinelessness for Crossway. They made a few improvements to the text, and then decided to lock it. But because of uproar from various bloggers—especially of the feminist variety, who were upset with Gen. 3:16—Crossway backed off and “changed their minds.” I’m convinced it wasn’t out of conviction, but to save public image. It was disappointing.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## beloved7 (Mar 28, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I remember thinking this to be a moment of particular spinelessness for Crossway. They made a few improvements to the text, and then decided to lock it. But because of uproar from various bloggers—especially of the feminist variety, who were upset with Gen. 3:16—Crossway backed off and “changed their minds.” I’m convinced it wasn’t out of conviction, but to save public image. It was disappointing.


Though I can’t know for sure, I had and still have the same thoughts. The entire debacle planted the seed, as it were, for me to eventually switch to the KJV. Pressures from external sources are a very real thing, particularly in our day.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 28, 2022)

beloved7 said:


> I think you raise some fair points, and I am grateful for the labors of faithful men such as yourself who strive for improved textual criticism. Though, and I am going to be very candid here, I personally find much comfort in the KJV because it is locked. I know that some might think that’s anti intellectual or antiquated, but for me it matters.


I think one thing to keep in mind is there are two kinds of changes. One may be related to manuscripts and text criticism and the other is fixing actual errors in the translation work or grammar issues. I believe the second kind was being discussed. It is important to remember the KJV did have/has errors in it of the second kind. The first type has been debated in many other threads so I won't bring in the text critical aspect here. I believe we were discussing an issue with the NKJV just a few days ago in this thread and evidence that those errors have been corrected. I would hope the KJV is allowed to have errors fixed without there being any issue, but perhaps I am wrong about that and when you all say locked translations you mean in regard to translation/grammar errors as well.


----------



## beloved7 (Mar 28, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I think one thing to keep in mind is there are two kinds of changes. One may be related to manuscripts and text criticism and the other is fixing actual errors in the translation work or grammar issues. I believe the second kind was being discussed. It is important to remember the KJV did have/has errors in it of the second kind. The first type has been debated in many other threads so I won't bring in the text critical aspect here. I believe we were discussing an issue with the NKJV just a few days ago in this thread and evidence that those errors have been corrected. I would hope the KJV is allowed to have errors fixed without there being any issue, but perhaps I am wrong about that and when you all say locked translations you mean in regard to translation/grammar errors as well.


I can only speak for myself of course, but when I say locked I mean that it can never be changed in any way. The main desire for this is memorization. 

There are many other options out there that continue to be updated every now and then, as the English language has an embarrassingly abundant amount of versions. This of course is a blessing. For brethren who appreciate such works, they have these options.

For me, I believe there are several English translations that are wonderful; KJV, NKJV, ESV and NASB all come to mind. When it comes to my own personal version though, having a locked translation is crucial. I don’t want to memorize something that is fluid as memorization does not come easy to me to begin with. Though I’m KJV preferred (not only), my reasons for choosing it are not because I have anything against the CT, for example. I like knowing that the exact version I read today will be the exact version I read for the rest of my life, Lord willing.


----------



## iainduguid (Mar 28, 2022)

beloved7 said:


> I can only speak for myself of course, but when I say locked I mean that it can never be changed in any way. The main desire for this is memorization.
> 
> There are many other options out there that continue to be updated every now and then, as the English language has an embarrassingly abundant amount of versions. This of course is a blessing. For brethren who appreciate such works, they have these options.
> 
> For me, I believe there are several English translations that are wonderful; KJV, NKJV, ESV and NASB all come to mind. When it comes to my own personal version though, having a locked translation is crucial. I don’t want to memorize something that is fluid as memorization does not come easy to me to begin with. Though I’m KJV preferred (not only), my reasons for choosing it are not because I have anything against the CT, for example. I like knowing that the exact version I read today will be the exact version I read for the rest of my life, Lord willing.


So you would really prefer to retain the version you memorized, even if it is an incorrect translation and the original Hebrew or Greek doesn't mean that? I don't mean to put you on the spot; just trying to understand the implications of your position. By the way, hardly any changes in an unlocked version are with "memorizable" verses, so I think it is a bit of a straw man (though I will grant that ESV's rather radical revised translation of Gen 3:16 was a pretty important verse). I can't recall anything similar with our revisions of the CSB; for example, I recently proposed replacing "from the east" as the translation of _miqqedem_ with "eastwards" in Gen 12:8 - see Gen 13:11. I doubt that will trouble anyone memorizing the Scriptures, but it's important to me that we get our translation as accurate to the meaning of the original text as possible.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## beloved7 (Mar 28, 2022)

iainduguid said:


> So you would really prefer to retain the version you memorized, even if it is an incorrect translation and the original Hebrew or Greek doesn't mean that? I don't mean to put you on the spot; just trying to understand the implications of your position. By the way, hardly any changes in an unlocked version are with "memorizable" verses, so I think it is a bit of a straw man (though I will grant that ESV's rather radical revised translation of Gen 3:16 was a pretty important verse). I can't recall anything similar with our revisions of the CSB; for example, I recently proposed replacing "from the east" as the translation of _miqqedem_ with "eastwards" in Gen 12:8 - see Gen 13:11. I doubt that will trouble anyone memorizing the Scriptures, but it's important to me that we get our translation as accurate to the meaning of the original text as possible.


I’ve been charitable to you and I would appreciate the same in return. Which translation I use and the reasons behind it are very personal and I’ve been transparent as to why.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 28, 2022)

beloved7 said:


> I’ve been charitable to you and I would appreciate the same in return. Which translation I use and the reasons behind it are very personal and I’ve been transparent as to why.


I don't see anything uncharitable in his question. So, are you saying that you would affirm an error in your memorization? He is saying that the translation actually screwed up and did not correctly translate the original Greek and Hebrew. So, you have memorized something that was actually not said in the original language. That would be ok? Even if it completely changes the meaning of the verse? 

I do not think this is going to be the case in reality, but if it was, you would still stick to your position?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## beloved7 (Mar 28, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I don't see anything uncharitable in his question. So, are you saying that you would affirm an error in your memorization? He is saying that the translation actually screwed up and did not correctly translate the original Greek and Hebrew. So, you have memorized something that was actually not said in the original language. That would be ok? Even if it completely changes the meaning of the verse?
> 
> I do not think this is going to be the case in reality, but if it was, you would still stick to your position?


I stated that I preferred a locked translation for memorization purposes, that is a reasonable position to take. If someone else wants to constantly change their translation throughout their lifetime, that is their business. The post that I replied to was needlessly challenging me and felt like quarreling. I made it clear that I wasn’t criticizing any other version.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 28, 2022)

beloved7 said:


> I stated that I preferred a locked translation for memorization purposes, that is a reasonable position to take. If someone else wants to constantly change their translation throughout their lifetime, that is their business. The post that I replied to was needlessly challenging me and felt like quarreling. I made it clear that I wasn’t criticizing any other version.


The question was not around a locked translation as I see it. You can certainly prefer that. The question is in the situation being described in my last post. If the answer is, no I would not make a one off edit, I would continue to keep the incorrect translation memorized, then so be it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## beloved7 (Mar 28, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> The question was not around a locked translation as I see it. You can certainly prefer that. The question is in the situation being described in my last post. If the answer is, no I would not make a one off edit, I would continue to keep the incorrect translation memorized, then so be it.


Again, I am confident with the copy of God’s Word that I have in the King James Version. If someone else wishes to be on a lifelong journey of textual criticism and ever changing grammatical fixes, that is their business.


----------



## Logan (Mar 28, 2022)

beloved7 said:


> The post that I replied to was needlessly challenging me and felt like quarreling. I made it clear that I wasn’t criticizing any other version.


Dr Duguid is a respected professor and contributor. I read nothing challenging in his question.

It's a reasonable question to ask: You prefer a locked translation for memorization (which is a reasonable desire). However, since this means that by definition the translation can never be altered even when a translational inaccuracy is found, is the conclusion therefore that you prize continuity over accuracy in every single case?

In a perfect world you'd have both, but that's not often the case. It's a good question and I'm curious too. I think I'd prefer accuracy while at the same time recognizing my own desire for continuity. I'm not really a fan of some of what happened to the NIV for example.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## beloved7 (Mar 28, 2022)

Logan said:


> Dr Duguid is a respected professor and contributor. I read nothing challenging in his question.
> 
> It's a reasonable question to ask: You prefer a locked translation for memorization (which is a reasonable desire). However, since this means that by definition the translation can never be altered even when a translational inaccuracy is found, is the conclusion therefore that you prize continuity over accuracy in every single case?
> 
> In a perfect world you'd have both, but that's not often the case. It's a good question and I'm curious too. I think I'd prefer accuracy while at the same time recognizing my own desire for continuity. I'm not really a fan of some of what happened to the NIV for example.


I know who he is, and do not expect anyone on this board to “side” with me, so to speak, over him. God is not a respector of persons, and we are not to show partiality. There is no need to throw around bona fides when it comes to charitable discussion.

If I were being equally as uncharitable as he, I would push back and say that people like him are never content with the version that is in their hands and are always second guessing it. But I didn’t do that. Rather I thanked him for his labors. I was then challenged with the response of accusing me of making a strawman for stating I prefer a locked translation for memorization. Defend that if you wish.


----------



## Jemand (Mar 28, 2022)

beloved7 said:


> Again, I am confident with the copy of God’s Word that I have in the King James Version. If someone else wishes to be on a lifelong journey of textual criticism and ever changing grammatical fixes, that is their business.


This is not a fair representation of Biblical scholars who value truth and accuracy over anything less.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Mar 28, 2022)

topic straying off.....

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## beloved7 (Mar 28, 2022)

Jemand said:


> This is not a fair representation of Biblical scholars who value truth and accuracy over anything less.


Fairness is a road that travels both ways, I see no one objecting to me being criticized for simply preferring a locked translation. One simply is confident in their copy of God’s Word or they are not. I prefer memorization over textual criticism as a layman as it is of more profit to my discipleship.

Are they mutually exclusive? No, though we all have different gifts. I am not able to memorize several different translations. This is not an unreasonable position for me to take, yet here I am.

Anyhow, it is not my desire to get bogged down into an unprofitable debate, nor am I equipped to do so. I just wanted to share that I prefer locked translations for memorization, and was wondering if the NKJV is officially locked. I did not anticipate that to be a controversial position.


----------



## Logan (Mar 28, 2022)

beloved7 said:


> Fairness is a road that travels both ways, I see no one objecting to me being criticized for simply preferring a locked translation. One simply is confident in their copy of God’s Word or they are not. I prefer memorization over textual criticism as a layman as it is of more profit to my discipleship.
> 
> Are they mutually exclusive? No, though we all have different gifts. I am not able to memorize several different translations. This is not an unreasonable position for me to take, yet here I am.
> 
> Anyhow, it is not my desire to get bogged down into an unprofitable debate, nor am I equipped to do so. I just wanted to share that I prefer locked translations for memorization, and was wondering if the NKJV is officially locked. I did not anticipate that to be a controversial position.



Brother, your position is not controversial and no one has said it was ridiculous or even criticized it that I can see. I agreed with you that it was a reasonable desire. However, it's also reasonable to think about the implications that Dr Duguid brought up. This certainly doesn't mean that you have to change your mind, but the question itself is neither debating or out of bounds and your reaction so far has been strangely indignant.

Textual criticism was specifically avoided in this particular conversation so don't be confused by that.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## beloved7 (Mar 28, 2022)

Logan said:


> Brother, your position is not controversial and no one has said it was ridiculous or even criticized it that I can see. I agreed with you that it was a reasonable desire. However, it's also reasonable to think about the implications that Dr Duguid brought up. This certainly doesn't mean that you have to change your mind, but the question itself is neither debating or out of bounds and your reaction so far has been strangely indignant.
> 
> Textual criticism was specifically avoided in this particular conversation so don't be confused by that.


Perhaps I have been a bit sensitive. If so then I do apologize.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Georgiadis (Mar 28, 2022)

Over the last five years I have been bouncing back and forth between a handful of popular translations among conservative Christians (KJV, ESV, NASB, CSB, NIV). I intentionally avoided the NKJV because I’d gotten the impression that it was stylistically inferior to the KJV and from a scholarly perspective also inferior to more modern translations. It wasn’t until I received a premium NKJV as a gift that my hand was kind of forced. I mean, c’mon. It has a goatskin cover. I’m not-NOT going to use it! And I am so glad that I did! The NKJV is a beautiful translation in my opinion and the most versatile. What I mean by that is how well it aligns with older commentaries that I frequent (i.e., Pulpit, Gill, Ellicott) but its impressive supply of footnotes also double as a CT alt-take which is helpful for study too. I’m really impressed with the restraint shown by the oversight committee. I feel like they were successful in their mission to make a good translation better all the while preserving its best qualities.

The NKJV doesn’t seem to get a lot of loud press or rave reviews from high profile leaders these days but from what I’ve found that’s not necessarily an indication of low readership. The people I’ve heard from have just been quietly enjoying it for years.

The funny thing is that the very first Bible I received as a boy was a NKJV. Sure could have saved myself a lot of time and research but I’m happy to have rejoined the ranks!

Reactions: Like 3 | Love 1


----------



## Smeagol (Mar 28, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> According to the information you shared I understand you switched to the NKJV in 2019. How have you found the NKJV after using it for 3 years?


It has been really good. We use paper bibles mostly but circumstances have also led us to use NKJV bible apps as well. I have 3 young children and neither myself nor my wife were raised on the KJV. I found the NKJV’s English to be updated enough to still get the points across to my 8 & 5 year old and more consistent with the language we teach them in homeschool and their kids catechisms compared to KJV. My kids seemed to also be doing well with retention after a reading. I am also comfortable, being slightly more mature than my children , with the translation Philosphy of NKJV as recorded in it’s preface. So….we are still happy with it.


----------



## Jemand (Mar 28, 2022)

Georgiadis said:


> Over the last five years I have been bouncing back and forth between a handful of popular translations among conservative Christians (KJV, ESV, NASB, CSB, NIV). I intentionally avoided the NKJV because I’d gotten the impression that it was stylistically inferior to the KJV and from a scholarly perspective also inferior to more modern translations. It wasn’t until I received a premium NKJV as a gift that my hand was kind of forced. I mean, c’mon. It has a goatskin cover. I’m not-NOT going to use it! And I am so glad that I did! The NKJV is a beautiful translation in my opinion and the most versatile. What I mean by that is how well it aligns with older commentaries that I frequent (i.e., Pulpit, Gill, Ellicott) but its impressive supply of footnotes also double as a CT alt-take which is helpful for study too. I’m really impressed with the restraint shown by the oversight committee. I feel like they were successful in their mission to make a good translation better all the while preserving its best qualities.
> 
> The NKJV doesn’t seem to get a lot of loud press or rave reviews from high profile leaders these days but from what I’ve found that’s not necessarily an indication of low readership. The people I’ve heard from have just been quietly enjoying it for years.
> 
> The funny thing is that the very first Bible I received as a boy was a NKJV. Sure could have saved myself a lot of time and research but I’m happy to have rejoined the ranks!


Thank you for sharing with us!


----------



## Jemand (Mar 28, 2022)

Smeagol said:


> It has been really good. We use paper bibles mostly but circumstances have also led us to use NKJV bible apps as well. I have 3 young children and neither myself nor my wife were raised on the KJV. I found the NKJV’s English to be updated enough to still get the points across to my 8 & 5 year old and more consistent with the language we teach them in homeschool and their kids catechisms compared to KJV. My kids seemed to also be doing well with retention after a reading. I am also comfortable, being slightly more mature than my children , with the translation Philosphy of NKJV as recorded in it’s preface. So….we are still happy with it.


Thank you for sharing with us!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 29, 2022)

Smeagol said:


> It has been really good. We use paper bibles mostly but circumstances have also led us to use NKJV bible apps as well. I have 3 young children and neither myself nor my wife were raised on the KJV. I found the NKJV’s English to be updated enough to still get the points across to my 8 & 5 year old and more consistent with the language we teach them in homeschool and their kids catechisms compared to KJV. My kids seemed to also be doing well with retention after a reading. I am also comfortable, being slightly more mature than my children , with the translation Philosphy of NKJV as recorded in it’s preface. So….we are still happy with it.


Glad to hear that. For me I tended to underappreciate the NKJV when I used the ESV but have come full circle. (I previously used the NKJV but switched to the ESV when it came out.)

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Mar 30, 2022)

I don’t believe I’ve commented in this thread yet. I consider the NKJV among the best of the modern versions (along with MEV, MKJV, KJV 2016), it not being based upon the CT or ET). I do have some serious gripes about it though, one being in Rev 19:8, where – along with the other moderns, it reads, concerning Christ’s bride, “to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the *righteous acts* of the saints.”

It would have been far better to have the KJV’s “the fine linen is the *righteousness* of saints”, which would have _included_ the imputed righteousness of Christ _as well as_ her own obedience and sanctification, enabled by His grace.

CF., *Jer 23:6*, “In His [Messiah’s] days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, *THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS*.”

And, *Isa 54:17*, “No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and *their righteousness is of Me, saith the LORD*.”

This is lost in the NKJV’s rendering. I think the right balance can be seen in Herman Hoeksema’s comment from his _Behold He Cometh!_ – his commentary on Revelation:

_Behold He cometh!_ Herman Hoeksema Rev 19:8​

Behold He Cometh, An Exposition of the Book of Revelation - Rev. Herman Hoeksema, SpindleWorks

​

The Marriage Of The Lamb - Rev. Herman Hoeksema, SpindleWorks

​This bride of the Lamb is clothed in fine linen, clean and white. The text itself explains that this fine, white linen is "the righteousness of saints." This righteousness is, first of all, the fundamental righteousness of the saints in the blood of Christ, the Lamb. It is their legal righteousness, the righteousness of their state, according to which the perfect righteousness of Christ is imputed to them. It is the righteousness which is theirs through the very fact that the Lamb was slain and laid down His life for them, and thus purchased them to be His bride. But the reference is also to the righteousness of the saints in the spiritual, ethical sense of the word, or, if you will, to the holiness of the bride. She has kept her garments clean and unspotted from the pollutions of the world, of Babylon. She has heeded the call to come out of Babylon and not to be partaker of Babylon's sins. Hence, the church, the bride of the Lamb, appears here as clothed in garments of justification and sanctification, the pure and white linen of the righteousness of Christ. Moreover, in the vision she appears as having made herself ready. This cannot mean, of course, that the church has justified and sanctified herself, as if her righteousness were of her own accomplishment. On the contrary, the text even emphasizes that these garments of fine linen with which she is clothed are a matter of grace: "And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white." But by faith and in love, and with a view to meeting her Bridegroom, through grace, the bride has prepared herself, has put on the garments provided by the Lamb Himself, and kept herself unspotted from the world.​​She is ready for her marriage to the Lamb.​


----------



## Jemand (Mar 31, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I don’t believe I’ve commented in this thread yet. I consider the NKJV among the best of the modern versions (along with MEV, MKJV, KJV 2016), it not being based upon the CT or ET). I do have some serious gripes about it though, one being in Rev 19:8, where – along with the other moderns, it reads, concerning Christ’s bride, “to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the *righteous acts* of the saints.”
> 
> It would have been far better to have the KJV’s “the fine linen is the *righteousness* of saints”, which would have _included_ the imputed righteousness of Christ _as well as_ her own obedience and sanctification, enabled by His grace.


Revelation 19:8 reads,

8. καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῇ ἵνα περιβάληται βύσσινον λαμπρὸν καθαρόν, τὸ γὰρ βύσσινον τὰ δικαιώματα τῶν ἁγίων ἐστίν.

The KJV mistranslated this sentence. The NKJV (and virtually every other translation) corrects the error,

Revelation 19:8 And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.

_“The plural -ματα is probably distributive, implying not many δικαιώματα to each one, as if they were merely good deeds, but one δικαιώμα to each of the saints, enveloping him as in a pure white robe of righteousness. Observe that here and everywhere the white robe is not Christ’s righteousness imputed or put on, but the Saints’ righteousness, by virtue of being washed in His blood. It is their own; inherent, not imputed; but their own by their part in and union to Him.” Henry Alford - The New Testament for English Readers - Matthew-Revelation _

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Apr 1, 2022)

Hello Thomas! – welcome to PuritanBoard!

This is a disputed reading / translation. A friend of mine (Al H.) commented,

It's called "righteousnesses" because it is talking about the imputed righteousness of each and every saint. But definitely not "righteous acts."​​Also *Matthew Poole* agrees:​​Rev. 19:8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.​
​And to her was granted; that is, to the Lamb’s wife, whether Jews or Gentiles, or both. That she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white; that she should be clothed with the righteousness of Christ, reckoned to her for righteousness. This is the righteousness of the saints; called the righteousness of God, Rom. 1:17; a righteousness through the faith of Christ, Phil. 3:9: *called righteousnesses, in the Greek, because there are many saints to be clothed with it*; and because it is imputed both for justification and sanctification, not to excuse us from holiness, but to make up our defects. [emphasis added]​​Matthew Poole, _Annotations upon the Holy Bible, vol. 3_ (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1853), 999.​
*_____ *

Likewise *John Gill*,

for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints, or "*righteousnesses*"; not good works, or their own righteousness; for though these are evidences of faith, by which the saints are justified, and are what God has prepared for them, that they should walk in them; yet these are not comparable to fine linen, clean and white, but are like filthy rags, and cannot justify in the sight of God; but the righteousness of Christ is meant, and justification by that; for that is the only justifying righteousness of the saints: and though it is but one, yet it may be called "*righteousnesses*", or "justifications", in the plural number; partly because of the several seasons in which the act of justification passes, first in God's mind from eternity, next on Christ as the surety, when he rose from the dead, and on all the elect in him, and then in the consciences of the saints when they believe, and the sentence of it will be notified and declared to men and angels at the last judgment; and partly because of the many persons that are justified by it, as also because of the excellency of it; so the Jews use the word in the plural number: the Targumist on Zechariah 3:4 paraphrases the text, "I will clothe thee" זכוך, "with *righteousnesses*"; upon which words Jarchi has this note,

"change of beautiful garments is all one as if it had been said זכיות ‘*righteousnesses*’: and because sin is like to filthy garments, righteousness is like to garments beautiful and white.''​
Christ's righteousness may be compared to fine linen, clean and white, because of its spotless purity; those that are arrayed with it being unblameable and irreprovable, and without spot and blemish, and without fault before the throne; with this the Jewish church will be clothed; all the Lord's people will be righteous, they will have on the best robe, and wedding garment, which was despised by the Jews in Christ's time, who refused to come to the marriage feast; and their being arrayed with it will be owing to the grace of Christ, who grants it; and so Christ's righteousness is called the gift of righteousness, the free gift, and gift by grace, and abundance of grace; and faith, which receives it, and puts it on, is the gift of God, Romans 5:15. Not only the garment is a gift of grace, but the putting of it on is a grant from Christ, and what he himself does, Isaiah 61:10. [emphases added]

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 4, 2022)

The NKJV often references the Majority Text in its footnotes. Since it was translated another text type has developed - the Byzantine Priority text. What are the similarities and differences between the Byzantine Priority and the Majority Text types. I ask because when I read the NKJV and see the MT references, I do wonder if the text notes in the NKJV are a little dated?


----------



## Taylor (Apr 4, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> The NKJV often references the Majority Text in its footnotes. Since it was translated another text type has developed - the Byzantine Priority text. What are the similarities and differences between the Byzantine Priority and the Majority Text types. I ask because when I read the NKJV and see the MT references, I do wonder if the text notes in the NKJV are a little dated?


As far as I understand it, the primary difference between the Majority Text and the Byzantine Priority Text is that of methodology. In the end, as far as I am aware, the differences are very, very small.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Apr 4, 2022)

Taylor said:


> As far as I understand it, the primary difference between the Majority Text and the Byzantine Priority Text is that of methodology. In the end, as far as I am aware, the differences are very, very small.


The differences are indeed very small in resultant text. Maurice Robinson has a developed theory of transmission that undergirds his variant choices, and results in a majority reading usually being the “right one.” The majority text of Hodges and Farstad really is just counting noses, as it were, as far as I’ve understood.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Logan (Apr 4, 2022)

I would agree. The Byzantine Priority strikes a very good balance, in my opinion. It has no issues examining all manuscripts. Nor does it toss readings simply because it prioritizes a few old manuscripts. It is similar to the Majority Text position in that it prioritizes texts that were in use in the church for centuries. I would call it a confessional position, and I wish it were more widely recognized than the two "tribes" of CT and TR.

Robinson's essay on the Case for the Byzantine Priority is well-worth reading, both as a case for his methodology and as pointing out problems with other methodologies.






Robinson, The case for Byzantine priority







rosetta.reltech.org

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 5, 2022)

Logan said:


> I would call it a confessional position, and I wish it were more widely recognized than the two "tribes" of CT and TR.


Except that it has not been used for a Bible Translation. Confessional Text advocates point out that the Reformation Bibles (Geneva and KJV) used the Received text. I use the NKJV as I have become sort of a 'fence sitter' between the Byzantine Priority and the Received Text  


Logan said:


> Robinson's essay on the Case for the Byzantine Priority is well-worth reading, both as a case for his methodology and as pointing out problems with other methodologies.


Yes I enjoyed this thanks. I find his comments interesting re the impact of Postmodernism on textual criticism.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 5, 2022)

Taylor said:


> As far as I understand it, the primary difference between the Majority Text and the Byzantine Priority Text is that of methodology. In the end, as far as I am aware, the differences are very, very small.





Eyedoc84 said:


> The differences are indeed very small in resultant text. Maurice Robinson has a developed theory of transmission that undergirds his variant choices, and results in a majority reading usually being the “right one.” The majority text of Hodges and Farstad really is just counting noses, as it were, as far as I’ve understood.


Thanks. I thought that their approaches were quite similar. I had an interesting conversation some years ago with Wilbur Pickering and he kindly sent me a copy of his book 'The identity of the NT text'. I have not really looked at the issue in recent years though.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 15, 2022)

pmachapman said:


> the NKJV is an excellent literal translation (I would argue more literal than the NASB77


Peter, I have thought about your comment for some time. Can you expand on this. I thought the NASB 77 was 'very literal'

I did share a verse some time ago that the NKJV translates more literally than any other modern translation I know. I mentioned the LSB here but I think the NASB77 reads the same as the LSB.


Stephen L Smith said:


> One passage where the NKJV gives a wooden translation is 1 Pet 1:13 " gird up the loins of your mind". It is a wooden translation but it does preserve an important Hebraism.
> 
> The LSB is probably next with "having girded your minds for action".
> 
> ...


I am enjoying the McLaren NKJV I purchased last month; it is a great Bible. For those interested here is a link with helpful details. Amazon is offering a 40% discount on their Leather bound, bound edition. Follow the details on this link:
https://www.thomasnelsonbibles.com/product/NKJV-large-print-bible-maclaren-series/


----------



## pmachapman (Apr 15, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Peter, I have thought about your comment for some time. Can you expand on this. I thought the NASB 77 was 'very literal'


R. Grant Jones has made a methodical comparison of translations using a selection of verses across most English translations, and collated the information in his translation continuum.

One "blocking" translation choice that I find to be interpretive rather than literal in the NASB 77 is 1 Corinthians 7:36, "virgin _daughter_". OK, so daughter is in italics, and so marked as supplied, but to me it is unnecessary, as the passage is intelligible without it. If daughter is omitted, both interpretive choices are available to the expositor, whereas the NASB really only allows one if you are preaching the passage. To me there are few things worse than when teaching or preaching you have to say: "well our pew bibles are wrong here, they should say..."

When preparing a Bible study, I will often refer to my NASB 77, and notice that many readings marked "Lit." in the centre column of my Cambridge '77 will be more or less the reading of the NKJV, such as a little further down at 1 Corinthians 8:1: "knowledge makes arrogant"/"knowledge puffs up"

There are others which I cannot recall it this time, but it would just be hole picking if I were to list them. For that reason, I find R. Grant Jones' Translation Continuum helpful as he clearly defines his method.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 15, 2022)

pmachapman said:


> R. Grant Jones has made a methodical comparison of translations using a selection of verses across most English translations, and collated the information in his translation continuum.


Yes I have looked at a number of his videos with profit. I was surprised on this continuum to see he rates the KJV as more literal than the NASB77. 


pmachapman said:


> When preparing a Bible study, I will often refer to my NASB 77


I thought you replaced this with the LSB  


pmachapman said:


> When preparing a Bible study, I will often refer to my NASB 77, and notice that many readings marked "Lit." in the centre column of my Cambridge '77 will be more or less the reading of the NKJV, such as a little further down at 1 Corinthians 8:1: "knowledge makes arrogant"/"knowledge puffs up"


One of the questions I looked at a few years ago was does the NKJV translate Hebrew and Greek tenses, moods etc as consistently as the NASB. I have not looked at this issue for some time but the LSB preface gives a great example of what I mean:
https://lsbible.org/preface/#HebrewTensesAspectandStem 
and








PREFACE TO THE LEGACY STANDARD BIBLE - Legacy Standard Bible | Your Translation for a Lifetime


Key Principles Modern English Usage Alternative Readings Names of God The Terminology of Slave Units of Measurement and Currency Hebrew Text Hebrew Tenses, Aspect, and Stem Greek Text Greek, Tenses, Moods, and Syntax The Commitments of the Legacy Standard Bible In the history of English Bible...




lsbible.org


----------



## pmachapman (Apr 16, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I thought you replaced this with the LSB


I need to wait for it to arrive in NZ with the OT instead of just my NT...I think Grace Books in Hastings has a shipment of full LSB's on the way!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim (Apr 20, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I am looking for a NKJV with the following:
> 
> Words of Christ in Black (I am having trouble finding one in the NKJV)
> Leather bound but not too expensive
> ...


Around 2018, Holman printed some of the "Large Print" Ultrathin in black letter after years of printing everything in red letter. (I put "large print" in quotes because to me, it is not really "Large Print.") This is actually a classic old Nelson text block. One negative however is that it doesn't have the full set of references. I think it might have all of the marginal notes but I'm not totally sure. (I'm pretty sure it would have all of the textual notes. But the NKJV also has many other notes.) Another negative is that Holman no longer has a license to print the NKJV. So there aren't going to be a lot of choices when buying new as stock starts to dwindle. As far as "not too expensive" I don't know how that would work in NZ. I suspect you may have access to some editions but not others.

https://www.christianbook.com/NKJV-...e-leather/9781535905268/pd/905268?event=ESRCG


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 20, 2022)

Pilgrim said:


> Around 2018, Holman printed some of the "Large Print" Ultrathin in black letter after years of printing everything in red letter. (I put "large print" in quotes because to me, it is not really "Large Print.") This is actually a classic old Nelson text block. One negative however is that it doesn't have the full set of references. I think it might have all of the marginal notes but I'm not totally sure. (I'm pretty sure it would have all of the textual notes. But the NKJV also has many other notes.) Another negative is that Holman no longer has a license to print the NKJV. So there aren't going to be a lot of choices when buying new as stock starts to dwindle. As far as "not too expensive" I don't know how that would work in NZ. I suspect you may have access to some editions but not others.
> 
> https://www.christianbook.com/NKJV-...e-leather/9781535905268/pd/905268?event=ESRCG


See this


Stephen L Smith said:


> I am enjoying the McLaren NKJV I purchased last month; it is a great Bible. For those interested here is a link with helpful details. Amazon is offering a 40% discount on their Leather bound, bound edition. Follow the details on this link:
> 
> 
> https://www.thomasnelsonbibles.com/product/NKJV-large-print-bible-maclaren-series/


----------



## Pilgrim (Apr 20, 2022)

Red letters became so uncomfortable for me to read about 10 years ago that I had to abandon the NKJV since I couldn't find a black letter edition that wasn't a study Bible. So I've mainly read from the NASB95, CSB, and KJV over the past decade. I'm not sure if I'll ever go back to the NKJV, but I'm glad that there are some more black letter editions available now.


----------



## Pilgrim (Apr 20, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> See this


Yes, that's what I get for responding before reading the whole thread. The Holman LPUT came to mind because it is the only double column with center column references and black letter than I could think of. But the quality of even their "goatskin" or whatever the premium option is isn't as good as the Nelson. The paper in particular is inferior although the paper in all of them is better than the average paper of 10 years ago in non-premium editions.

I'm glad you're enjoying the Maclaren. It was previously called the NKJV Preaching Bible. I couldn't get used to the references and marginal notes being all mixed in together at the bottom of the page so I ended up selling it. I prefer the way that the Schuyler Quentel have them. They are both at the bottom, but are separated. But the price of the Maclaren is certainly nice.

I think the Single-column reference is quite well done. Thankfully, it is in black letter.


----------

