I agree, excellent analysis. I would add two more issues I have with the NKJV… 1) Its translation of Greek participles in the NT is formulaic and rigid, giving rise to some inconsistencies in certain doctrines, especially soteriology. 2) While following the TR in the NT, it subtly introduces readings from the LXX in the OT. God bless.
I’m curious as to why you go with the TR as the perfect NT text. It was back translated from the AV and has a reading in Revelation that isn’t found in any manuscript. It seems more logical to me to go with Family 35 instead. I personally use Wilbur Pickering’s translation of Family 35 for the NT and the Refreshed American Standard Version for the OT, since the ASV departs from the MT the least of any translation.
Thank you, Dr Riddle, for showing us these things. You've really quickened my love for, and devotion to the KJV. I have newer versions, but prefer the Authorised Version.
As someone who has (and still) uses the KJV for decades now, your arguments fail to convince me to stop using the NKJV. I won’t address every point, but I will touch on a couple. 1. Does believing John the Baptist was speaking or that the writer John was commenting in John 3:31-36 (based on quotation marks or lack there of) change the truth of the words written down? I contend that it does not. 2. The NKJV footnotes were correct at the time they were written. Do new findings showing that the footnotes are no longer correct mean that we should throw out or disregard the main text of the NKJV? No, all you have done is make a case that the footnotes of the NKJV need to be updated. If Thomas Nelson would update the footnotes while leaving the main text unchanged, I would be totally fine with it.
Hi Dr. Riddle! I've been very appreciative of your videos and the work you're doing to defend the traditional text. I have a brief question. When it comes to using grammatical tools to specify a quote, the AV uses capitalization usually to do this. I'm wondering if this was in the original manuscripts or if they only use that when it's exceedingly clear that a quote has begun? I've never noticed it not being used, but perhaps that's because the start of a quote wasn't clear and I wasn't paying much attention to capitalization.
Not one of the translators of the NKJV believed in the text they were called on to translate. Makes you wonder why they did it. Dr. Dan Wallace said in the Credo Course lesson number 35 titled Which Translation is Best, at about 18 minutes and 35 seconds, “The New King James Version done in 1982 is a curiosity... I worked on it. I was Arthur Farstad’s assistant for quite some time. He was the senior editor of the New King James Bible, and I did a lot of proofreading and a little bit of editing… and basically the New King James takes exactly the same Greek and Hebrew texts as the King James Bible took and gives them a modern translation… Again I worked on the New King James Version. In fact I was kind of the watchdog to make sure the translators were translating from the Textus Receptus. In one or two places they weren’t, they used a modern Greek text and I really nailed these guys. I said, “No that’s not right. You have to use the TR.” So not a single one of the translators, not a single one of the editors of the New King James Bible thinks that the Greek text that they translated is the best one available today. Not one of them. And over 100 scholars worked on this.” Similarly in a speech given at Believer’s Chapel Dallas on September 14, 2016 Dr. Dan Wallace said, “…this is the New King James Version. Now I was Art Farstad’s assistant. He was the one who was the editor of the New King James Bible … and I would go to his house back in the 1970s while I was a master’s student at Dallas Seminary and work on a lot of proofreading for him. I made hundreds of suggestions on how they should translate better; I think none of which were accepted. But you know a young student who doesn't know anything makes those kinds of foolish statements. But one thing that was accepted was - they said their objective was to translate Erasmus's Greek New Testament (they did not want to translate what's called the Majority Text, which is what Art Farstad and Zane Hodges, another professor at Dallas Seminary at the time, had published based on the majority of Greek manuscripts, almost all of these are later manuscripts like what Erasmus used) but this was Erasmus’ text that they wanted to publish and one of the translators who translated James was publishing it on a critically reconstructed text based on older manuscripts and so I at least was able to catch that. But even though none of the translators, none of the scholars who worked on the New King James Bible believed that in these instances they were translating what was the original Scriptures they still wanted to honor the King James tradition and I felt I didn't agree with that…” The question may immediately arise, If the translators of the NKJV did not believe in the text than why were they translating from it? What was their motivation or reason to do the work and how careful would they have been translating a text which they did not believe was accurate?
I agree, excellent analysis. I would add two more issues I have with the NKJV… 1) Its translation of Greek participles in the NT is formulaic and rigid, giving rise to some inconsistencies in certain doctrines, especially soteriology. 2) While following the TR in the NT, it subtly introduces readings from the LXX in the OT. God bless.
Excellent analysis! The Lloyd-Jones quote is one of my favorites.
The NKJV also includes all of Jn. 5:3-4, all of the Lord's prayer in Matt. 6:9-13, and Luke 11:2-4.
Remove "effeminate" and "of God".
I’m curious as to why you go with the TR as the perfect NT text. It was back translated from the AV and has a reading in Revelation that isn’t found in any manuscript. It seems more logical to me to go with Family 35 instead. I personally use Wilbur Pickering’s translation of Family 35 for the NT and the Refreshed American Standard Version for the OT, since the ASV departs from the MT the least of any translation.
Thank you, Dr Riddle, for showing us these things. You've really quickened my love for, and devotion to the KJV. I have newer versions, but prefer the Authorised Version.
As someone who has (and still) uses the KJV for decades now, your arguments fail to convince me to stop using the NKJV. I won’t address every point, but I will touch on a couple. 1. Does believing John the Baptist was speaking or that the writer John was commenting in John 3:31-36 (based on quotation marks or lack there of) change the truth of the words written down? I contend that it does not.
2. The NKJV footnotes were correct at the time they were written. Do new findings showing that the footnotes are no longer correct mean that we should throw out or disregard the main text of the NKJV? No, all you have done is make a case that the footnotes of the NKJV need to be updated. If Thomas Nelson would update the footnotes while leaving the main text unchanged, I would be totally fine with it.
Sodomites turned to shrine prositutes?
Hi Dr. Riddle! I've been very appreciative of your videos and the work you're doing to defend the traditional text.
I have a brief question. When it comes to using grammatical tools to specify a quote, the AV uses capitalization usually to do this. I'm wondering if this was in the original manuscripts or if they only use that when it's exceedingly clear that a quote has begun? I've never noticed it not being used, but perhaps that's because the start of a quote wasn't clear and I wasn't paying much attention to capitalization.
5 very good reasons to continue to use the A.V. as the standard Bible text in English... ☺👍
Of course, as you know, “True Believers” read America’s Standard Version😊
Does the NKJV follow the LXX in Hosea 3:1 and 1 Kings 10:28?
Not one of the translators of the NKJV believed in the text they were called on to translate. Makes you wonder why they did it.
Dr. Dan Wallace said in the Credo Course lesson number 35 titled Which Translation is Best, at about 18 minutes and 35 seconds, “The New King James Version done in 1982 is a curiosity... I worked on it. I was Arthur Farstad’s assistant for quite some time. He was the senior editor of the New King James Bible, and I did a lot of proofreading and a little bit of editing… and basically the New King James takes exactly the same Greek and Hebrew texts as the King James Bible took and gives them a modern translation… Again I worked on the New King James Version. In fact I was kind of the watchdog to make sure the translators were translating from the Textus Receptus. In one or two places they weren’t, they used a modern Greek text and I really nailed these guys. I said, “No that’s not right. You have to use the TR.” So not a single one of the translators, not a single one of the editors of the New King James Bible thinks that the Greek text that they translated is the best one available today. Not one of them. And over 100 scholars worked on this.” Similarly in a speech given at Believer’s Chapel Dallas on September 14, 2016 Dr. Dan Wallace said, “…this is the New King James Version. Now I was Art Farstad’s assistant. He was the one who was the editor of the New King James Bible … and I would go to his house back in the 1970s while I was a master’s student at Dallas Seminary and work on a lot of proofreading for him. I made hundreds of suggestions on how they should translate better; I think none of which were accepted. But you know a young student who doesn't know anything makes those kinds of foolish statements. But one thing that was accepted was - they said their objective was to translate Erasmus's Greek New Testament (they did not want to translate what's called the Majority Text, which is what Art Farstad and Zane Hodges, another professor at Dallas Seminary at the time, had published based on the majority of Greek manuscripts, almost all of these are later manuscripts like what Erasmus used) but this was Erasmus’ text that they wanted to publish and one of the translators who translated James was publishing it on a critically reconstructed text based on older manuscripts and so I at least was able to catch that. But even though none of the translators, none of the scholars who worked on the New King James Bible believed that in these instances they were translating what was the original Scriptures they still wanted to honor the King James tradition and I felt I didn't agree with that…” The question may immediately arise, If the translators of the NKJV did not believe in the text than why were they translating from it? What was their motivation or reason to do the work and how careful would they have been translating a text which they did not believe was accurate?
Thomas Nelson King James Bibles also have the uninspired subheadings.