Why Reject the NKJV?
 

I am interested in hearing reasons why you reject the NKJV. The only valid argument I have heard to date is that some people prefer the plural pronouns of the KJV. This is an archaic convention that is no longer used in modern English and is not a critical factor for me, but I will grant this is a valid objection however weak it may be. I would like to hear some more substantive arguments as to why you specifically reject the NKJV. I think it is an excellent translation that is worthy of your consideration. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

It is not based completely on the preserved texts (the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus). It has over 100,000 changed words, contains critical text notes that cause doubt in the Word of God, contains an occultic symbol on the cover. It is a counterfeit, not an update of the KJV.

You're wrong about it being a weak argument. Thee is english for 2nd person singular. Ye is english for 2nd person plural. The Greek mss. make a distinction in the number of the pronoun. So does the KJV. The NKJV just drops this inspired content of God's word. Note modern spanish speakers make this distinction in the number of the pronoun. Its in the english grammar. That's why the KJV used it. Its called respect for God's word. All of God's word.

BTW: Edward F. Hills was asked to give his endorsement of the NKJV. He would not. He did not approve of the NKJV.

Jerry:

The NKJV is based on the same manuscripts as the KJV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_King_James_Version

The 1611 Version included textual variants in the margin
http://glorygazer.blogspot.com/2008/...-in-light.html

The Cross was a pagan symbol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_cross

NKJV is an update
http://www.bible-researcher.com/nkjv.html

It is not an update of the KJV, when it changes the meaning, not just updates the words.

Also, read the Preface of the NKJV. Thomas Nelson quite clearly states that the used the Septuagint and other manuscripts in this translation - so it does not solely use the same preserved texts.

Response
 

As did the KJV in 1611 (read its preface)

Neither did wee thinke much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrewe, Syrian, Greeke, or Latine, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdaine to revise that which we had done, and to bring backe to the anvill that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helpes as were needfull, and fearing no reproch for slownesse, nor coveting praise for expedition, wee have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the worke to that passe that you see.

http://www.kjvbibles.com/kjpreface.htm

No, they consulted other TR-based translations. The NKJV USED the Septuagint for some of its readings. Big difference.

FYI the "TR" refers to the New Testament not the Old

Maybe I should have said Received Texts. Either way, the NKJV is not based solely on the Received Texts, it also incorporates Critical Text readings.

Response
 

Jerry you are wrong on both points.

As I have previously stated and documented the NKJV is based on the same text as the KJV.

The “received text” is a phrase that refers to the NT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus

The NKJV does not incorporate Critical Text readings.
One of the reasons many modern scholars object to the NKJV is because it does not follow the "Critical Text."

Again I would like to hear of a legitimate reason why you object to the NKJV other than the plural pronoun argument. I have already agreed that this is a legitimate argument, just not very persuasive as far as I am concerned.

Why not argue based on knowledge? Check out the Preface - quote the exact words for us. In it, the publisher clearly states that they used the Septuagint in their OT - so you are arguing against their own words. If you do not have a NKJV handy, then I will try to find mine in the box it is kept in and type up that portion. Don't quote Wickedpedia's made up entry - it is not like they have a clue about Bible versions - their entries are based only on what people have added to it. That certainly doesn't tell us what is in the Preface to the NKJV - which I would take over any Wickedpedia entry telling me otherwise.

If you want to read the NKJV, go to it - but don't try to tell us it is an updated KJV or based completely on the same texts when it is not. THAT is why we reject it. If it is not based on the same texts or contains differences in meaning, has passages added or subtracted, we don't want it.

Jerry:
I am not disputing that the NKJV considered the Septuagint as did the KJV as did the some of the Apostles in their quotations found in the New Testament. I just disagree with you that the NKJV uses a different text tradition than the KJV. You will not find any legitimate scholars who would agree with you on that position.

My goal is not to convince you to use the NKJV, but rather to find out your reasons for objecting to using it. Thus far it is my opinion that you have stated illegitimate arguments for rejecting its use.

The NKJV is just a marketing ploy to sell new versions to people who don't have any interest in new versions.



There are plenty of examples where the NKJV sides with critical text versions against the received Bible (KJV). Here are a few examples:

Job 17:1 (KJV) My breath is corrupt,
Job 17:1 (NKJV) "My spirit is broken,
Job 17:1 (NIV) My spirit is broken,

2Co 2:17 (KJV) For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God:
2Co 2:17 (NKJV) For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God;
2Co 2:17 (NIV) Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit.

1Th 5:22 (KJV) Abstain from all appearance of evil.
1Th 5:22 (NKJV) Abstain from every form of evil.
1Th 5:22 (NIV) Avoid every kind of evil.

2Ti 2:15 (KJV) Study to shew thyself approved unto God,
2Ti 2:15 (NKJV) Be diligent to present yourself approved to God,
2Ti 2:15 (NASB) Be diligent to present yourself approved to God

And if the NKJV is supposed to be easier to understand, what does it side against the KJV with modern versions introducing a less-used word like this?

Ezr 8:36 (KJV) And they delivered the king's commissions unto the king's lieutenants,
Ezr 8:36 (NKJV) And they delivered the king's orders to the king's satraps
Ezr 8:36 (NIV) They also delivered the king's orders to the royal satraps

Just to directly answer your questions:

I reject the NKJV because:

• It is falsely marketed as a minimal language update to the KJV,
• It introduces readings that are against the KJV and that agree with other modern versions I have already rejected,
• It drops the distinction between singular and plural pronouns; distinctions God inspired in his word and therefor must be retained in the Bible.
• I don't need an update to my KJV anyway.

Why reject the NKJV
 

Why reject the NKJV?? Why not, it seems your esteemed modern scholars already have...this is obvious as we now have the 21st Century King James version. What does that make the New King James Version now?..archaic?

What was the problem with the NKJV that had to be corrected by the 21st Century version??

I cant wait for the "Rap Talk Version", or the "Hillbilly Version"...dont laugh, over here we already have "the Aussie Bible" ...an NT version that replaces scripture with Australian slang and language idioms.

2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

.

Response
 

In all five of your examples you mentioned there are no variant readings. There is no difference in the Greek Text for the NT and no difference in the reading of the Hebrew text. For example, in the case of Job 17:1 the Hebrew word “ruwach” can mean “breath” or “spirit.” Usage determines meaning. The context is Job praying for relief. His spirit is broken. There is no textual variant here. “My spirit broken” clearly better conveys the meaning of “ruwach chabal” better than “My breath is corrupt.” The other examples you cited are the same. There is no textual variant or alternate reading in these verses.

The English readings are similar because they are modern renditions of the same texts. The KJV is more archaic in its rendering. This is not due to textual variants.

As to Ezra 8:36 “lieutenants” is not a good translation for the Persian word “achashdarpan.” This is a specific title for a Persian governor. It is a term for an ancient office holder much like Pharaoh. A satrap is an ancient Persian official that functions like a governor. Lieutenant does not convey that meaning at all thus I like the NKJV rendering. There are occasions where using a less familiar word makes more sense.

A subsidiary (Nelson Bibles) of Thomas Nelson is now publishing the NKJV. They have removed the triquetra that once was on the Bible.

At least they listened to the christian feedback that took exception to it.

Grace http://www.praize.com/members/Commun...0228115157.gif

Actually, there is no proof that the apostles quoted from the Septuagint - and historically, there is proof that the Septuagint only contained the Pentateuch before the time of Christ.

It is not that they "considered" the Septuagint - it is that they used it for some of their OT passages. It is a corrupt manuscript and part of the Critical Text.

Using corrupt manuscripts for its text is a pretty legitimate reason to reject it - with my other reasons already given, I choose to stay far away from it.

[QUOTE=againstheresies;315]In all five of your examples you mentioned there are no variant readings. There is no difference in the Greek Text for the NT and no difference in the reading of the Hebrew text. For example, in the case of Job 17:1 the Hebrew word “ruwach” can mean “breath” or “spirit.” Usage determines meaning. The context is Job praying for relief. His spirit is broken. There is no textual variant here. “My spirit broken” clearly better conveys the meaning of “ruwach chabal” better than “My breath is corrupt.” The other examples you cited are the same. There is no textual variant or alternate reading in these verses.

First of all, I'm a simple person and I talk in simple terms. Quite frankly, I think we can get too choked down on "textual this and that" worrying about what the context of the original word was. My belief in the superiority of the KJV does not come from textual analysis (as interesting as it is), but from experience. We can't truly explain the depth of salvation to someone who has never experienced it. They are going to have to experience it for themselves. God's word is the same way, we can't just read the Bible, we must experience it. I choose to stay with the KJV because God has fittly framed it together, each specific word in it's place for a reason. Unless you have truly experienced this for yourself, this answer will seem less than satisfactory. Please read my posting on Hebrews 10:25 in the Bible Studies forum which basically points out God's hand in using specific words.

Am I saying that God cannot reveal spiritual things to you through scripture in modern versions? No. . . Can you eat a bologna sandwich? Of course. . . but why would you want to when there's steak on the table?:)

So what? As I said, the NKJV agrees with modern versions against the KJV on these readings. The English has a different meaning.

Thank you for admitting that you believe the NKJV actually corrects the KJV. That clears up a lot, but it also makes your earlier points about language updates of no effect.

Another reason the NKJV should be rejected is that the authors of it show they do not hold to the underlying received text, because they include over 100 marginal notes that cast doubt on them by including critical text readings. Critical text readings are utterly irrelevant to devotional Bible study and have no business "footnoting" God's word.

Response to Jerry
 

The NKJV is from the same text tradition as the KJV as I have previously cited. It is not a valid argument to say that the NKJV is based on a different text tradition than the KJV. Read the Preface of the KJV they used other translations as well.

“Neither did wee thinke much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrewe, Syrian, Greeke, or Latine, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdaine to revise that which we had done, and to bring backe to the anvill that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helpes as were needfull, and fearing no reproch for slownesse, nor coveting praise for expedition, wee have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the worke to that passe that you see.”

The intent of the NKJV committee was to use the same text tradition as the KJV. You may choose to ignore the facts and remain uninformed if you wish. I would just ask you to examine your motives for doing so. I hope you are being honest with yourself.

Response
 

Words:

Yes words do change their meaning in time and should be updated. The KJV has been updated numbers of times. Below is a link to the most recent changes.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html


Variant Readings:

The 1611 KJV included marginal notes with variant readings. Please see the link below it is a scanned copy of the 1611 online. It may be worth your review. This link is to the first chapter in Genesis. Notice the marginal notes including variant readings. Perhaps the NKJV is more in keeping with the original KJV. What do you think?

http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti...agePosition=77

other than the plural pronoun argument. I have already agreed that this is a legitimate argument, just not very persuasive as far as I am concerned.

The number of the pronoun is inspired content which you lose in your translation. KJV/AV gives it to us because it was in the sources they translated for us. Its wrong to leave out what God put in.

The only "updates" our King James has undergone since its printing in 1611 are the standardization of spelling and the correction of spelling errors.

Awesome. Simple, to the point, irrefutable. Way to go brother Brandon.

I think you haven't done your research. The marginal readings of the KJV were not critical text variants. You're comparing apples and oranges.

I get a kick out of it when people show me pictures of 1611 edition printings. I have a folio leaf from an original, first-edition-first-run 1611 hanging on my wall behind me.

Againstheresies,

The front of my King James Bible states this:

"Translated out of the original tongues (languages) and with previous translations diligently compared and revised."

There is a big difference between studying other sound TR-based translations and previous sound English translations, and using the results of those works to revise/make better their English translation, and incorporating corrupt textual readings from a corrupt manuscript into their translation. These are not the same things at all - and you are dishonest to imply or teach that they are.

I said they are “variant readings.” If they are not variant or alternate readings what are they?

One more comment on this, since your charge warrants it:


The translators' governing rules explained when a marginal note could be written:

6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.

The NKJV translators were not working under the same kind of guideline, otherwise their marginal notes would not routinely cast doubt on the veracity of the Scripture text.

The only marginal readings in the original AV that I am aware of that resemble anything like what the NKJV translators wrote appeared in the apocrypha -- the books they kept out of the Old Testament and plainly did not regard as inspired Scripture. One example is 1Esdras 5:5 where the translators wrote "this place is corrupt." I suppose the NKJV translators decided to apply the same attitude to the New and Old Testaments that the KJV translators had for the apocrypha!

As the KJV governing rules said, they were explanatory in nature. Honestly though, I don't regard them as all that important.

The real issue here is that you are comparing two very different types of footnotes and saying they are the same. The NKJV introduces doubt in its footnotes whereas the KJV only uses footnotes to give further explanation of a word or phrase.

Section 5 of this article explains more:
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/whatabout-nkjv.html

Response
 

That is correct. In the 17th Century the common practice was to include explanatory commentary that was from a particular theological perspective. They avoided that practice and only included variant and alternate readings with cross reference notations.
The NKJV committee was consistent with that practice. There just happens to be more known variants.

You're missing the point.

Look at the footnote text in your NKJV for 1Jo 5:7. Then find for me any comparable statement from the KJV translators anywhere in the Testaments.

I agree. The footnotes are much better in the NKJV. Do you think it is better to ignore that there is a major problem with this passage? Erasmus had doubts about the Comma Johanneum. You may think that this reading is correct, but no serious apologist will use this passage to defend the trinity precisely because it is in doubt. The NKJV footnote merely documents that there is a problem with this passage.

In John MacArthur’s Study Bible he notes:

5:7,8 in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit… three that bear witness on earth. These words are a direct reference to the Trinity and what they say is accurate. External manuscript evidence, however, is against them being in the original epistle. They do not appear in any Greek Manuscripts dated before ca. tenth century A.D. Only 8 very late Gr. mss. contain the reading, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Furthermore, 4 of those 8 mss. contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript. No Greek or Latin Father, even those involved in Trinitarian controversies, quote them; no ancient version except the Latin records them (not the Old Latin in its early form or the Vulgate). Internal evidence also militates against their presence, since they disrupt the sense of the writer’s thoughts. Most likely, the words were added much later to the text. There is no verse in Scripture which so explicitly states the obvious reality of the Trinity, although many passages imply it strongly. See 2 Cor. 13:14.

I don't care what MacArthur says, and don't be so willing to accept the mythology behind the Comma's inclusion in the TR. Study the issue more carefully. The Comma has plenty of support (read Crowned With Glory, Which Version is the Bible, etc) -- but I fear no amount of evidence will sway you at this point. You have ceded ground to the Devil by being unwilling to cite God's word on the subject just because some commentator has told you it's not a reliable reading. Imagine if Christ had that same attitude towards Scripture when he rebuked Satan! [You've inspired me to get back on to an essay I've been working on about this very topic of believers letting Satan dull their swords. Gotta get back to that later today...]

But you have summed this up very well for us. You don't regard the KJV as God's word without error, therefor you are happy to have someone change it for you and write in comments that make you even more happy about not knowing what is and isn't Scripture.

You wanted to know why we reject the NKJV, and you have ample reasoning in front of you. If we wanted a Bible that didn't have (or casts doubt) on verses like 1Jo 5:7, we'd pick one. The NKJV isn't a KJV in any sense.

:rolleyes: No serious apologist? I am one - there are many others, such as Brandon here, Will Kinney, David Cloud, D.A. Waite, and many others. Just because those preferring the Critical Text don't defend it doesn't mean those who love their Bibles don't.

Direct hit!

Response
 

Actually there were many errors in the first editions of the King James. Most all of them have been corrected through time. One obvious error, not made by other early English translations can be found in Matthew 23:24. The Greek text is “strain out” not “strain at.” Unfortunately both the modern Oxford and Cambridge editions (which have different readings) of the KJV still retain the same error.

Wesley’s New Testament 1755--Ye blind guides, who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel.

King James 1611--Ye blind guides, which straine at a gnat, and swallow a camel

The Geneva Bible 1587--Ye blinde guides, which straine out a gnat, and swallowe a camell.

The Bishops Bible 1568--Ye blynde guides, which strayne out a gnat, and swalowe a Camel.

Miles Coverdale 1535--O ye blynde gydes, which strayne out a gnat, but swalowe vp a Camell.

Tyndale New Testament 1526--Ye blinde gydes which strayne out a gnat and swalowe a cammyll.

Wycliffe Bible 1395--Blynde lederis, clensinge a gnatte, but swolewynge a camel

Are you unaware of the irony here?

Absolutely! It appears that you guys spend an inordinate amount of time nit picking every translation when the one you prefer has had errors in it and continues to have errors in it and has also had problems. The textual variants in question comprise less than 5% of the Bible. Perhaps the church would be better served if you devoted yourselves to the apostles doctrine and prayer.