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?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.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.
Agreed. There are some good black letter editions these days. The Maclaren Bibles are superb.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.I would add that the red letter of a lot of NKJV bibles is a minus for me it has to be said
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.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.
I think early New Geneva Study Bibles, predecessors to Reformation Study Bibles, were NKJV.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 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 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).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 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 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.
Which flaws do you wish it had?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.
Brother, there is only room for one @jw on this board.Which flaws do you wish it had?
You callin' me fat?! I'll have you know . . . it's all true.Brother, there is only room for one @jw on this board.