# Why or why not use the NKJV as your primary preaching bible?



## refbaptdude (Nov 18, 2006)

Why or why not use the NKJV as your primary preaching bible?

I’m just interested in hearing some different points of view. 

Thanks,
Refbaptdude


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Nov 18, 2006)

I guess a lot would depend on what version congregation is using now. If they are solid with the KJV I'd stay with it. If they're using the NIV or some other CT Bible I'd use it. Just my  . I've been using the KJV all of my life. Too much of it memorized to change now.
I've opened a can of worms here for sure!


----------



## JonathanHunt (Nov 18, 2006)

Hi Steve!!

(ltns)

Tomorrow we are becoming members of a church that uses the NKJV. I have now preached from it several times. As I am (relatively) young perhaps the KJV is not SO imprinted on my mind but I still find myself misreading sometimes especially when it comes to word ordering.

I like the NKJV because it is accessible to those who are used to more modern (and In my humble opinion definately inferior) texts like the NIV. Not going into the underlying textual issues (although I lean towards the TR), I call other versions inferior for two reasons - 1. not literal enough and 2. not majestic! The NKJV retains most of the form and majesty of the KJV, is a good literal translation AND tells you where the textual variants are.

If I was now given a choice I would always choose the NKJV to read and preach from, although for certain things (benedictions etc) I use the KJV text. I have read endless articles from pro KJV folk about how the text is so easy for children to understand - all I can say is that I have tried it for years, with large numbers of children, and it is not easy for them to understand something SO FAR from their everyday speech. It may be easier for children of believers, but for 'outsiders' (I have been involved in child evangelism 14 years now) it isn't.

The other point is, as has been mentioned, that by choosing and using the NKJV you can EASILY resist the moaners who want inferior versions. When you are using the KJV it is hard to battle the moaners. I think the NKJV is a peacekeeping bible


----------



## bob (Nov 18, 2006)

While I do most of my studying and private reading from the KJV, I preach out of the NKJV almost exclusively. The folks in our church use the KJV and NKJV, although there might be an ESV here and there. Considering the background of our people, we recommend the NKJV over the KJV. Tyndale's intent when translating the Bible into German was to produce a Bible that the plow boy can understand. A translation written in Elizabethan English, poetic and majectic though it be, is cumbersome for those not familiar with its prose.

In regard to children and the KJV, my observation mirrors Jonathan's. I began reading the KJV to my children when they were very young, but I found quickly that they grasped the rendering of the NKJV much more readily than the KJV. They now read and memorize from the NKJV and I heartily approve of this. (I do need to follow along though with their memorization as my memorization has been from the KJV!)


----------



## Herald (Nov 18, 2006)

I teach and preach from the NASB. I have been using the NASB since 1979. I am comfortable with its literal style. If I were to change translations I would most certainly use the ESV. That said, our church has the NKJV as the pew bible and my fellow elder and pastor uses the NKJV. During our worship service I read scripture from the NKJV for the sake of consistency. But I am going to hold out and still use the NASB for my preaching and teaching. I find nothing wrong with the NKJV. It is strictly a matter of preference. And as has already been pointed out, most of the scripture I have memorized is from the NASB.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 19, 2006)

Hello Steve,

I give the link to another thread here where I spoke to this question: http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=215766&postcount=40

I have a Nelson KJV / NKJV in parallel columns, so I can see both readings at the same time; perhaps I will use that while preaching, although I am so familiar with my particular KJV (been using it for 38 years -- fell apart once, and had it rebound) that I can find things in a flash. As I said in the post linked to, I got the pew Bibles to be NKJV instead of ESV, and I can "modernize" the KJV as I read.

Part of the problem is that I expect some in the congregation to have English as their second language -- we have Russians, Iranians, Filipinos, Sri Lankans, Arabic-speaking peoples, Greek Cypriots that may well join us, and it is difficult enough for them to grasp simple English.

When I was in Africa teaching, one of my translators said that the NIV was very difficult for him, compared to the TEV, but the latter was not accurate (his Dinka Padang-language NT kept strict fidelity to the KJV readings, I discovered).

My daughter, when she was in her twenties, said, "Dad, you don't have to talk like you're in the 17th century!" I would sometimes tell her she's just suffering from "post-adolescent brain disorder," but there really is a different style of speech in some of the young, and I don't want to hinder their apprehension of God's word.

And as I have said elsewhere, my wife uses the NIV and I am so proud of her godliness and love of God's word; she studies it diligently and in-depth, and I have no complaints about her knowledge of Scripture.

In the church I will leave people to use their pew Bibles or whatever they bring to the services, and will only make an (irenic) issue of a textual variant in the NKJV if it significantly departs from the KJV/TR.

Incidentally, this is a new church plant (I have served an evangelical Arabic congregation for about two years, and we are expanding both the premises and the language-outreach), and it formally starts next Sunday. Erroll Hulse will be the guest preacher; my co-elder is a Reformed Baptist from England. Although the church is Presbyterian, we honor the 3FU and the 1689 as doctrinal standards acceptable for membership. Apart from the Arabic congregation there had been no Reformed witness at all in our city, and it grieved me that only a diluted and distored gospel was held forth here, with many Christians living a substandard life, and God not given due glory.

At any rate, I am happy with the NKJV we will be using (and that's saying a lot given my stand on the the KJV), and I will not be sacrificing my integrity in how I proceed. I sometimes have said to a congregation (preaching in another NKJV church), "You will pardon me for reading from my old King James Version, which I love -- it is amost the same as the NKJV you are reading."

Hope this helps.

Steve


----------



## AV1611 (Nov 19, 2006)

refbaptdude said:


> Why or why not use the NKJV as your primary preaching bible?
> 
> I’m just interested in hearing some different points of view.
> 
> ...



Because it is not reliant solely upon the _textus receptus_. Now donot misunderstand me, I do not oppose a modernised KJV regarding spelling yet the NKJV is a new translation.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 19, 2006)

AV1611 said:


> Because it is not reliant solely upon the _textus receptus_. Now donot misunderstand me, I do not oppose a modernised KJV regarding spelling yet the NKJV is a new translation.



What else is it reliant on? (and please don't let the answer be WH)


----------



## larryjf (Nov 19, 2006)

The NKJV translates the entire NT from the Textus Receptus.
They do translates some passages differently from the KJV, but they still translate from the same underlying text.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 20, 2006)

Well, I can think of one _letter_ where they translate from the Majority Text (which agrees with the CT): in Romans 7:6ab.

The AV translates it, “But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead (apothanontOS) wherein we were held” while the NASB has, “But now we have been released from the Law, having died (apothanontES) to that by which we were bound”, the NKJV reading, “But now we have been delivered from the law, having died (apothanontES) to what we were held by” the difference arising from the use of the plural ajpoqanovnteß in the UBS 4 / MT text and the singular ajpoqanovntoß following the TR 1894. _One letter_ in the Greek, an _Omicron_, being changed to an _Epsilon_, gives rise to this difference in readings. 

In translation the NKJV does follow the MT/CT and not the TR 1894 in this instance -- even though it be but one letter.

As regards the validity of this, I am still researching it for the discussion in the "A Short Analysis of Romans 8:28(a)" thread.

Steve


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 20, 2006)

I use the NKJV because that's the translation used in my New Geneva Study Bible with R.C. Sproul's signature in it.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 20, 2006)

SemperFideles said:


> I use the NKJV because that's the translation used in my New Geneva Study Bible with R.C. Sproul's signature in it.



 

I use it too. I did not think I would like it ( too many hours spent memorizing from the AV) but I have found it 'works' well. Language is clear and I don't mess up and 'quote' the wrong word when I am 'reading' too often.

The real reason I started using it though is The New Geneva Study Bible.


----------



## larryjf (Nov 20, 2006)

Jerusalem Blade,

Very interesting.
Do you know of any other verses where the KJV deviates from the TR?

Also, are there any passages where the KJV deviates from the TR?


----------



## AV1611 (Nov 20, 2006)

LadyFlynt said:


> What else is it reliant on? (and please don't let the answer be WH)



It is also faounded upon the Westcott & Hort text...there is a good book that goes through it which I read a while ago so the details are not as fresh as they once were:

The book is: *Alan J Macgregor, Three Modern Versions: A Critical Assessment of the NIV, ESV and NKJV (Wiltshire: The Bible League, 2004)*


----------



## refbaptdude (Nov 20, 2006)

Hello Jonathan,



> >”I think the NKJV is a peacekeeping bible”


 - This is very true.

When I served in a congregation that had a number of older folk that used the KJV the NKJV was a big help.

The NKJV, NASB and the ESV are all great translations. I originally preached from the NASB, but switched to the NKJV when I got my New Geneva Study Bible. I love using the NASB because of the very literal translation and CT aspect, great for expository preaching. But the NKJV is also a great literal translation and it does note all the variants – you kinda get the best of both worlds 

Though the ESV is great, I have not warmed up to it like I have the NKJV and the NASB. From time to time I find the ESV translating things in an odd way. 


Thanks to everyone for the input. 


Refbaptdude


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 20, 2006)

Actually, Larry,

It was the NKJV that deviated from the TR (1894) in the verse I noted. There are those who say the KJV errs in that instance (Ro 7:6) -- or more specifically the TR 1894 does -- though I am not convinced. I am studying the matter, and will write more on it.

Which "TR" we speak of is important to note, as the 1894 is the one put together by Scrivener to depict the Greek underlying the AV, and which is a composite of the various MSS the AV translators chose from and used. The MT is also called the TR, as are Stephen's 1550 and Beza's 1598. Between all these "TR"s there is only 2% variance. And they can all rightly be called the Textus Receptus. AV adherents specify the TR 1894.

Richard, I do not think it is accurate to say the NKJV "is founded" upon the WH text, for it it relies on the TR 1894, though there are exceptions as I noted above. Also, in its translating it sometimes does poorly, following the NIV or NASB readings instead of staying true to the Greek, but on the whole I think it is head and shoulders above the modern versions.

I realize that some KJVO folks are down on the NKJV big-time; I am not, although I do not like some of its readings. I will note them when they come up in my preaching and teaching.

If one will not go with the KJV then I think the MKJV and the NKJV are better than all the rest.

Steve


----------



## caddy (Nov 20, 2006)

hmmmm




Kevin said:


> I use it too. I did not think I would like it ( too many hours spent memorizing from the AV) but I have found it 'works' well. Language is clear and I don't mess up and 'quote' the wrong word when I am 'reading' too often.
> 
> The real reason I started using it though is The New Geneva Study Bible.


----------



## larryjf (Nov 20, 2006)

Steve,

Yes, sorry - i meant to type NKJV in my first question.

Scrivener's is what the Trinitarian Bible Society uses.

One of the big things that i hear against the TR is that it uses the Latin (especially in Revelation) instead of Greek manuscripts. As one who holds to the Westminster Confession of faith, that the text is preserved in the original languages (not Latin), should this be a stumbling point?

Also, are there places where the KJV deviates from Scrivener's TR?


----------



## AV1611 (Nov 20, 2006)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Richard, I do not think it is accurate to say the NKJV "is founded" upon the WH text, for it it relies on the TR 1894, though there are exceptions as I noted above. Also, in its translating it sometimes does poorly, following the NIV or NASB readings instead of staying true to the Greek, but on the whole I think it is head and shoulders above the modern versions.



Yes I take your point...the NKJV is translated primarily from the Received Text however at times it deviates aligning itself with W&H.


----------

