How is the NKJV?

Leevo

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2015
773
284
28
Tennessee
✟28,954.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I am considering switching to the NKJV as my primary translation. Is it a solid translation? I have read that it is and that it isn't. I have mostly heard negative things either because it is based on the TR or because it changes things from the KJV. I would note though that for quite awhile I was against the KJV and TR because of modern scholarship but have had a slight change of heart recently. I still have my reservations about it and was just curious as to whether or not it would be beneficial or detrimental to use the NKJV?
 

rockytopva

Love to pray! :)
Supporter
Mar 6, 2011
20,039
7,665
.
Visit site
✟1,056,468.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
I like reading the KJV and have become use to it. I find though that one needs the Strongs Exhaustive Concordance to go along with the translation. It is now good to see that you can use online resources to use the Strongs Concordance with any translation.

Genesis Chapter 1 (KJV)
 
Upvote 0

Kiterius

CF's Favorite Member
Dec 24, 2016
1,268
826
Earth
✟32,893.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I am considering switching to the NKJV as my primary translation. Is it a solid translation? I have read that it is and that it isn't. I have mostly heard negative things either because it is based on the TR or because it changes things from the KJV. I would note though that for quite awhile I was against the KJV and TR because of modern scholarship but have had a slight change of heart recently. I still have my reservations about it and was just curious as to whether or not it would be beneficial or detrimental to use the NKJV?

The KJV and NKJV are okay for personal reading, but not for serious study.
 
Upvote 0

Ken Rank

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 12, 2014
7,218
5,560
Winchester, KENtucky
✟308,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I am considering switching to the NKJV as my primary translation. Is it a solid translation? I have read that it is and that it isn't. I have mostly heard negative things either because it is based on the TR or because it changes things from the KJV. I would note though that for quite awhile I was against the KJV and TR because of modern scholarship but have had a slight change of heart recently. I still have my reservations about it and was just curious as to whether or not it would be beneficial or detrimental to use the NKJV?
It is a solid translation. We use it to 'read' in our congregation but when we study we bring everything out.
 
Upvote 0

Kiterius

CF's Favorite Member
Dec 24, 2016
1,268
826
Earth
✟32,893.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Why not for serious study? Is it due to the TR and conflicts with modern manuscripts?

Because of their stemming from the TR. They won't let us use the KJV and NKJV in academic work at my seminary.

Frowned upon (though allowed in some cases) are translations/versions such as the MSG, GNB, and (my favorite) VOICE.

What do they encourage we use? The NRSV, ESV, and (to a lesser extent) NIV.
 
Upvote 0

JESUS=G.O.A.T

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2016
2,681
659
26
Houston
✟60,941.00
Country
United States
Faith
Apostolic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I am considering switching to the NKJV as my primary translation. Is it a solid translation? I have read that it is and that it isn't. I have mostly heard negative things either because it is based on the TR or because it changes things from the KJV. I would note though that for quite awhile I was against the KJV and TR because of modern scholarship but have had a slight change of heart recently. I still have my reservations about it and was just curious as to whether or not it would be beneficial or detrimental to use the NKJV?


NKJV is KJV but just words like thou or whatever are replaced.


It's good for study but for preaching/ministering/quoting scriptures the KJV typically is better.
 
Upvote 0

dysert

Member
Feb 29, 2012
6,233
2,238
USA
✟112,984.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I made the NKJV my primary Bible many years ago when I met with a couple of its editors in Nashville. It's a new translation, and although it makes use of the TR, it also uses mss from more modern scholarship as well. Plus, it uses modern English while still keeping the sound of the majesty of the KJV. It's a very solid Bible, but as with anything, if you're studying you'll want a few others to access as well.
 
Upvote 0

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
NKJV is KJV but just words like thou or whatever are replaced.
Pretty much. The drawback to it is that by updating certain words but leaving the basic structure of everything in tact, the NKJV essentially uses a mode of English which technically nobody has ever spoken or will ever speak.

It's totally readable and a worthwhile translation; it's just a bit of a linguistic oddity. Still, I place it a lot higher than I do the NASB as far as readability goes.
 
Upvote 0

Paul Yohannan

Well-Known Member
Mar 24, 2016
3,886
1,587
43
Old Route 66
✟34,744.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
am considering switching to the NKJV as my primary translation. Is it a solid translation?

I have an Orthodox Study Bible that uses the NkJV for the NT, and I have to say, it's a bit bland.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Shane R

Priest
Supporter
Jan 18, 2012
2,276
1,097
Southeast Ohio
✟536,041.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
The NKJV is not translated from Textus Receptus (nor, technically, was the KJV - it was translated from Beza's Greek text, with reference to Scrivener's Latin, and a preference for the TR when departing from Beza and sometimes from the earlier text of Erasmus of Rotterdam), the NKJV is translated from an eclectic range of Greek texts with a notable preference for the Majority Text through the influence of Arthur Farstad, the head of the project. It was originally intended to be a simple syntactical revision of the KJV but it was discovered that this would not allow Thomas Nelson, the publisher, to take out a copyright. So, they commissioned some fresh translation.

The NKJV is not taken seriously by critical scholars because it has retained the traditional readings of the KJV in disputed passages such as the ending of Mark and the Johannine comma. It was largely marketed as a modern language replacement for public reading in churches that were accustomed to the KJV. One of the notable features of the work is that a parishioner in the pew of a normal level of literacy can follow the verbal reading in either version without much trouble.

Unlike the school @Kiterius attends, my seminary encourages work to be done from the KJV, NKJV, RSV, or ESV. So there are academic settings where it is used. It is primarily a text for use in public worship though. I think it's okay, but I prefer the RSV(preferably Catholic Edition) and ESV. Still, we bought NKJV for the church to use in Bible classes.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Paul Yohannan
Upvote 0

Kiterius

CF's Favorite Member
Dec 24, 2016
1,268
826
Earth
✟32,893.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The NKJV is not translated from Textus Receptus (nor, technically, was the KJV - it was translated from Beza's Greek text, with reference to Scrivener's Latin, and a preference for the TR when departing from Beza and sometimes from the earlier text of Erasmus of Rotterdam), the NKJV is translated from an eclectic range of Greek texts with a notable preference for the Majority Text through the influence of Arthur Farstad, the head of the project. It was originally intended to be a simple syntactical revision of the KJV but it was discovered that this would not allow Thomas Nelson, the publisher, to take out a copyright. So, they commissioned some fresh translation.

The NKJV is not taken seriously by critical scholars because it has retained the traditional readings of the KJV in disputed passages such as the ending of Mark and the Johannine comma. It was largely marketed as a modern language replacement for public reading in churches that were accustomed to the KJV. One of the notable features of the work is that a parishioner in the pew of a normal level of literacy can follow the verbal reading in either version without much trouble.

Unlike the school @Kiterius attends, my seminary encourages work to be done from the KJV, NKJV, RSV, or ESV. So there are academic settings where it is used. It is primarily a text for use in public worship though. I think it's okay, but I prefer the RSV(preferably Catholic Edition) and ESV. Still, we bought NKJV for the church to use in Bible classes.

Interesting. Who is your seminary accredited by?
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi leevo,

I like the NKJV, but then, I'm a person who likes many translations of the Scriptures. I've always believed, since being born again, that God gave unto mankind His words so that we may know Him and know the way of His salvation. I find that there are many good, reliable translations that make that intention possible. I can read the NIV, NASB, KJ, NKJ and many other english translations of the Scriptures and I have not found them to be short in explaining these things for which, I believe, that God gave unto mankind His words.

God has promised that He will be found by those who diligently seek Him, and I don't believe He ever limited that to just some particular human translation of the His words in which one might seek Him.

However, let me add the caveat that there are some translations of the Scriptures that I do believe take too much liberty in paraphrasing what the translator believes to be what God has written to us. I don't particularly care for the Message or the Good News translations, although, I do believe that God's purpose can be fulfilled with them also. They do explain the core foundation of 'who' God is and what He is asking of us, but, for me, they play a bit loose with some things.

God bless you, and remember, the best translation of the Scriptures for you is the one that clearly marks the way of God's salvation to you. You will, of course, always catch a lot of flack from people no matter what translation you use. But, knowing God and His ways isn't at all about making other people happy or bowing to their understandings. It is strictly and always between you and your Creator.

In Christ, ted
 
Upvote 0

benelchi

INACTIVE
Aug 3, 2011
693
140
✟17,798.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Frowned upon (though allowed in some cases) are translations/versions such as the MSG, GNB, and (my favorite) VOICE.

I would recommend any of these, they are all poor translations. The MSG and the VOICE are horrendously inaccurate in places, and I really do understand why they are "Frowned upon."
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums