The NKJV

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pilgrim

Puritanboard Commissioner
I have to confess that I've spent way too much time over the past 15+ years trying to figure out which Bible to use instead of just reading one.

You and me both.

If I had a copy that made for comfortable reading, I probably never would have stopped reading the NKJV, which had been my go to version for several years. A few years ago reading red letters became very uncomfortable. (The same goes for most bright colors, such as books that have been annotated with brightly colored ink or highlighting.) Almost all NKJV editions that aren't Study Bibles are red letter. I need larger print now as well, although some large print editions are actually too large for me to read comfortably.

One big thing the KJV has going for it is the vast array of editions with so many different font sizes and typefaces, especially if you don't mind a vintage two column verse by verse (as opposed to a paragraphed) format.

I actually had two Schuyler NKJV Bibles. One was a single column with a modern typeface. My current one is the Quentel two column and it is VERY easy to read. Somewhere I seem to remember a reviewer saying that it had the largest type in a Bible not actually called a "large print" Bible. It is black letter and has no annoying other colors in it.

I had a copy of that first Schuyler NKJV, which is an enlarged version of Nelson's NKJV Single-Column. It is exquisite, to be sure, although I remember wishing that the paper were more opaque. I got rid of it for two reasons. The first was because I decided that I needed a reference edition. (That's less of an issue for me now.) The second reason was my disappointment that this text block lacks many of the NKJV marginal notes. I think it has most if not all of the textual notes in the NT, although I seem to recall noticing at least one that was missing. But it is missing a good many explanatory notes, etc. Some think that typeface is perhaps a little too "modern." (All of those are objections to the Nelson text block, which Schuyler is probably unable to modify.)

I would like to have a look at the Quentel. If it has enough spacing between the lines, and doesn't have a cramped feel like so many paragraphed text blocks do (at least to me) it might be a winner. But I hate to have to spend that kind of money just to get a Bible that I can read. (I'm in an awkward extended phase where my eyes don't focus like they used to 5-6 years ago but also I don't need bifocals yet.) Of late I've been alternating between some KJV Bibles and my NASB Single-Column Reference. If only the SCR were available in other translations!
 

DMcFadden

Puritanboard Commissioner
I have to confess that I've spent way too much time over the past 15+ years trying to figure out which Bible to use instead of just reading one.

You and me both.

If I had a copy that made for comfortable reading, I probably never would have stopped reading the NKJV, which had been my go to version for several years. A few years ago reading red letters became very uncomfortable. (The same goes for most bright colors, such as books that have been annotated with brightly colored ink or highlighting.) Almost all NKJV editions that aren't Study Bibles are red letter. I need larger print now as well, although some large print editions are actually too large for me to read comfortably.

One big thing the KJV has going for it is the vast array of editions with so many different font sizes and typefaces, especially if you don't mind a vintage two column verse by verse (as opposed to a paragraphed) format.

I actually had two Schuyler NKJV Bibles. One was a single column with a modern typeface. My current one is the Quentel two column and it is VERY easy to read. Somewhere I seem to remember a reviewer saying that it had the largest type in a Bible not actually called a "large print" Bible. It is black letter and has no annoying other colors in it.

I had a copy of that first Schuyler NKJV, which is an enlarged version of Nelson's NKJV Single-Column. It is exquisite, to be sure, although I remember wishing that the paper were more opaque. I got rid of it for two reasons. The first was because I decided that I needed a reference edition. (That's less of an issue for me now.) The second reason was my disappointment that this text block lacks many of the NKJV marginal notes. I think it has most if not all of the textual notes in the NT, although I seem to recall noticing at least one that was missing. But it is missing a good many explanatory notes, etc. Some think that typeface is perhaps a little too "modern." (All of those are objections to the Nelson text block, which Schuyler is probably unable to modify.)

I would like to have a look at the Quentel. If it has enough spacing between the lines, and doesn't have a cramped feel like so many paragraphed text blocks do (at least to me) it might be a winner. But I hate to have to spend that kind of money just to get a Bible that I can read. (I'm in an awkward extended phase where my eyes don't focus like they used to 5-6 years ago but also I don't need bifocals yet.) Of late I've been alternating between some KJV Bibles and my NASB Single-Column Reference. If only the SCR were available in other translations!

Check out the Quentel. It is exquisite! And, having a difficult time being able to read other Bibles is a perfectly good reason to get one that you are able to focus on easily. It reminds me of the person who balked at spending her savings for much needed long term care. "I didn't scrimp and save for a rainy day all my life in order to blow it all on long term care." "Dear," I replied, "haven't you looked out lately? It is pouring!" http://evangelicalbible.com/product-category/schuyler-bibles/schuyler-quentel-NKJV-2/
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
After doing a good bit of searching, it would seem that the only portion of the NKJV questioned for possible Dispensationalist bias is 2 Thess. 2:7. Some people give it flack for its rendering of Rom. 11:26, but in that case they would have to give the KJV flack, as well.

Perhaps I may switch to this translation. It is a pleasure to read, seems to be quite literalistic, and contains a wealth of textual information.
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
The only other thing so far about the NKJV that I find frustrating is their dealing with the Hebrew term זֶרַע ("seed") in the Abraham narrative. It most (maybe all) cases, the term is singular, which I think is significant (see Gal. 3:16). Maybe this is Dispensational bias on the part of the revisers. This perhaps comes out most strongly in Gen. 22:17-18 in the NKJV: "...your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies. In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed." Both occurrences are singular.

Any thoughts on this from anyone?
 

Pilgrim

Puritanboard Commissioner
I have to confess that I've spent way too much time over the past 15+ years trying to figure out which Bible to use instead of just reading one.

You and me both.

If I had a copy that made for comfortable reading, I probably never would have stopped reading the NKJV, which had been my go to version for several years. A few years ago reading red letters became very uncomfortable. (The same goes for most bright colors, such as books that have been annotated with brightly colored ink or highlighting.) Almost all NKJV editions that aren't Study Bibles are red letter. I need larger print now as well, although some large print editions are actually too large for me to read comfortably.

One big thing the KJV has going for it is the vast array of editions with so many different font sizes and typefaces, especially if you don't mind a vintage two column verse by verse (as opposed to a paragraphed) format.

I actually had two Schuyler NKJV Bibles. One was a single column with a modern typeface. My current one is the Quentel two column and it is VERY easy to read. Somewhere I seem to remember a reviewer saying that it had the largest type in a Bible not actually called a "large print" Bible. It is black letter and has no annoying other colors in it.

I had a copy of that first Schuyler NKJV, which is an enlarged version of Nelson's NKJV Single-Column. It is exquisite, to be sure, although I remember wishing that the paper were more opaque. I got rid of it for two reasons. The first was because I decided that I needed a reference edition. (That's less of an issue for me now.) The second reason was my disappointment that this text block lacks many of the NKJV marginal notes. I think it has most if not all of the textual notes in the NT, although I seem to recall noticing at least one that was missing. But it is missing a good many explanatory notes, etc. Some think that typeface is perhaps a little too "modern." (All of those are objections to the Nelson text block, which Schuyler is probably unable to modify.)

I would like to have a look at the Quentel. If it has enough spacing between the lines, and doesn't have a cramped feel like so many paragraphed text blocks do (at least to me) it might be a winner. But I hate to have to spend that kind of money just to get a Bible that I can read. (I'm in an awkward extended phase where my eyes don't focus like they used to 5-6 years ago but also I don't need bifocals yet.) Of late I've been alternating between some KJV Bibles and my NASB Single-Column Reference. If only the SCR were available in other translations!

Check out the Quentel. It is exquisite! And, having a difficult time being able to read other Bibles is a perfectly good reason to get one that you are able to focus on easily. It reminds me of the person who balked at spending her savings for much needed long term care. "I didn't scrimp and save for a rainy day all my life in order to blow it all on long term care." "Dear," I replied, "haven't you looked out lately? It is pouring!" http://evangelicalbible.com/product-category/schuyler-bibles/schuyler-quentel-NKJV-2/

I hear you. I'll have to read from the NKJV for a while to see if I actually want to return to it. It has been about 5 years since I've read from it regularly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top