I bought a NKJV Bible because I was having a hard time understanding the original KJV Bible. They are the only 2 Bibles I have used. I can interpret and understand the NKJV very well, and have learned alot of knowledge from it. I personally feel it is the right Bible for me, and no need for another translation. Thumbs up to the NKJV Bible
@@jerrylisby3440 because the man said he did t understand the old King James Version. I don’t either and I can quote a few passages that there are no way anyone would understand from the old King James Version. Also the old King James Version. Is still a translation and not the original inspired words.
@@T-Moss777 yes not the original inspired words. Actually superior to them. For one we have the King James and we don't have the originals. Two there are advanced revelations in the King James Bible. Peter Ruckman gives over 40 but there are far more than that even. Plus the order of books in the King James are different in the old testament. The chapter and verse markings are inspired as well. The number of times words show up as far as scripture numerics are mind blowing. There are whole books written on the superiority of the King James especially when compared to the New Age modern versions which manuscript roots can be traced back to Egypt and are in the minority.
@@jerrylisby3440 people like you are the reason I won't touch the KJV with a 10-foot pole. You have given the KJV a stench in many nostrils by idolizing it.
I've used the NKJV for my daily devotional bible for over 30 years. Whenever I quote Scripture in my videos I use the NKJV. My main reason was its use of the TR as you stated, but now I have other reasons to justify using it. Thanks.
I have watched this several times..... not a stalker! 🥴. Just trying to convince myself lol ...since others think I am crazy for not using another translation..... your humor gets me every time! 😬 Appreciate your channel very much. 😋
Hey Dwayne as someone who in the past supported NKJV I found something I don’t like: Titus 3:10 the word “hairetikos” is translated as a “divisive man” but wasn’t Jesus divisive?
The NKJV is my main bible. I also use the NIV version if I find a verse that it not exactly clear in the NKJV. I used to love the NLT, but since I have started studying the bible more, I find that this version adds to much extra interpretation. Don't get me wrong, I still read the NLT from time to time, but I don't rely on it for accuracy.
New to your channel. Very good place to discuss Bible criticism. As an older person i was raised using the 1952 RSV which is my go to version. I really like reading the 1901 ASV. As a member of the PCA denomination, i use the ESV for worship and group study. I have other Bibles that are great translations that i often read: KJV, NKJV, NASB, RV, NIV, HCSB. To me, the important thing to know is that the Bible, whatever translation, is the Word of God.
I wish we had such an excellent translation in German language although we have some which are quiet good. I love to read in the NKJV! Greetings from the land of Martin Luther
Thank you for your video. I study from the NKJV and NASB. I journal and read for enjoyment the ESV. I really stay away from “paraphrased” Bibles. I love the beauty of the NKJV. Blessings from Texas!❤️
Use of Italics and Marginal Notes are why I enjoy the NKJV. Sometimes, when reading from the NKJV at bible groups, I will be reading things not in the Critical Text versions. Newer CT bibles have notes at the bottom but the NKJV leaves contentious passages in with marginal notes stating that some manuscripts do not have etc etc..
@@Dwayne_Green I always used the NIV but the marginal notes were the main thing in helping me move over to the NKJV. And, of course, it maintained something of the KJV about it.
@@windhymn479 The only time I now use another version is for alternative renderings for additional clarity or out of curiosity. At times, I also read a particular portion without the italics to see how it reads!
@Deus Vult Fair enough! I don't have an informed opinion on this passage, but even our best translation could probably do things better in some instances.
I have a lot of translations, I mostly read Septuagint for O/T(not apocrypha). Was Tyndale preferred for a long while but my favourite N/Ts are ESV, NASB, Weymouth NT and God’s Word translation but do enjoy MEV also which is translated from TR.
I use the NKJV as my main, second the ESV and third the BSB. The BSB is like the perfect in between the two, getting right in my opinion the verses that I wish the NKJV or the ESV would have rendered differently. Well, the BSB may become my number 1 when new editions like note taking edition come out, in the meantime is being read everyday. And its footnotes are great!
Same here! NKJV is my main. I study and preach from it, but the BSB has become my second. I absolutely love the translation philosophy and the drive to stay conservative with the BSB. My only nit pick on the BSB is that it's currently critical text based, but according to BibleHub, they're going to be doing a majority text translation :)
@@MoiGarciaLeatherAndBinding I wasn't given a timeline, but my understanding is they're currently making adjustments between the various Byzantine/Majority variants.
Enjoyed your reasons! I like NASB95 there are a few interpretive differences and word usage I feel represent the text more accurately in the textual criticism position. I’m not a big fan of the textus receptus so I’m not in on the nkjv or kjv, but I would say get a Bible you can understand. Great video! Thanks for sharing!
Great videos . R Grant Jones, who I follow faithfully, recommended you to his viewers. So glad he did. Bottom line: I LOVE God's word and am always welcoming fresh perspectives.
Thank you for your review of the NKJV bible. I've been using my center column reference NKJV since February 1984. It has a leather cover and has served me well.
I love the NLT. Instead of word for word, it's uses thought for thought. This translation uses words or phrases that explain what the original text meant. It also show what the was used in the original text for those that want to know.
I stick with what I have rather than trying to keep up with more and more updates. I have 1977 NASB, 1984 NIV and NKJV and KJV. I have a newer NIV as well I have 3 or 4 I would love to have rebound.
I have the. Charles Stanley Life Principles bible NKJV. Its the one I carry to church and read during the week. I use it when I do bible study and I also study from my NIV Student bible. Thank you for your great videos!!
Brother, this was a good video and one that I needed to watch. I'm getting a hunger and desire for the NKJV. I just read through Genesis and want to read more. Keep up the good work!
Good video. I also like the NKJV. It, along with its big brother, the KJV, are my go-to-Bibles. I like all 6 points you made and I particularly like the fact that the NKJV uses italics for words that are supplied. That, to me, is one of the weaknesses of the ESV (which is the translation I use when I am studying in my Logos Bible software. Also, I really like that the NKJV uses footnotes that show the NU and M texts. I think that is perhaps one of the greatest strengths of the NKJV. I also like the literary qualities of the NKJV. Has much of the same rhythm of the KJV which is an aid to Scripture memorization. And yes, the "fixed-text" is also important to me. I think all of these revisions of many of the modern translations is likely for sale's sake (aka money's sake)--LOL Anyway, I enjoyed your video and am your newest subscriber. Looking forward to hearing more of your videos. And by the way, how often do you post your videos? Enjoyed listening to you. Sound and solid.
I think on balance the NKJV is the bells and whistles translation. The translation notes are a benefit as they do give critical text alternative reading. The NKJV gets beat up by the only’s a lot- and As I have found- if you’re getting beat up on both sides of the isles- you’re doing something great.
Great video! I’ve been on a journey for the past year reading several books on translation and the NKJV is the current winner. I think I am aligned on all the same reasons! I was shocked at the lack of notes I. The NASB for how “scholarly” it is. I would love to chat some time brother.
I'm using my KJV compact bible for 4 years now Glory to God. Really love to have NKJV Gods willing🙌 my dream study bible🙏 btw Love your videos Pastor looking forward more on your upcoming videos. watching from 🇵🇭
Great video, brother. The NKJV is my favorite translation, my daily reader is my NKJV Scofield Study Bible III that I had rebounded by Resurrection Rebinds.
My 4 favorite translations are the NKJV NASB AMP and yes The Living Bible but for some reason I've been really stuck on my primary ultimate choice of either NKJV or NASB but I'm planning on sticking with the NKJV for my main translation and will pare it up with the Amplified Bible
The only thing why I have a hard time with nkjv is words but it has all the verses but modern bibles have verses missing. What do you think is best I think nkjv
Great video!! I use the ESV and the NKJV most often together. Frequently they are the same. As back up I like the NASB & even the NLT. The NLT comes in handy if I find something difficult to understand, it’s a study Bible so there is commentary as well. Thanks for this video! I do hope it helps “onlyists” to see a different perspective.
Hey. I’m wondering if the NKJV is based on the scriviner version of the TR instead of the older versions the KJV is based on? And if so- is it any less reliable? Any insight would be helpful as this has given me immense anxiety for some reason.
Yes, as far as I know, it's based on Scriveners text. I wouldn't say it's any less reliable than any other TR edition. The differences between TR editions is really neglible. :) Hope that helps!
@@Dwayne_Green okay thank you. I was just wondering because i saw in another vid you made about the history of the TR i may have misunderstood your take on him to be negative since he did some odd things with translating backwards. But i researched a little bit and saw that his version is basically identical to the original KJV since that’s what he used as his basis for translating into Greek. So I’m safe with the NKJV?
@@sophiabergner7191 Yes! Your talking about the Scrivener 'reverse engineered' text. I pinned a comment with a disclaimer, because when I listened to it a second time, it appeared to have exaggerated the differences... This exaggeration wasn't intentional. In the video I shared how scrivener used the other TR editions to produce what was backing the KJV.
I’ve read several different translations ever since I became a Christian, starting with the KJV. I prefer a more literal translation so I also tend to stay away from the paraphrase translations like NLT. My favorite for the longest time has been the NASB95. I’ve shifted a bit towards the RSV though. It’s an older translation from the early 1900s, but it’s very easy to follow and still literal. I got into it after buying a Bible with the Apocrypha in it so I could read it out of curiosity. The Apocrypha only exists in a few different translations I’ve found: KJV, which was censored in places so it would sound less “Catholic,” while full text translations in English exist in the NAB/NABRE, ESV, RSV, and NRSV, a more progressive-minded RSV text update.
I also love the NKJV, I grew up in a Christian home and dad never pushed a particular translation. In fact when I started getting super serious in my early 20s, I read through the Bible for the first time using the CEV. But after going to a few Bible studies and Churches, I realised I was lacking formal equivalence. So I started reading the NKJV for the same reasons you pointed out, especially easier English than the KJV. But now as I study using the Hebrew and Greek interlinear Bible, I wish it was more literal and sometimes don’t understand why the translators had to change words like ‘slave’ to ‘bond servant’ or 1 Samuel 15:22-23 the original Hebrew articulates those two verses way better than the translation in my opinion. I would like to see a NKJV revision to a more literal translation and believe some words are only used in the NKJV to stay true to the KJV rather than the original language. But hey, I’m thankful that I have a well established TR Bible I can read and am genuinely happy to keep doing so.
For personal reading and study alongside an interlinear Bible, I prefer NASB. For group Bible study/church I prefer NKJV. NKJV just sounds nicer when your doing devotions or reading out loud. Both great translations.
I noticed the nkjv occasionly replaced some easy works in the kjv with harder to understand words. Not sure why they would have done that. All in all, I like the nkjv but my go to is still the kjv. Thanks for the video.
This is just my personal preference but I also enjoy the New King James Bible because of the heritage and legacy with the wording of certain scriptures in the English language. Trying to say the Lord's prayer in modern translations sounds really lame and hokey compared to the KJV phrasing. I love the NLT but the Lord's prayer doesn't sound the same like how I grew up with it.
@@Dwayne_Green The NKJV website put it more eloquently than me lol "Time and again, readers remark that they want their Bible to 'sound like the Bible,' and by that they mean the KJV. The NKJV does that better than any other modern Bible translation". Thanks for making this video!
I love this video... One thing I will say in defense of the ESV is that all of the changes it has made since 2001 only comes to 1% or less of the text changed. Also... The NKJV 1982 was actually updated in 1984 with minor tweaks.
@@CaseyFleetMedia 2 reasons: 1) the usb connection is failing and it looks like the plug is about to break off. and 2) I need one that can be mounted on an arm with a shock mount.
I like many translations! I’m wanting to know and understand God better, follow Jesus everyday, and look to the Holy Spirit as my teacher and guide to lead me into all truth! Always discussing this and that opinion confuses believers and leads to problems not spiritual growth.
That's awesome! I would agree, especially with your qualifier 'always', because if thats ALL we ever do then it is problematic. But I wouldn't discount discussing opinions, I've grown tremendously in my own walk by discussion opinions with people, its part of how Christians sharpen each other. The thing to remember is that the Holy Spirit will reveal truth to you, and at the end of the day, He could very well use someone else's opinion to teach you!
Revision is particularly important in that serves to correct typos, take archaic words out, and modernize them. The NKJV has many archaic words that need to be updated without going overboard.
Typos and corrections are one thing, but aside from that... I don't see words falling out of use often enough to drive a new revision every couple of years.
NKJV is my FAVORITE! 🙌 But I agree ..no “only-ism.” I’ll pull up NASB..even Amplified and check them out. Also look at the root of certain words: STRONG’S Exhaustive Concordance is one that I like the best.
I sm 77, snd my go to translation has become thd NKJV. I am a Catholic, but grew up Methodist. I grew up reading the KJV, and later on, the RSV. Although I hear the awful NSB at mass, I read the NKJV, the ESV..just getting to know it, snd the RSV:CE by Ignatius Press.
Sandy, at Mass it's the Revised New American Bible of 1986 that we're forced to read from, listen to. The RSV-CE would be so much better, but, no-o-o-o, the Catholic bishops derive revenue from the RNAB, so.... I, too, as a Catholic, have great respect for the KJV and the NKJV. I don't trust the ESV with its inherent evangelical bias.
Thanks, Dwayne! I, too, like the NKJV, but I hear a lot of specific complaints from KJV-onlyists that I'm trying to figure out. Besides the abandonment of singular/plural distinctive pronouns and what translations they don't like/agree with, they also often say they don't like the OT Hebrew text edition/version used by the NKJV. I believe the OT/Hebrew text used for the NKJV was the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica, instead of the earlier Bomberg edition/version prepared by Jacob ben Chayyim in 1524-25. They often say this caused some "errors" as well in the NKJV OT. ..... In any case, I'm finding some agreement with you and Dr. Ward regarding how most supporters of the Traditional Text effectively become KJV-onlyists because they view most ANY change from the KJV to be faulty or in complete error for any number of reasons- reasons I'm hoping to be able to respond to for myself (as if the debate about the NT texts aren't enough information overload!). ;-) Thanks again, Dwayne!
The Biggest criticisms I've heard of the NKJV from our KJVonly brothers is that they find the marginal notes erode trust in the inerrancy of scripture and that the NKJV is 'really just a gateway drug' to modern translations. I don't share this view. :)
Good question! One of the principles the NKJV translators used was to remove the antiquated verb endings, such as "eth" and "est". There was nothing saying they couldn't or shouldn't use the word 'whence'. Given the fairly popular nature of Psalm 121:1-2 and their prevalence to keep the NKJV with a similar style to the KJV, it's understandable why the kept it here.
I currently go with either NKJV or KJV as my primary translations. I believe the Byzantine / TR / Majority textual families are truly older and more accurate. I believe that David H. Sorenson's book, "Neither Oldest nor Best" does an excellent job of showing Sinaiticus to be 1800s in age, and Vaticanus not really provable as existing way before 1000 A.D. But I know people will believe what they choose to believe.
I'm not sure on the controversy of the dating of the two, but I know for certain that there is far too much weight put on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus then there really should be! However, I think things are changing. My understanding is that a number of Byz reading were selected in the latest ECM of Mark's gospel.
First off, regarding your disclaimer statement, the expression as it is used down here in Texas goes "...zero ... zilch ... *nada* ..." (The latter term of course is Spanish for "nothing" so you're Canadian version is okay, too. 😉) Okay, moving on...Excellent overview of the benefits of using the NKJV! I wholeheartedly agree with each point. On reason #2, a couple of examples of the need for updated English terminology are 2 Corinthians 6:12 and James 1:21. 2 Corinthians 6:12 reads "straitened in your own bowels" in the KJV, which to our ears today sounds like Paul was addressing a medical problem. The NKJV reading of "restricted by your own affections" is much clearer. And the expression "superfluity of naughtiness" in James doesn't communicate the original very well to English speakers in the 21st century. The word "superfluity" would drive most anyone to a dictionary (admittedly, not altogether a bad thing), and "naughtiness" sounds like you caught a 4-year-old with his hand in the cookie jar. The NKJV rendering "overflow of wickedness" is clearer. Translation stability is a point that I kind of take for granted when reading the NKJV, but whenever I try to reference something like the NIV or ESV (which would be my version of choice if I were to read an English NT based on an Alexandrian/critical Greek text), I run into the problem of those constant updatings. The TR is not the Greek text I refer to first in my studies, but it's consistent with the purpose of updating the old King James. And it's closer to the Byzantine textform than the Alexandrian/critical text, so the NKJV is what I carry. And the italicized supplied terms and the marginal notes are super important if comparative study and the original languages are important to a reader, as they are to me. Again, excellent overview. Thanks.
I'm just beginning to appreciate the NKJV now. In fact, I am now waiting for my first genuine leather Bible that I ordered and it's in the NKJV! My one and only suggestion for change is the removal of the capitalization of the pronouns for deity. The KJV did not do that and neither did other modern English versions such as the ESV and NIV. As far as revisions are concerned, the CSB is the worst! Although it just came out in 2017, there is already an update in 2020 but is just being released this year.
Sorry but the NKJV had a revision too in came out all together in 1982 and revised again 2 years later. The CSB got revised 3 years later and I think they have mentioned with the 2020 version that they won’t be touching it again anytime soon, So I don’t get the complaint to be honest.
@@claudiabailey5302 no need to apologize! My argument is mostly that the text hasn't changed since 1984... I'ts been stable for almost 30 years! CSB is great, don't get me wrong, but I don't think the 2020 update will be the last ;)
I find I like so many translations and I use different ones but I do love the NKJV and my Cambridge wide margin in calfsplit is NKJV. I do love the layout.
I use the new King James version it follows the TR and I usually have on my phone Young’s literal translation. And in the margin I usually put an alternate translation where it’s needed. Sometimes they translate heaven, when it should be heavens. Or believe, when it should be believing. But the new king James is very good and he corrects a lot of mistakes in the king James. But all three are TR based and that’s the most important thing.All the other translations I can honestly read because of corruption in my opinion. God bless
On my desk in my office for sermon prep, I have the NLT, NKJV and the NASB 95. The 7th reason I like the NKJV is because it capitalizes pronouns when talking about God.
Thanks for all you do brother. God bless you. I understand at least somewhat of where the KJV only people are coming from- I don’t like the Alexandrian manuscripts and when the devil tempted Jesus, He fought back with the Word. So, since it’s been the go to for English speakers for hundreds of years it’s nice to have a solid, trustworthy Bible. But the KJV is hard to read and can be confusing because of modern language differences. God is not the author of confusion. Decided to buy a NKJV. I also especially appreciate the marginal notes because- let’s say the Critical Text is in fact corrupt, many people use CR Bibles so it’s nice to know for the brethren’s sake where things are being changed. May the LORD guide us in truth and love on this.
NKJV was the first English Bible I ever purchased. I loved how equivalent it was to the Spanish RVR 1960. It still remains as my favourite translation!
Hey Dwayne, great video. I'm kinda juggling between 4 translations: KJV, NKJV, Noah Webster's 1833 Common Version, and the new SKJV Simplified King James Version. Yup I'm a TR guy, guilty as charged. Speaking of Mark Ward (whom I have great respect for), I found a "false flag" in the NKJV. I was reading Isaiah 13:21 in the KJV & was wondering what satyrs was so I grabbed my NKJV and saw wild goats but then I noticed the NKJV ended the verse with "wild goats will caper there" every other translation uses either dance or play. Apparently besides meaning am illegal act, caper once also meant a frolicsome leap. So apparently there's false flags in moder translations as well. Anyways, keep up the great work.
formal equivalence?... the NKJV but NOT the KJV is written that way..?... why is that one point all NKJV pushers... state to use the NKJV?.. is the KJV.. NOT formal equivalence as well..?..is the NASB not written this way as well.. ?.. ok nothing special there... updated English..?.. I still do not know what "waheb and suphah".. is from Numbers 21:14.... and the NKJV.. did Not stop ast updating the language... in some instances.. they completely re-wrote the verse to say so?.. the liberality with the use of the word "YOU".. as a cureall to cover everything is inexcusable..as sometimes You refers to a group of people.. and other times it refers to just one person.. how can we tell?... and what about the Christophony removal in Genesis 22:8.. simply by adding the word "FOR".. before "Himself"?... Sonf of Solomon 3:9... NKJV... what is a "palanquin"...? itakicized words... you did Not elaborate on how the NKJV uses these for a different purpose than the KJV.. does... EXPLAIN PLEASE... you cannot cite.. the KJV for using italicized words when the NKJV uses these for the same reason... marginal notes...?.... hmm another carru over from what the KJV translators did... as the KJV also has marginal notes explaining this as well... realizing that the NKJV is just as guilty of having "unreadable verses"...such as pointed out above.. and due to the NKJV translators taking anexceptional amount of liberties in re-writing verses that were already understandable in the KJV...and at the same time often changing the intended meaning of the verse in the process.. note compare Haggai 1:10..."over uou".. "above you"...?.. the intended meaning was ...."because of you".. which is totally lost in the NKJV... And the use of the word YOU as a place holder for both words "thee".. and "ye".. whuch do NOT mean the same thing.. topped with the fact that when the Old Testament passages are quoted in the New testament... which you did not mention... in the NKJV.... often times.. the O.T. passages are NOT quoted verbatim...which to me is an update within an update...which You DID NOT discuss.. I think I will stick with my KJV...
Thanks for the helpful video. To be honest in my daily readings l read seven different translations to get the fullest and roundest understanding of the text. This includes the NRSV, which is a delight to read for all the reasons you give.
I know what you mean about the ESV. The other day I was reading along with our pastor, (who uses the ESV) and I have a 2016 model and I have no idea what model he was reading out of, but it did throw me off for a minute because of a minor variant. However, I was able to get back on and finish the ride! I think the update of Psalm 23 was a mistake, but it is because I like the traditional reading! I also hate how Max Mclean read the entire 2004 ESV (Which is awesome! I could listen to that guy read the phone book!) but now it is out of date somewhat now. Probably the two most literal Bible translations are the NASB and the NKJV. In fact, the NKJV is more literal than even the 1995 NASB, and especially the 2020 NASB, but not as much as the 1977 NASB. Thanks for the video, I think those are all some good reasons to use the NKJV.
I love the NKJV, as well as the KJV. I read from several at once using a Bible program, but I bought my sons the NKJV because of some the things you mentioned here.
Its good before you preach a message go over the know fallible scriptures from nkjv. Narrow way to difficult way. From saved to being saved. And some totally different meanings to being passive when you need to be aggressive. Real bible believers has a video on it. I have a nkjv but use it when I don't understand my kjv. I work my way down. The nlt even helps in some cases. But some major misses also
what about the 66 times "Lord" was removed? 51 times "God" was removed. heaven 50x, repent 44x, Blood 23x, hell 22x removed. knowing that and reading Revelation 22:19... i have a hard time opening other translations than the 1611
Actually, the NKJV's text isn't as stable as you may think. For example, it's missing the words "to do them," in Deuteronomy 27:26, in many editions with the same copyright (1982). I have a copy of a 1982 NKJV where those words, which are in the Hebrew text, are missing. It also mistranslates Hebrews 3:16, creating an error where there was none in that passage in the KJV. That change matches the other modern versions, which shows that the NKJV translators were willing to follow the modern translators, rather than stick with the KJV translators in that verse.
I don't think i said the NKJV was without error... But when you consider that fact that the translation hasn't been updated since 1984.... I'd say 38 years is pretty stable! If a printing is done today it will be the same as the 1984 text. Again, Stability does not mean without error, rather, "Without changes"
The NKJ gets credit for keeping the 16 New Testament passages that the the other modern translations dropped. However, the NKJ does not solely rely on the traditional text. It too uses the critical text. Gen 1:1 KJV says Heaven and the Earth, NKJ says Heavens, Acts 3:26 KJV says Jesus his Son, NKJ says Jesus his servant. That is a significant difference. In 1st Corinthians 1 : 18 and 2nd Corinthians 2:15 the reading of are saved was changed to are being saved Matthew 7 :14 the KJB reads narrow while the NKJV reads difficult, that's significant as to what the path is. 2 Corinthians 2:17 the KJV says we are not as many which corrupt the word of God but the NKJ says peddling the word of God. Titus 3: 10 KJV says A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject, the NKJ says Reject a divisive man. 1 Thessalonians 5:22 KJV says Abstain from all appearance of evil, NKJ says Abstain from every form of evil. Isaiah 66:5 KJV ... But he shall appear to your joy, but the NKJ says ...That we may see your joy. All of these examples change the meaning and are the words used in other modern translations that rely on the Critical text. Now what in any of those examples does it appear that the NKJ is using words that are easier to understand? There are many other examples like these as well. Yes, there are a lot of archaic words that the NKJ did update where the meaning wasn't changed. However, often it also changes words and phrases that didn't need updated at all and ultimately changed the meaning of the passage.
The NKJV does use the critical text. The NT is based on the Textus Receptus, the same text that the old KJV used. However, in the footnotes it will give readings from the modern critical editions (NU Text) and the traditional text represented by the majority of existing manuscripts (M text) I favor the M Text.
also look at JOB 4:17.. compare the NKJV to the NKJV.... if you'll notice in the KJV .. Job's friend was accusing Job.. in the KJV.. of thinking of himself as Greater than God... but in the NKJV.. we only get the impression.. that Job was thinking of himself as equal to God... which is the greater.. sin?..... and let me ask you... why did the NKJV translators feel they needed to update THAT verse..?.. it was NOT hard to understand in the KJV...was this one of the unneccesary liberties.. I have been ranting about....?... look at Numbers 21:14.. in the NKJV..... can you tell me what "WAHEB and SUPHAH.".. means...?.... there is NO such problem reading this verse in the KJV...
I love my New King James bible. I have a regular King James to carry to church because that's what my pastor preaches from but at home I read the New King James. I'm not a big fan of the critical text because the traditional text has been tried and true. It has been available since the 1st or 2nd century. Why would God "hide" a good part of His word in Egypt up until 250 years ago?? This doesn't make sense. Traditional Text is it!
Awesome! I actually have the KJV on the night table right now and have been using it in my evening devotions. But I've been preaching and studying with the NKJV. :)
The NKJV is the best counterfeit of the true. The NKJV is not an honest update of the KJV. The NIV, ESV, NASV, etc. are in agreement with the New World Translation in many, many ways. All three of these translations agree with the biased NWT remove or cast doubt upon Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; and Romans 16:24. All four state a boldface lie in Mark 1:2. All four remove some or most of Matthew 6:13; Luke 4:4, 8; Romans 8:1; and 1 John 5:7. All four remove "study" from 2 Timothy 2:15. All four have two separate people killing Goliath in 1 Samuel 17 and 2 Samuel 21:19. All four cast doubt upon Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11, yet include it by separation from the text or place in a footnote. Birds of a feather flock together. I could add the NKJV with the other four bibles that corrupted or changed Romans 1:18, 25, 2 Corinthians 2:17, 1 Timothy 6:10, 20, and 2 Timothy 2:15 because these passages are aimed at the dishonest ones on the committees.
one point I would like to make.. regarding why I am NOT sold on the NKJV text as opposed to the KJV text... Haggai 1:10..NKJV..."therefore the heavens ABOVE YOU...."in the KJV it reads..."therefore the heavebns OVER YOU...".. the NASB..."therefore the sky BECAUSE OF YOU...".. the original manuscript gives the connotation.. of ...."because of you.."... in other words Haggai 1:10 .. was written.. with the intention of God explaining why something has happened to the Israelites... basically that it was THEIR... fault.. that there has been No dew... this meaning is totally lost when instead of leaving the words from the KJV....."OVER YOU".. alone and changing them to what the NKJV translators.. THOUGHT.. this meaning was.. perhaps based on their mis understanding of ths in the KJV....and thus .they changed the words "OVER YOU".. to read "ABOVE YOU".. thus changing this from an explanation.. to a location... multiply THAT a hundred times over.. and you can see why I prefer the KJV... I really think if you checked the NKJV carefully,... you will find the NKJV is MORE than JUST an update of the KJV.. the NKJV is a sublimal way.. of pulling peopke away from God's intended meanings of many passages... I would hope that this was due to the ignorance on the part of the NKJV contributors,.. and NOT done on purpose...kind of scary ,really...
Great question! I don't think there's anything wrong if you want to use the KJV exclusively, by all means read it and study it, love it, and wear out it's pages! But I think that other translations also have a lot to offer in addition to the KJV.
@@ThePreachersDaughterKJV1611 Your question here leads us to PRECISELY what this issue boils down to. No, believing that you (we!) have the perfect* word of God SHOULD NOT be divisive-but boy, is it ever! *Complete, non-contradictory, and able to accurately deliver the message of God to us.
There is nothing as beautiful and magnificent and precise as the KJV. The NKJV was when I realized it’s the whole truth. But after reading the ESV, I realized how bad modern scholars are willing to be and their use of assumptions and theories and hypothesis when translating. I question the faith of some of those people. some of unprovable assumptions used 1) oldest manuscripts are better and more reliable. Paul talked of people screwing with scripture in a letter. 2) thoughts and intentions of the writer can be determined. Just What?!? 3) Overzealous monks added to scripture over time. Again completely unprovable and the Consistency is remarkable in the TR 4) Sleepy monks messed up scripture. Again nutty unprovable assumptions 5) The originals are the only ones inspired and we are moving then if we could just keep digging . Completely against scripture 6) The Catholic Church is a friend of scholars. They certainly are not and anything found in their creepy places should be considered with a great deal of Suspicion. 7) King James wrote part of the translation and was a flaming closeted homosexual. And other slander of the people who risked their lives to bring the bible to english is just dishonest and underhanded. Modern scholars could defend themselves if they would bother. 8) The TR manuscripts were too good and their stories too inline to be accurate and there has to be fowl play involved. This was a stupid claim of Hort who was one of the ones that started this mess. 9) Modern scholarship is more accurate than Late Medieval scholarship. I can only say read the works of the older scholars or the puritans and then read John Macauthor, John White or Os Guinness or someone considered great today. Laughable 10) footnotes bring clarity and enlightenment. This has been a huge rouge and has lead to more people just giving up studying and meditating. Footnotes bring doubt and confusions to most. The brackets in Mark 16 in the ESV started me on this journey.
7. The NKJV capitalizes personal pronouns for God. I like this show of respect for the Almighty.
Me, too!
Same here. I like the NKJV and use it a lot (next to the KJV). It also uses a capitalized "He" or "Him" (etc) when referring to Jesus and the Father
I bought a NKJV Bible because I was having a hard time understanding the original KJV Bible. They are the only 2 Bibles I have used. I can interpret and understand the NKJV very well, and have learned alot of knowledge from it. I personally feel it is the right Bible for me, and no need for another translation. Thumbs up to the NKJV Bible
Why not stick with the God inspired words of God found in the Holy Bible?
@@jerrylisby3440
The holy bible is the word of God... true
@@jerrylisby3440 because the man said he did t understand the old King James Version. I don’t either and I can quote a few passages that there are no way anyone would understand from the old King James Version. Also the old King James Version. Is still a translation and not the original inspired words.
@@T-Moss777 yes not the original inspired words. Actually superior to them. For one we have the King James and we don't have the originals. Two there are advanced revelations in the King James Bible. Peter Ruckman gives over 40 but there are far more than that even. Plus the order of books in the King James are different in the old testament. The chapter and verse markings are inspired as well. The number of times words show up as far as scripture numerics are mind blowing. There are whole books written on the superiority of the King James especially when compared to the New Age modern versions which manuscript roots can be traced back to Egypt and are in the minority.
@@jerrylisby3440 people like you are the reason I won't touch the KJV with a 10-foot pole. You have given the KJV a stench in many nostrils by idolizing it.
I've used the NKJV for my daily devotional bible for over 30 years. Whenever I quote Scripture in my videos I use the NKJV. My main reason was its use of the TR as you stated, but now I have other reasons to justify using it. Thanks.
Excellent video! Thanks for sharing! ❤️
I have watched this several times..... not a stalker! 🥴. Just trying to convince myself lol ...since others think I am crazy for not using another translation..... your humor gets me every time! 😬 Appreciate your channel very much. 😋
Thank you! Hope you get the answer your looking for... If you need to watch it another 3 or 4 times, thats ok too 🤣
NKJV is my primary translation having moved from the KJV. Good to see someone supporting it
Hey Dwayne as someone who in the past supported NKJV I found something I don’t like: Titus 3:10 the word “hairetikos” is translated as a “divisive man” but wasn’t Jesus divisive?
The NKJV is my main bible. I also use the NIV version if I find a verse that it not exactly clear in the NKJV. I used to love the NLT, but since I have started studying the bible more, I find that this version adds to much extra interpretation. Don't get me wrong, I still read the NLT from time to time, but I don't rely on it for accuracy.
Awesome! I feel the same way. The NLT is great for some casual reading, but I certainly wouldn't study from it or preach from it.
New to your channel. Very good place to discuss Bible criticism. As an older person i was raised using the 1952 RSV which is my go to version. I really like reading the 1901 ASV. As a member of the PCA denomination, i use the ESV for worship and group study. I have other Bibles that are great translations that i often read: KJV, NKJV, NASB, RV, NIV, HCSB. To me, the important thing to know is that the Bible, whatever translation, is the Word of God.
Love this video! It makes me laugh…quirky sense of humor is on point! I truly have come to love the NKJV and my main go to lately. 🙂
I wish we had such an excellent translation in German language although we have some which are quiet good. I love to read in the NKJV! Greetings from the land of Martin Luther
Thank you for your video. I study from the NKJV and NASB. I journal and read for enjoyment the ESV. I really stay away from “paraphrased” Bibles. I love the beauty of the NKJV. Blessings from Texas!❤️
I have used the nkjv for years I have try other but I keep going back to the nkjv
Use of Italics and Marginal Notes are why I enjoy the NKJV. Sometimes, when reading from the NKJV at bible groups, I will be reading things not in the Critical Text versions. Newer CT bibles have notes at the bottom but the NKJV leaves contentious passages in with marginal notes stating that some manuscripts do not have etc etc..
This is one of the main reasons I love it so much! The marginal notes are so great!
@@Dwayne_Green I always used the NIV but the marginal notes were the main thing in helping me move over to the NKJV. And, of course, it maintained something of the KJV about it.
@@windhymn479 The only time I now use another version is for alternative renderings for additional clarity or out of curiosity. At times, I also read a particular portion without the italics to see how it reads!
@Deus Vult Fair enough! I don't have an informed opinion on this passage, but even our best translation could probably do things better in some instances.
but if there's no 100% translation of the Bible, who's to say there are 100% translations of the Early Church Fathers?
I have a lot of translations, I mostly read Septuagint for O/T(not apocrypha). Was Tyndale preferred for a long while but my favourite N/Ts are ESV, NASB, Weymouth NT and God’s Word translation but do enjoy MEV also which is translated from TR.
Finally, somebody who is defending the NKJV! LOL (JUST KIDDING.) Great vid my brotha. :)
ya i know
I use the NKJV as my main, second the ESV and third the BSB. The BSB is like the perfect in between the two, getting right in my opinion the verses that I wish the NKJV or the ESV would have rendered differently. Well, the BSB may become my number 1 when new editions like note taking edition come out, in the meantime is being read everyday. And its footnotes are great!
Same here! NKJV is my main. I study and preach from it, but the BSB has become my second. I absolutely love the translation philosophy and the drive to stay conservative with the BSB. My only nit pick on the BSB is that it's currently critical text based, but according to BibleHub, they're going to be doing a majority text translation :)
@@Dwayne_Green A BSB MT? When?
@@MoiGarciaLeatherAndBinding I wasn't given a timeline, but my understanding is they're currently making adjustments between the various Byzantine/Majority variants.
@@Dwayne_Green when the new BSB translation comes out, a video detailing some of the differences between the two would be nice👍
@@davidbrock4104 You can count on it :)
Enjoyed your reasons! I like NASB95 there are a few interpretive differences and word usage I feel represent the text more accurately in the textual criticism position. I’m not a big fan of the textus receptus so I’m not in on the nkjv or kjv, but I would say get a Bible you can understand. Great video! Thanks for sharing!
I love it too brother
Great videos . R Grant Jones, who I follow faithfully, recommended you to his viewers. So glad he did. Bottom line: I LOVE God's word and am always welcoming fresh perspectives.
Thank you for your review of the NKJV bible. I've been using my center column reference NKJV since February 1984. It has a leather cover and has served me well.
I love the NLT. Instead of word for word, it's uses thought for thought. This translation uses words or phrases that explain what the original text meant. It also show what the was used in the original text for those that want to know.
I stick with what I have rather than trying to keep up with more and more updates. I have 1977 NASB, 1984 NIV and NKJV and KJV. I have a newer NIV as well
I have 3 or 4 I would love to have rebound.
Yeah, there's more updates to some translations than there are to windows!
@@Dwayne_Green If I had the money to buy fancy premium Bibles, I would rather use it to put new covers on some of what I have
I have the. Charles Stanley Life Principles bible NKJV. Its the one I carry to church and read during the week. I use it when I do bible study and I also study from my NIV Student bible. Thank you for your great videos!!
Brother, this was a good video and one that I needed to watch. I'm getting a hunger and desire for the NKJV. I just read through Genesis and want to read more. Keep up the good work!
Good video. I also like the NKJV. It, along with its big brother, the KJV, are my go-to-Bibles. I like all 6 points you made and I particularly like the fact that the NKJV uses italics for words that are supplied. That, to me, is one of the weaknesses of the ESV (which is the translation I use when I am studying in my Logos Bible software. Also, I really like that the NKJV uses footnotes that show the NU and M texts. I think that is perhaps one of the greatest strengths of the NKJV. I also like the literary qualities of the NKJV. Has much of the same rhythm of the KJV which is an aid to Scripture memorization. And yes, the "fixed-text" is also important to me. I think all of these revisions of many of the modern translations is likely for sale's sake (aka money's sake)--LOL Anyway, I enjoyed your video and am your newest subscriber. Looking forward to hearing more of your videos. And by the way, how often do you post your videos? Enjoyed listening to you. Sound and solid.
Aiming for twice a week, I'll be releasing new content every Monday and Thursday.
Cool. I'll be on the lookout!
What does the NU and M mean? I get CT=Critical Text. And MT=Masoretic Text. But what do the letters NU & M mean? 😊 Thank you.
Man do I love your love for the NKJV!!
Thank you so much for sharing this great information. It is greatly appreciated and will prove invaluable to my bible studies!!!!
Thanks SMJ!
I think on balance the NKJV is the bells and whistles translation. The translation notes are a benefit as they do give critical text alternative reading. The NKJV gets beat up by the only’s a lot- and As I have found- if you’re getting beat up on both sides of the isles- you’re doing something great.
Too funny! It really does get it from both sides!
What editing software you're using brother? Good editing
I'm using filmora 9. It's fairly user friendly and inexpensive. Would recommend for shorter less complicated videos like you see here.
Great video! I’ve been on a journey for the past year reading several books on translation and the NKJV is the current winner. I think I am aligned on all the same reasons! I was shocked at the lack of notes I. The NASB for how “scholarly” it is. I would love to chat some time brother.
I'm using my KJV compact bible for 4 years now Glory to God. Really love to have NKJV Gods willing🙌 my dream study bible🙏 btw Love your videos Pastor looking forward more on your upcoming videos. watching from 🇵🇭
Great video, brother. The NKJV is my favorite translation, my daily reader is my NKJV Scofield Study Bible III that I had rebounded by Resurrection Rebinds.
My 4 favorite translations are the NKJV NASB AMP and yes The Living Bible but for some reason I've been really stuck on my primary ultimate choice of either NKJV or NASB but I'm planning on sticking with the NKJV for my main translation and will pare it up with the Amplified Bible
The only thing why I have a hard time with nkjv is words but it has all the verses but modern bibles have verses missing. What do you think is best I think nkjv
Great video!! I use the ESV and the NKJV most often together. Frequently they are the same. As back up I like the NASB & even the NLT. The NLT comes in handy if I find something difficult to understand, it’s a study Bible so there is commentary as well.
Thanks for this video! I do hope it helps “onlyists” to see a different perspective.
Hey. I’m wondering if the NKJV is based on the scriviner version of the TR instead of the older versions the KJV is based on? And if so- is it any less reliable? Any insight would be helpful as this has given me immense anxiety for some reason.
Yes, as far as I know, it's based on Scriveners text. I wouldn't say it's any less reliable than any other TR edition. The differences between TR editions is really neglible. :) Hope that helps!
@@Dwayne_Green okay thank you. I was just wondering because i saw in another vid you made about the history of the TR i may have misunderstood your take on him to be negative since he did some odd things with translating backwards. But i researched a little bit and saw that his version is basically identical to the original KJV since that’s what he used as his basis for translating into Greek. So I’m safe with the NKJV?
Are the differences in the kjv and nkjv negligible or do they affect doctrine?
@@sophiabergner7191 Yes! Your talking about the Scrivener 'reverse engineered' text. I pinned a comment with a disclaimer, because when I listened to it a second time, it appeared to have exaggerated the differences... This exaggeration wasn't intentional. In the video I shared how scrivener used the other TR editions to produce what was backing the KJV.
@@sophiabergner7191 I haven't come across any differences between KJV and NKJV that change doctrine and I've been using both for a while :)
I’ve read several different translations ever since I became a Christian, starting with the KJV. I prefer a more literal translation so I also tend to stay away from the paraphrase translations like NLT. My favorite for the longest time has been the NASB95. I’ve shifted a bit towards the RSV though. It’s an older translation from the early 1900s, but it’s very easy to follow and still literal. I got into it after buying a Bible with the Apocrypha in it so I could read it out of curiosity. The Apocrypha only exists in a few different translations I’ve found: KJV, which was censored in places so it would sound less “Catholic,” while full text translations in English exist in the NAB/NABRE, ESV, RSV, and NRSV, a more progressive-minded RSV text update.
I also love the NKJV, I grew up in a Christian home and dad never pushed a particular translation. In fact when I started getting super serious in my early 20s, I read through the Bible for the first time using the CEV. But after going to a few Bible studies and Churches, I realised I was lacking formal equivalence. So I started reading the NKJV for the same reasons you pointed out, especially easier English than the KJV. But now as I study using the Hebrew and Greek interlinear Bible, I wish it was more literal and sometimes don’t understand why the translators had to change words like ‘slave’ to ‘bond servant’ or 1 Samuel 15:22-23 the original Hebrew articulates those two verses way better than the translation in my opinion. I would like to see a NKJV revision to a more literal translation and believe some words are only used in the NKJV to stay true to the KJV rather than the original language. But hey, I’m thankful that I have a well established TR Bible I can read and am genuinely happy to keep doing so.
Thank you so much for sharing!!!
For personal reading and study alongside an interlinear Bible, I prefer NASB. For group Bible study/church I prefer NKJV. NKJV just sounds nicer when your doing devotions or reading out loud. Both great translations.
Bro,great video.I too like NkJV 👍
I noticed the nkjv occasionly replaced some easy works in the kjv with harder to understand words. Not sure why they would have done that. All in all, I like the nkjv but my go to is still the kjv. Thanks for the video.
This is just my personal preference but I also enjoy the New King James Bible because of the heritage and legacy with the wording of certain scriptures in the English language. Trying to say the Lord's prayer in modern translations sounds really lame and hokey compared to the KJV phrasing. I love the NLT but the Lord's prayer doesn't sound the same like how I grew up with it.
"lame and hokey" I love it!
@@Dwayne_Green The NKJV website put it more eloquently than me lol
"Time and again, readers remark that they want their Bible to 'sound like the Bible,' and by that they mean the KJV. The NKJV does that better than any other modern Bible translation".
Thanks for making this video!
Yeah. We should look at many translations also using the strongs. Good upload!
I love this video... One thing I will say in defense of the ESV is that all of the changes it has made since 2001 only comes to 1% or less of the text changed. Also... The NKJV 1982 was actually updated in 1984 with minor tweaks.
I should have mentioned that, absolutely! I love the ESV as well, it's a goto for me, just not my main :)
@@Dwayne_Green it’s not my maim either... NKJV is my favorite...
@@Dwayne_Green why are you changing mics
@@CaseyFleetMedia 2 reasons: 1) the usb connection is failing and it looks like the plug is about to break off. and 2) I need one that can be mounted on an arm with a shock mount.
I like many translations! I’m wanting to know and understand God better, follow Jesus everyday, and look to the Holy Spirit as my teacher and guide to lead me into all truth! Always discussing this and that opinion confuses believers and leads to problems not spiritual growth.
That's awesome! I would agree, especially with your qualifier 'always', because if thats ALL we ever do then it is problematic. But I wouldn't discount discussing opinions, I've grown tremendously in my own walk by discussion opinions with people, its part of how Christians sharpen each other. The thing to remember is that the Holy Spirit will reveal truth to you, and at the end of the day, He could very well use someone else's opinion to teach you!
Revision is particularly important in that serves to correct typos, take archaic words out, and modernize them. The NKJV has many archaic words that need to be updated without going overboard.
Typos and corrections are one thing, but aside from that... I don't see words falling out of use often enough to drive a new revision every couple of years.
@@Dwayne_Green Not every couple of years, but perhaps once every ten years.
@@solitarypawn5076 I think even 10 years... I'd be inclined to say 50 years! lol.
NKJV is my FAVORITE! 🙌 But I agree ..no “only-ism.” I’ll pull up NASB..even Amplified and check them out. Also look at the root of certain words: STRONG’S Exhaustive Concordance is one that I like the best.
I sm 77, snd my go to translation has become thd NKJV. I am a Catholic, but grew up Methodist. I grew up reading the KJV, and later on, the RSV.
Although I hear the awful NSB at mass, I read the NKJV, the ESV..just getting to know it, snd the
RSV:CE by Ignatius Press.
Sandy, at Mass it's the Revised New American Bible of 1986 that we're forced to read from, listen to. The RSV-CE would be so much better, but, no-o-o-o, the Catholic bishops derive revenue from the RNAB, so.... I, too, as a Catholic, have great respect for the KJV and the NKJV. I don't trust the ESV with its inherent evangelical bias.
Thanks, Dwayne! I, too, like the NKJV, but I hear a lot of specific complaints from KJV-onlyists that I'm trying to figure out. Besides the abandonment of singular/plural distinctive pronouns and what translations they don't like/agree with, they also often say they don't like the OT Hebrew text edition/version used by the NKJV. I believe the OT/Hebrew text used for the NKJV was the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica, instead of the earlier Bomberg edition/version prepared by Jacob ben Chayyim in 1524-25. They often say this caused some "errors" as well in the NKJV OT. ..... In any case, I'm finding some agreement with you and Dr. Ward regarding how most supporters of the Traditional Text effectively become KJV-onlyists because they view most ANY change from the KJV to be faulty or in complete error for any number of reasons- reasons I'm hoping to be able to respond to for myself (as if the debate about the NT texts aren't enough information overload!). ;-) Thanks again, Dwayne!
The Biggest criticisms I've heard of the NKJV from our KJVonly brothers is that they find the marginal notes erode trust in the inerrancy of scripture and that the NKJV is 'really just a gateway drug' to modern translations.
I don't share this view. :)
My only gripe for the NKJV is that it is privately owned and Nelson is rather stingy with the copyright.
Why does Psalm 121 read, “From whence comes my help?” They changed “cometh” to “comes” but didn’t give “whence” a modern update.
Good question! One of the principles the NKJV translators used was to remove the antiquated verb endings, such as "eth" and "est". There was nothing saying they couldn't or shouldn't use the word 'whence'. Given the fairly popular nature of Psalm 121:1-2 and their prevalence to keep the NKJV with a similar style to the KJV, it's understandable why the kept it here.
@@Dwayne_Green I don’t care either way, but I was just confused when I saw it because I’m new to the NKJV.
I currently go with either NKJV or KJV as my primary translations. I believe the Byzantine / TR / Majority textual families are truly older and more accurate. I believe that David H. Sorenson's book, "Neither Oldest nor Best" does an excellent job of showing Sinaiticus to be 1800s in age, and Vaticanus not really provable as existing way before 1000 A.D. But I know people will believe what they choose to believe.
I'm not sure on the controversy of the dating of the two, but I know for certain that there is far too much weight put on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus then there really should be! However, I think things are changing. My understanding is that a number of Byz reading were selected in the latest ECM of Mark's gospel.
Let the denomination called first king James only of Jesus Christ start complaining 😂😂😂. Great video bro. I preach from NKJV. Love it
haha, I've gotten a few come out of the woodwork! lol. It's a great translation, I preach from it also!
@@Dwayne_Green appreciate the great content. Refreshing man.
Thanx, Pastor 🌹🌲🌹
First off, regarding your disclaimer statement, the expression as it is used down here in Texas goes "...zero ... zilch ... *nada* ..." (The latter term of course is Spanish for "nothing" so you're Canadian version is okay, too. 😉)
Okay, moving on...Excellent overview of the benefits of using the NKJV! I wholeheartedly agree with each point. On reason #2, a couple of examples of the need for updated English terminology are 2 Corinthians 6:12 and James 1:21.
2 Corinthians 6:12 reads "straitened in your own bowels" in the KJV, which to our ears today sounds like Paul was addressing a medical problem. The NKJV reading of "restricted by your own affections" is much clearer.
And the expression "superfluity of naughtiness" in James doesn't communicate the original very well to English speakers in the 21st century. The word "superfluity" would drive most anyone to a dictionary (admittedly, not altogether a bad thing), and "naughtiness" sounds like you caught a 4-year-old with his hand in the cookie jar. The NKJV rendering "overflow of wickedness" is clearer.
Translation stability is a point that I kind of take for granted when reading the NKJV, but whenever I try to reference something like the NIV or ESV (which would be my version of choice if I were to read an English NT based on an Alexandrian/critical Greek text), I run into the problem of those constant updatings.
The TR is not the Greek text I refer to first in my studies, but it's consistent with the purpose of updating the old King James. And it's closer to the Byzantine textform than the Alexandrian/critical text, so the NKJV is what I carry.
And the italicized supplied terms and the marginal notes are super important if comparative study and the original languages are important to a reader, as they are to me.
Again, excellent overview. Thanks.
I think NKJV is a very close readable english translation of the greek and hebrew
I'm just beginning to appreciate the NKJV now. In fact, I am now waiting for my first genuine leather Bible that I ordered and it's in the NKJV! My one and only suggestion for change is the removal of the capitalization of the pronouns for deity. The KJV did not do that and neither did other modern English versions such as the ESV and NIV.
As far as revisions are concerned, the CSB is the worst! Although it just came out in 2017, there is already an update in 2020 but is just being released this year.
I agree... I think capitalizing pronouns leaves too much up to interpretation, because not all instances are undisputed. Good call, Terence!
Sorry but the NKJV had a revision too in came out all together in 1982 and revised again 2 years later. The CSB got revised 3 years later and I think they have mentioned with the 2020 version that they won’t be touching it again anytime soon, So I don’t get the complaint to be honest.
@@claudiabailey5302 no need to apologize! My argument is mostly that the text hasn't changed since 1984... I'ts been stable for almost 30 years! CSB is great, don't get me wrong, but I don't think the 2020 update will be the last ;)
I find I like so many translations and I use different ones but I do love the NKJV and my Cambridge wide margin in calfsplit is NKJV. I do love the layout.
Love that you started the video off with the "Onlyism" rejection. Thank you.
Amen!
I use the new King James version it follows the TR and I usually have on my phone Young’s literal translation. And in the margin I usually put an alternate translation where it’s needed. Sometimes they translate heaven, when it should be heavens. Or believe, when it should be believing. But the new king James is very good and he corrects a lot of mistakes in the king James. But all three are TR based and that’s the most important thing.All the other translations I can honestly read because of corruption in my opinion. God bless
On my desk in my office for sermon prep, I have the NLT, NKJV and the NASB 95. The 7th reason I like the NKJV is because it capitalizes pronouns when talking about God.
Yes!
What do you know about the Amplified Bible ?
I like the Knox translation which was very popular in the 60's in the UK.
Cool! I didn't know knox came out with his own translation. I'll have to check it out!
Thanks for all you do brother. God bless you. I understand at least somewhat of where the KJV only people are coming from- I don’t like the Alexandrian manuscripts and when the devil tempted Jesus, He fought back with the Word. So, since it’s been the go to for English speakers for hundreds of years it’s nice to have a solid, trustworthy Bible. But the KJV is hard to read and can be confusing because of modern language differences. God is not the author of confusion. Decided to buy a NKJV. I also especially appreciate the marginal notes because- let’s say the Critical Text is in fact corrupt, many people use CR Bibles so it’s nice to know for the brethren’s sake where things are being changed. May the LORD guide us in truth and love on this.
amen!
Good video. What microphone is that?
It's the Blue Snowball, but I have Blue Yeti in the mail so I'll be changing it up.
@@Dwayne_Green is it usb?
@@CaseyFleetMedia yes.
@@Dwayne_Green I am surprised it sounded so good. You will like the Yeti. I have one and I love it. You just have to get used to the gain.
@@Dwayne_Green here is a good video on using the yeti well
ua-cam.com/video/WIBTbRWuNG4/v-deo.html
I prefer the NASB..love it
That's a great Bible translation from what I hear, I haven't done much work with it though... Surprisingly!
Wonderful! Couldn't agree more! Feel free to share on the "Thomas Nelson and Zondervan Bible appreciation" group on Facebook!
Good reasons indeed!
NKJV was the first English Bible I ever purchased. I loved how equivalent it was to the Spanish RVR 1960. It still remains as my favourite translation!
It would be nice if the NKJV kept the THEE and THOU and updated the old words.The NASB 77 Edition kept the Thee and Thou and it sounds nice.
haha, autocorrect!
saith Is the reason I read kjv Preadventure is not a big word put your seat belt on for the numbers that are in the KJV only oh did I say that!
Why indeed... when we have the kjv!
Hey Dwayne, great video. I'm kinda juggling between 4 translations: KJV, NKJV, Noah Webster's 1833 Common Version, and the new SKJV Simplified King James Version. Yup I'm a TR guy, guilty as charged.
Speaking of Mark Ward (whom I have great respect for), I found a "false flag" in the NKJV. I was reading Isaiah 13:21 in the KJV & was wondering what satyrs was so I grabbed my NKJV and saw wild goats but then I noticed the NKJV ended the verse with "wild goats will caper there" every other translation uses either dance or play. Apparently besides meaning am illegal act, caper once also meant a frolicsome leap. So apparently there's false flags in moder translations as well.
Anyways, keep up the great work.
Thanks Dan! That's a really interesting find in the NKJV!
I only use the 1599 Geneva Bible because I am better then others. (It’s a joke.)
formal equivalence?... the NKJV but NOT the KJV is written that way..?... why is that one point all NKJV pushers... state to use the NKJV?.. is the KJV.. NOT formal equivalence as well..?..is the NASB not written this way as well.. ?.. ok nothing special there...
updated English..?.. I still do not know what "waheb and suphah".. is from Numbers 21:14....
and the NKJV.. did Not stop ast updating the language... in some instances.. they completely re-wrote the verse to say so?.. the liberality with the use of the word "YOU".. as a cureall to cover everything is inexcusable..as sometimes You refers to a group of people.. and other times it refers to just one person.. how can we tell?...
and what about the Christophony removal in Genesis 22:8.. simply by adding the word "FOR".. before "Himself"?...
Sonf of Solomon 3:9... NKJV... what is a "palanquin"...?
itakicized words... you did Not elaborate on how the NKJV uses these for a different purpose than the KJV.. does... EXPLAIN PLEASE... you cannot cite.. the KJV for using italicized words when the NKJV uses these for the same reason...
marginal notes...?.... hmm another carru over from what the KJV translators did... as the KJV also has marginal notes explaining this as well...
realizing that the NKJV is just as guilty of having "unreadable verses"...such as pointed out above..
and due to the NKJV translators taking anexceptional amount of liberties in re-writing verses that were already understandable in the KJV...and at the same time often changing the intended meaning of the verse in the process.. note compare Haggai 1:10..."over uou".. "above you"...?.. the intended meaning was ...."because of you".. which is totally lost in the NKJV...
And the use of the word YOU as a place holder for both words "thee".. and "ye".. whuch do NOT mean the same thing..
topped with the fact that when the Old Testament passages are quoted in the New testament... which you did not mention... in the NKJV.... often times.. the O.T. passages are NOT quoted verbatim...which to me is an update within an update...which You DID NOT discuss..
I think I will stick with my KJV...
I'm a nkjv fan
Preference based on opinion. Subjective choice.
Absolutely! Agreed 100%.
Thanks for the helpful video. To be honest in my daily readings l read seven different translations to get the fullest and roundest understanding of the text. This includes the NRSV, which is a delight to read for all the reasons you give.
I know what you mean about the ESV. The other day I was reading along with our pastor, (who uses the ESV) and I have a 2016 model and I have no idea what model he was reading out of, but it did throw me off for a minute because of a minor variant. However, I was able to get back on and finish the ride! I think the update of Psalm 23 was a mistake, but it is because I like the traditional reading! I also hate how Max Mclean read the entire 2004 ESV (Which is awesome! I could listen to that guy read the phone book!) but now it is out of date somewhat now. Probably the two most literal Bible translations are the NASB and the NKJV. In fact, the NKJV is more literal than even the 1995 NASB, and especially the 2020 NASB, but not as much as the 1977 NASB. Thanks for the video, I think those are all some good reasons to use the NKJV.
absolutely! Bibles don't need to be updated every 2 years!
I love the nkjv
Me? NKJV forever!!
Everything else is just notes
Haha, awesome! 🤣
I love the NKJV, as well as the KJV. I read from several at once using a Bible program, but I bought my sons the NKJV because of some the things you mentioned here.
Its good before you preach a message go over the know fallible scriptures from nkjv. Narrow way to difficult way. From saved to being saved. And some totally different meanings to being passive when you need to be aggressive. Real bible believers has a video on it. I have a nkjv but use it when I don't understand my kjv. I work my way down. The nlt even helps in some cases. But some major misses also
what about the 66 times "Lord" was removed? 51 times "God" was removed. heaven 50x, repent 44x, Blood 23x, hell 22x removed. knowing that and reading Revelation 22:19... i have a hard time opening other translations than the 1611
Tlv bible and cepher they keep the Jewishness of the scriptures in tact instead of making it alien to the original audience
Actually, the NKJV's text isn't as stable as you may think. For example, it's missing the words "to do them," in Deuteronomy 27:26, in many editions with the same copyright (1982). I have a copy of a 1982 NKJV where those words, which are in the Hebrew text, are missing.
It also mistranslates Hebrews 3:16, creating an error where there was none in that passage in the KJV. That change matches the other modern versions, which shows that the NKJV translators were willing to follow the modern translators, rather than stick with the KJV translators in that verse.
I don't think i said the NKJV was without error... But when you consider that fact that the translation hasn't been updated since 1984.... I'd say 38 years is pretty stable! If a printing is done today it will be the same as the 1984 text. Again, Stability does not mean without error, rather, "Without changes"
The NKJ gets credit for keeping the 16 New Testament passages that the the other modern translations dropped. However, the NKJ does not solely rely on the traditional text. It too uses the critical text. Gen 1:1 KJV says Heaven and the Earth, NKJ says Heavens, Acts 3:26 KJV says Jesus his Son, NKJ says Jesus his servant. That is a significant difference. In 1st Corinthians 1 : 18 and 2nd Corinthians 2:15 the reading of are saved was changed to are being saved
Matthew 7 :14 the KJB reads narrow while the NKJV reads difficult, that's significant as to what the path is. 2 Corinthians 2:17 the KJV says we are not as many which corrupt the word of God but the NKJ says peddling the word of God. Titus 3: 10 KJV says A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject, the NKJ says Reject a divisive man. 1 Thessalonians 5:22 KJV says Abstain from all appearance of evil, NKJ says Abstain from every form of evil. Isaiah 66:5 KJV ... But he shall appear to your joy, but the NKJ says ...That we may see your joy. All of these examples change the meaning and are the words used in other modern translations that rely on the Critical text. Now what in any of those examples does it appear that the NKJ is using words that are easier to understand? There are many other examples like these as well. Yes, there are a lot of archaic words that the NKJ did update where the meaning wasn't changed. However, often it also changes words and phrases that didn't need updated at all and ultimately changed the meaning of the passage.
The NKJV does use the critical text. The NT is based on the Textus Receptus, the same text that the old KJV used. However, in the footnotes it will give readings from the modern critical editions (NU Text) and the traditional text represented by the majority of existing manuscripts (M text) I favor the M Text.
also look at JOB 4:17.. compare the NKJV to the NKJV.... if you'll notice in the KJV .. Job's friend was accusing Job.. in the KJV.. of thinking of himself as Greater than God... but in the NKJV.. we only get the impression.. that Job was thinking of himself as equal to God... which is the greater.. sin?.....
and let me ask you... why did the NKJV translators feel they needed to update THAT verse..?.. it was NOT hard to understand in the KJV...was this one of the unneccesary liberties.. I have been ranting about....?...
look at Numbers 21:14.. in the NKJV..... can you tell me what "WAHEB and SUPHAH.".. means...?.... there is NO such problem reading this verse in the KJV...
The NASB is available in 3 different versions: 1977, 1995 & 2020. Royally annoying!
I know right?!?
@@Dwayne_Green I bought the 1st 2, but not the 2020.
I love my New King James bible. I have a regular King James to carry to church because that's what my pastor preaches from but at home I read the New King James. I'm not a big fan of the critical text because the traditional text has been tried and true. It has been available since the 1st or 2nd century. Why would God "hide" a good part of His word in Egypt up until 250 years ago?? This doesn't make sense. Traditional Text is it!
Awesome! I actually have the KJV on the night table right now and have been using it in my evening devotions. But I've been preaching and studying with the NKJV. :)
The NKJV is the best counterfeit of the true. The NKJV is not an honest update of the KJV. The NIV, ESV, NASV, etc. are in agreement with the New World Translation in many, many ways. All three of these translations agree with the biased NWT remove or cast doubt upon Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; and Romans 16:24. All four state a boldface lie in Mark 1:2. All four remove some or most of Matthew 6:13; Luke 4:4, 8; Romans 8:1; and 1 John 5:7. All four remove "study" from 2 Timothy 2:15. All four have two separate people killing Goliath in 1 Samuel 17 and 2 Samuel 21:19. All four cast doubt upon Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11, yet include it by separation from the text or place in a footnote. Birds of a feather flock together.
I could add the NKJV with the other four bibles that corrupted or changed Romans 1:18, 25, 2 Corinthians 2:17, 1 Timothy 6:10, 20, and 2 Timothy 2:15 because these passages are aimed at the dishonest ones on the committees.
God's Word does not change. God does not change. annual revisions create doubt in believers. Foot notes create doubt.
one point I would like to make.. regarding why I am NOT sold on the NKJV text as opposed to the KJV text... Haggai 1:10..NKJV..."therefore the heavens ABOVE YOU...."in the KJV it reads..."therefore the heavebns OVER YOU...".. the NASB..."therefore the sky BECAUSE OF YOU..."..
the original manuscript gives the connotation.. of ...."because of you.."... in other words Haggai 1:10 .. was written.. with the intention of God explaining why something has happened to the Israelites... basically that it was THEIR... fault.. that there has been No dew...
this meaning is totally lost when instead of leaving the words from the KJV....."OVER YOU".. alone and changing them to what the NKJV translators.. THOUGHT.. this meaning was.. perhaps based on their mis understanding of ths in the KJV....and thus .they changed the words "OVER YOU".. to read "ABOVE YOU".. thus changing this from an explanation.. to a location...
multiply THAT a hundred times over.. and you can see why I prefer the KJV...
I really think if you checked the NKJV carefully,... you will find the NKJV is MORE than JUST an update of the KJV..
the NKJV is a sublimal way.. of pulling peopke away from God's intended meanings of many passages...
I would hope that this was due to the ignorance on the part of the NKJV contributors,.. and NOT done on purpose...kind of scary ,really...
What’s wrong with advocating KJV onlyism?
Great question! I don't think there's anything wrong if you want to use the KJV exclusively, by all means read it and study it, love it, and wear out it's pages! But I think that other translations also have a lot to offer in addition to the KJV.
Nothing until it brings division in the body of Christ.
@@susyhebner2456 so believing I have the perfect word of God is “divisive” in the body of Christ? 🤔
@@ThePreachersDaughterKJV1611 Your question here leads us to PRECISELY what this issue boils down to. No, believing that you (we!) have the perfect* word of God SHOULD NOT be divisive-but boy, is it ever!
*Complete, non-contradictory, and able to accurately deliver the message of God to us.
There is nothing as beautiful and magnificent and precise as the KJV. The NKJV was when I realized it’s the whole truth. But after reading the ESV, I realized how bad modern scholars are willing to be and their use of assumptions and theories and hypothesis when translating. I question the faith of some of those people.
some of unprovable assumptions used
1) oldest manuscripts are better and more reliable. Paul talked of people screwing with scripture in a letter.
2) thoughts and intentions of the writer can be determined. Just What?!?
3) Overzealous monks added to scripture over time. Again completely unprovable and the Consistency is remarkable in the TR
4) Sleepy monks messed up scripture. Again nutty unprovable assumptions
5) The originals are the only ones inspired and we are moving then if we could just keep digging . Completely against scripture
6) The Catholic Church is a friend of scholars. They certainly are not and anything found in their creepy places should be considered with a great deal of Suspicion.
7) King James wrote part of the translation and was a flaming closeted homosexual. And other slander of the people who risked their lives to bring the bible to english is just dishonest and underhanded. Modern scholars could defend themselves if they would bother.
8) The TR manuscripts were too good and their stories too inline to be accurate and there has to be fowl play involved. This was a stupid claim of Hort who was one of the ones that started this mess.
9) Modern scholarship is more accurate than Late Medieval scholarship. I can only say read the works of the older scholars or the puritans and then read John Macauthor, John White or Os Guinness or someone considered great today. Laughable
10) footnotes bring clarity and enlightenment. This has been a huge rouge and has lead to more people just giving up studying and meditating. Footnotes bring doubt and confusions to most. The brackets in Mark 16 in the ESV started me on this journey.
The Holy Ghost gave us the KJV all others are of the flesh and I am a textual critic
Modern versions are from EGYPT!