NKJV??

Status
Not open for further replies.
austinww said:
Rev. Wallace,

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

Austin

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

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

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

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

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

The NKJV then, in my opinion, has a very small niche left over to market to. :2cents:
 
Pilgrim said:
Ask Mr. Religion said:
Pilgrim said:
Someone had linked to Michael Marlowe's site. The NKJV review there is a revision of his original article. His original one was rather negative because he favors the critical text. But obviously he's reevaluated and recognizes the merits of the NKJV now, textual issues aside. The ESV article is actually a little more negative now than it was initially.
Click to expand...
After quite a tear through the ESV, he recommended the NASB or the NKJV as the "most useful for detailed and careful study". See conclusions at bottom of page here, which was dated about two years before he even updated the NKJV review. ;)

AMR
Click to expand...

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

I e-mailed Mr. Marlowe because his recommendation page here: Recommended Theological Books and Booksellers stated the NKJV was the best all-round, but the ESV page did not reflect that recommendation. He did say that he changed his mind and would update his website.
 
Backwoods Presbyterian said:
http://churchrelevance.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/wide-margin-NKJV-bible-cambridge-press-10.jpg
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

---------- Post added at 10:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 PM ----------
JP Wallace said:
austinww said:
Rev. Wallace,

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

Austin

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

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

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

Paul,

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

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

Comma? Elaborate, please.
 
J. Dean said:
Comma? Elaborate, please.
Click to expand...

Johannine Comma. 1 John 5:7

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

ESV: "For there are three that testify:"

The Trinity reference in this verse is referred to as the Johannine Comma. The Textus Receptus based Bibles have it, the Critical Text Bibles do not.
 
Bethel said:
I e-mailed Mr. Marlowe because his recommendation page here: Recommended Theological Books and Booksellers stated the NKJV was the best all-round, but the ESV page did not reflect that recommendation. He did say that he changed his mind and would update his website.
Click to expand...
"Changed his mind" in which direction?

AMR
 
John Lanier said:
J. Dean said:
Comma? Elaborate, please.
Click to expand...

Johannine Comma. 1 John 5:7

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

ESV: "For there are three that testify:"

The Trinity reference in this verse is referred to as the Johannine Comma. The Textus Receptus based Bibles have it, the Critical Text Bibles do not.
Click to expand...
Ah, yes. I know what you're talking about now.

But even if the Critical Text is correct, that does not negate the doctrine of the Trinity as set forth in other passages.
 
J. Dean said:
But even if the Critical Text is correct, that does not negate the doctrine of the Trinity as set forth in other passages.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

Kind regards
Click to expand...

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

But even so, aren't we warned to not set up doctrine solely upon one verse?
 
J. Dean said:
But even so, aren't we warned to not set up doctrine solely upon one verse?
Click to expand...

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

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

AMR
Click to expand...

Sorry that my comment wasn't very clear. He now (or still) recommends the NKJV (as reflected on his summary page). I believe that his original recommendation was for the NKJV; however, the ESV page indicated a change in his recommendation. When I asked which one (NKJV or ESV) was his top recommendation (because the pages contradicted each other), he told me that the summary page was correct which recommended the NKJV. He has since revised the conclusion paragraph on the ESV webpage.
 
There are two high quality single column NKJVs beginning production (hopefully for release later this year): a Schuyler edition from Evangelicalbible.com and a Clarion edition fron Cambridge.
 
reformed28 said:
I was wondering why the NKJV doesn't seem to get as much discussion as other translations?
Click to expand...

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

I have My Utmost devotional bible includes works by Oswald Chambers in NKJV and it was the worst read to me. It just dosen't flow for me.
 
I have a Clarion KJV (which I love!). I didn't hear there'd be a NKJV - do you have any more info on it?
 
E Nomine said:
There are two high quality single column NKJVs beginning production (hopefully for release later this year): a Schuyler edition from Evangelicalbible.com and a Clarion edition fron Cambridge.
Click to expand...

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

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

Here's a sample of the forthcoming Schuyler edition: http://evangelicalbible.com/documents/65-Jude-NKJV-Text.pdf
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
The NKJV
2
Replies
34
Views
11K
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
blhowes
  • Locked
KJV ---> NKJV
2
Replies
35
Views
8K
Jerusalem Blade
Jerusalem Blade
Blood-Bought Pilgrim
NKJV Staying Power
2
Replies
40
Views
6K
Brian R.
Brian R.
Josh Williamson
  • Locked
KJV vs. NKJV
6 7 8
Replies
234
Views
52K
One Little Nail
One Little Nail
larryjf
  • Locked
NKJV/KJV Issues
2
Replies
54
Views
15K
MW
M
Back
Top