New KJV

Most of what I have read on the NKJV agrees with a portion of the quote "The NKJV is not a literal updating of the AV, or KJV of 1611" .
Dr. David H. Sorenson states on pg 240 of his book, "Touch Not the Unclean Thing: The Bible Translation Controversy and the Principle of Separation"
"The New King James Version (NKJV)is significantly different from most modern language versions of the Bible. To it credit, the New Testament portion thereof is translated from the Textus Receptus. Moreover, its translators rejected the system of dynamic equivalence in translation."

It's still a viable, usable translation.

 

I don't think anybody claimed that it is a "literal update" of the KJV1611. Its claim is that it uses the Textus Receptus as the basis for the NT as did the KJV. However, this might be stretching the truth somewhat since the KJV was not just the TR, it pulled forward verses directly from the Geneva and Bishop's Bible as well as comparison from the Vulgate. Otherwise, it did use the TR for the NT.

I still predict that the NKJV will be accepted as the NEW KJV as soon as one generation passes.

Just watch.

That is what happened every time a revision was made to the KJV, rejected by the status quo, accepted by the next generation.

 

The NKJV has been around for a few decades now. The fact that the NKJV did not exclusively use the TR is no new news. I'm curious as to when Dr.Cummons's essay was written. Not that it makes a difference on the subject matter, I'm just curious.

What I'm more curious about is whether anyone has critiqued the MKJV, which, unlike the NKJV, is a literal updating of the KJV.

 

I'm not sure, John. David Cloud seemed to contradict himself over it. I haven't read Dr. Cummon's essay. Is it online? If so, is there a link?

 

Yes, askjo, but it's also on David Clouds website and in his eletters. I get them on a regular basis.

 

Is it just me, or does anyone else think the NKJV is just not good reading? I'm not talking about the translation, but just from a general reading standpoint. I bought a copy, and I didn't think it read that well.

 

I don't have a problem with it, but it's not my translation of choice.

 

Askjo: I am not a Greek scholar, but I do have an interlinear TR. With that and the help of some of the scholars on the board, why don't you provide a list of variations from the TR. (Not from the KJV---From the TR)

I am willing to agree with you and look at this if you can give me examples.

 

I like reading the NKJV, it is my version of choice. I also like reading the KJV. I really don't care reading the NIV, don't care for the way it reads. Just my preference.

Bro Tony

 

I think the translation is a little more literal to the Greek text, rather than on a thought-for-thought basis. This may make it a little more difficult to read--not necessarily better, but just the style of translation.

I tend to like it, but I know that I can read an NIV much easier, but the NIV is not my favorite MV.

The ESV fits somewhere between, I tend to like it the most. Just my opinion.

 

The ESV is not a popular version and I doubt that it will be available many more years.

 

Is it really a crime for the NKJV to not follow the TR exclusively? Remember, sports fans, Dean Burgon did NOT think highly of the TR, assuming he was reading the last of the umpteen revisions made of it.

The TR is NOT the be-all and the end-all Greek text. I've NEVER heard any Greek expert say WHICH REVISION was the "official" one. Nor have I heard anything but EXCUSES about the differences between the TR & The Traditional Text.

 

I'm at a total loss to figure the objections
of KJVOs to the NKJV.
The specification of the NKJV was written in
the late 1970s by KJVOs.
The "includes Baptists" translators used the
specifications written by the KJVOs.
The KJVOs within two years of the release
of the release of the NKJV approved of the
NKJV. Only later did the KJVOs decide they
made a mistake writing specifications for
a product other than the KJV.

It is a real shame when the worse thing
that the anti-NKJVs can thing of is the
NON-TRANSLATION symbol shown on the title
page: the tristriskelion, ancient symbol
of the Blessed Trininty.