The NKJV is my comfort translation. I find so much solace and a warmth from reading it. It was the first translation I read after leaving KJV Onlyism, and I will always love and cherish it.
The NKJV is one of my preferred translations for the reasons you gave in this video. I am starting to use the LSB more frequently, but I really like the footnotes in the NKJV. However, given that new versions of the Nestle-Aland text have come out since the NKJV was released, and work is being done on the Editio Critica Maior (ECM), I think that the footnotes may need an update sooner or later, as will the text itself (language changes over time).
I actually moved from the NIV to NKJV in my first saved years for the more formal equivalent reading due to serious systematic exegetical training in the text to which I fell in love with the footers as you mentioned. But alas NA27 and NASB 95 seem to be my “adult” academic study tools, although of course consulting all is enriching and needed for a full world view so to speak. Shoutout to the NET is needed, the information provided is beautiful! Blessings in Christ, thanks for the video!
Great video! Well said, John! The Berean Standard Bible has a similar note system that shows you the variations. I find the BSB to be one of the most well balanced translations.
Again, I like your moderate approach & tonecin your videos. You hit 2 of my biggest points re: Bible translations. First, I like the textual basis notes in the NKJV also. Second, I often consult the NET Full Notes edition. When I write papers & books, I use the NKJV, primarily because so many of my fellow conservative Protestant Christian readers like it & the KJV. But when I teach or preach, I use the NASB. Sorry, but I am one who prefers the Critical Text as the basis for the NT. However, I would be interested in a video discussing your reasons why you prefer the Majority Text. Would you think about doing that?
@@dougbaker2755 you got it! Thanks for the super in-depth comment. I really appreciate these. I have no problems at all with people that are critical text advocates. I've actually been thinking about doing that and I probably will make a more in-depth video talking about why I primarily am a majority text Guy
I use a NKJV and BSB combo and am really enjoying an enriching time in the word. Would love to see a review of the BSB and am hopeful that their Majority version comes to print. Enjoyed the laypersons approach in your video!
Good video, thanks. This is informative and helpful, and it got me to thinking. I like the NKJV and use it. I have two study bibles that use it. I do understand the arguments here; they do carry weight. That's why I also use multiple translations, KJV, NKJV, ESV, NIV (I'm not crazy about this one, but I consult it from time to time anyway). I think I have an NASB somewhere. The NASB has some appeal to me also, and I am beginning to understand why a lot of people have used that through the years. As far as I recall, it reads pretty well. However, I do not trust 100% ANY translation, knowing full well how subjective and arbitrary translations can sometimes be. ALL translations have issues of one kind or another, whether they be the manuscripts that they are working with, translation philosophy, literalness, liberties with the original languages, "gender bias," clunky or wooden phrasing, etc. Let's not forgetting the existence of so many synonyms both in the originals and the translations, which sometimes make it rather hard to decide which word to settle on. That's why we have concordances like Strong's and a number of Greek-English lexicons to help us. I am making more and more use of these when I feel like challenging a word or phrase that I encounter in English, or am just curious how the Koine Greek expressed it. Finally, there is the always delicate issue of language change. Some folks want to embrace recent changes in English and incorporate those into their translations. The NKJV is a classic example. For me, this all depends on which "changes" they want to incorporate and why. Not all these changes are even worth bothering with. Some involve mere fads, as words come and go in popularity, here today, gone tomorrow. I'd hate to see the translators inject their Bible versions with this sort of language. Translators need to remember that the English language consists of many dialects and varieties. It is quite impossible to accommodate or incorporate all of them. But translators do not NEED to worry about trendy or ephemeral items. What they need to focus on is a reasonably accurate translation which does not come out clunky or wooden, and has a poetic, majestic, and lofty air about it appropriate for the material being translated. That's how I see it.
@@tabletalk33 very well thought out in articulated! I really respect the amount of time that you put into this comment, it definitely shows both your character and your commitment to the truth. I agree with you that referencing multiple translations is good, is well as the fact that I prefer more stable texts. I don't necessarily think we need to update the English translations as much as we do, it's sort of a rubber ruler on what the standard of "readable" is. By and large I think we have more than enough English translations to satisfy every need of anyone alive.
Bsb would be a great video as most people dont know much about that one including me. Main concern is does it remove the verses that critical text does?
I’ve noticed that a huge textual variant Between the NKJV and Nasb is Matthew 18:15 …. Nkjv adds “against you” and The textual footnotes on the NKJV doesn’t mention the omission in the NU for that phrase “against you”…. a huge difference in dynamic when it comes down to church discipline…. Perhaps a great video to discuss in the future?
@@puritanpioneer1646 when you first started commenting I was convinced you were an 85 year old man, now I know surely of a truth thou must be younger. Also, it's a columbarium for cemeteries. I install headstones in cemeteries for a living. Lol
@puritanpioneer1646 yeah I put that together from the "No Cap" comment lol Btw, you should do a video series talking about the Westminster confession of faith, I totally watch it. 👍
@@goldenarm2118 that may be true, but I think that showing the reality of textual variance is extremely important. I think not showing them at all can lead to problematic situations
@@goldenarm2118 what I was trying to say is that textual variance are a reality, so the average Christian might as well be aware of them. Being ignorant on this subject doesn't help anybody. Thanks for the comment!
@@JohnMiles117 I understand and mostly agree with you. What I don't like about the NKJV are all the section headings. With that being said, the NKJV is my preferred translation for reading and study. I memorize out of the KJV. Thanks for the video.
@@procop4063 those are all good translations, I'm confused do you mean to ask me if I think the LSB is perfect? Or do you mean what are my thoughts on the lsp?
@JohnMiles117 mostly because I'm used to the rhythm of the kjv. it sounds silly, but it just doesn't feel the same to me. Now I will say I will use the nkjv if I'm explaining something to someone. Rather than try to explain greek context and how this word in this context is actually this and means this where as in this context, they used this, but in English, it's the same word. Lol
NKJV is surely fading. It shouldn't be used as a primary Bible. The textual basis is, ultimately, problematic. People have a strong attachment to Textus Receptus. People should be gently encouraged to move to a better text. I should say even for TR the Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5 v 7 can't, I'm afraid be justified. It ought not even be in the Textus Receptus. It got there by virtue of the Vulgate but it has no basis in Greek. I can understand there's a devotional attachment to the text if you grew up with it but .... I find it useful when working with the Greek however. It might be useful as either an Interlinear or a parallel text could be useful.
@@cpnlsn88 although I agree with you that I'm not the biggest fan of the TR, I still think it's an extremely valuable translation because of the quality both of the translation and its footnotes. I still think it has a valuable place in daily use
@@richiejourney1840 I'm referring to the eclectic text that is used in all modern day translation, excluding the MEV, which used the TR. I believe this eclectic text does use Wescott and Hort; My issue is with the Alexandrian and Vaticanus texts discovered in the 1800s which have been used to supplant the TR since they are considered older. Older doesn't necessarily mean more accurate. But my thinking says that we have a textual tradition that goes back to the 300's but new translations found in the 1800's has caused a "rewriting" of the Greek text which changes the "uninterrupted" tradition. It's like in the 1800's, we were given a "new" Bible that didn't exist before, reflecting all the changes found in just the texts from Alexandria and the Vatican. Hope that makes sense.
@@goldenarm2118 I don't know if you are TR only or not, but be careful not to end up in a position that can't answer "How can you justify a Greek text that didn't exist until 1611?"
His comment is not worth a thing because if he worked on it, why didn’t he do something to correct what he is now complaining about. If it’s not any good it’s part his fault. It’s like working on a car engine and not taking any fault for it blowing up.
@@monopolylife although I understand what you're saying and there is some truth to it, I think the reason is because ultimately he didn't really have a say what texts do they used. Because he was not on the editing team he was simply on the secondary editing team. But I do agree with you that if you did have a major say in the translation that he should have spoken up more. Knowing Dan Wallace I'm sure he did
The quality is a little bit shaky on my filming. Unfortunately I accidentally deleted the original video so this is all there is. I hope you like it
The NKJV is my comfort translation. I find so much solace and a warmth from reading it. It was the first translation I read after leaving KJV Onlyism, and I will always love and cherish it.
I love the NKJV. It is probably my second favorite translation behind the ESV. I am glad we have such a quality version of the TR.
I love the NKJV, i also use the LSB
I am glad you mentioned the NET bible and its footnotes.
@@DonaldAdams-n5p of course! Trying to spread the word
The NKJV is one of my preferred translations for the reasons you gave in this video. I am starting to use the LSB more frequently, but I really like the footnotes in the NKJV. However, given that new versions of the Nestle-Aland text have come out since the NKJV was released, and work is being done on the Editio Critica Maior (ECM), I think that the footnotes may need an update sooner or later, as will the text itself (language changes over time).
@@genejoy637 excellent point! I agree that the notes should be updated!
I actually moved from the NIV to NKJV in my first saved years for the more formal equivalent reading due to serious systematic exegetical training in the text to which I fell in love with the footers as you mentioned. But alas NA27 and NASB 95 seem to be my “adult” academic study tools, although of course consulting all is enriching and needed for a full world view so to speak. Shoutout to the NET is needed, the information provided is beautiful! Blessings in Christ, thanks for the video!
@@jamesg6297 thank you so much! That's awesome! I love the NASB as well! Excellent translations
Great video! Well said, John! The Berean Standard Bible has a similar note system that shows you the variations. I find the BSB to be one of the most well balanced translations.
Ha! I commented before I got to the part about BSB. I love the BSB and would love to hear your thoughts. Also, on the NET.
I’m with you on this my brother!
@@richiejourney1840 Amen bro! Always happy to have another one in the ranks!
Again, I like your moderate approach & tonecin your videos. You hit 2 of my biggest points re: Bible translations. First, I like the textual basis notes in the NKJV also. Second, I often consult the NET Full Notes edition. When I write papers & books, I use the NKJV, primarily because so many of my fellow conservative Protestant Christian readers like it & the KJV. But when I teach or preach, I use the NASB. Sorry, but I am one who prefers the Critical Text as the basis for the NT. However, I would be interested in a video discussing your reasons why you prefer the Majority Text. Would you think about doing that?
@@dougbaker2755 you got it! Thanks for the super in-depth comment. I really appreciate these. I have no problems at all with people that are critical text advocates. I've actually been thinking about doing that and I probably will make a more in-depth video talking about why I primarily am a majority text Guy
I use a NKJV and BSB combo and am really enjoying an enriching time in the word. Would love to see a review of the BSB and am hopeful that their Majority version comes to print. Enjoyed the laypersons approach in your video!
The notes in the (H)CSB are similarly excellent
I also emailed Dan Wallace with questions once and he got back to me the same day and answered all my questions.
@@NeedAVacay-y5u send me the link! I'd love to ask him some stuff!
Good video, thanks. This is informative and helpful, and it got me to thinking.
I like the NKJV and use it. I have two study bibles that use it. I do understand the arguments here; they do carry weight. That's why I also use multiple translations, KJV, NKJV, ESV, NIV (I'm not crazy about this one, but I consult it from time to time anyway). I think I have an NASB somewhere. The NASB has some appeal to me also, and I am beginning to understand why a lot of people have used that through the years. As far as I recall, it reads pretty well. However, I do not trust 100% ANY translation, knowing full well how subjective and arbitrary translations can sometimes be.
ALL translations have issues of one kind or another, whether they be the manuscripts that they are working with, translation philosophy, literalness, liberties with the original languages, "gender bias," clunky or wooden phrasing, etc. Let's not forgetting the existence of so many synonyms both in the originals and the translations, which sometimes make it rather hard to decide which word to settle on. That's why we have concordances like Strong's and a number of Greek-English lexicons to help us. I am making more and more use of these when I feel like challenging a word or phrase that I encounter in English, or am just curious how the Koine Greek expressed it.
Finally, there is the always delicate issue of language change. Some folks want to embrace recent changes in English and incorporate those into their translations. The NKJV is a classic example. For me, this all depends on which "changes" they want to incorporate and why. Not all these changes are even worth bothering with. Some involve mere fads, as words come and go in popularity, here today, gone tomorrow. I'd hate to see the translators inject their Bible versions with this sort of language. Translators need to remember that the English language consists of many dialects and varieties. It is quite impossible to accommodate or incorporate all of them. But translators do not NEED to worry about trendy or ephemeral items. What they need to focus on is a reasonably accurate translation which does not come out clunky or wooden, and has a poetic, majestic, and lofty air about it appropriate for the material being translated. That's how I see it.
@@tabletalk33 very well thought out in articulated! I really respect the amount of time that you put into this comment, it definitely shows both your character and your commitment to the truth. I agree with you that referencing multiple translations is good, is well as the fact that I prefer more stable texts. I don't necessarily think we need to update the English translations as much as we do, it's sort of a rubber ruler on what the standard of "readable" is. By and large I think we have more than enough English translations to satisfy every need of anyone alive.
I would love to hear what you think about the BSB
@@SDsc0rch I'll make a video about that soon!
Bsb would be a great video as most people dont know much about that one including me. Main concern is does it remove the verses that critical text does?
@@Sgomes-is4or I don't believe it does, I'll have to double check.
bravo! well done! : )
@@SDsc0rch thank you so much!
I’ve noticed that a huge textual variant Between the NKJV and Nasb is Matthew 18:15 …. Nkjv adds “against you” and The textual footnotes on the NKJV doesn’t mention the omission in the NU for that phrase “against you”…. a huge difference in dynamic when it comes down to church discipline…. Perhaps a great video to discuss in the future?
I would youlike for you to do a video on the CSB, please 😊
@@davecrawford4377 you got it!
Comparison with MEV?
While the KJV is my primary translation, I really like the NKJV. The footnotes are good, but they are dated and need to be updated.
Casual indeed, bros always got the best scenery, but haven't seen that structure before, no cap
@@puritanpioneer1646 when you first started commenting I was convinced you were an 85 year old man, now I know surely of a truth thou must be younger.
Also, it's a columbarium for cemeteries. I install headstones in cemeteries for a living. Lol
@@JohnMiles117 so you're the guy we call when bad theology needs burying, huh? ;)
@@joelmcleay 😂 something I've noticed from the industry, unfortunately even when you bury the man histology somehow stays alive lol
@@JohnMiles117 LOL, I'm 18
@puritanpioneer1646 yeah I put that together from the "No Cap" comment lol
Btw, you should do a video series talking about the Westminster confession of faith, I totally watch it. 👍
Some people argue that the NKJV footnote, showing the alternate readings, creates more doubt on what was actually said.
@@goldenarm2118 that may be true, but I think that showing the reality of textual variance is extremely important. I think not showing them at all can lead to problematic situations
@@goldenarm2118 what I was trying to say is that textual variance are a reality, so the average Christian might as well be aware of them. Being ignorant on this subject doesn't help anybody. Thanks for the comment!
@@JohnMiles117 I understand and mostly agree with you. What I don't like about the NKJV are all the section headings. With that being said, the NKJV is my preferred translation for reading and study. I memorize out of the KJV. Thanks for the video.
@goldenarm2118 thanks for the discussion. Honestly you can't go wrong with either of those translations. 👍
For me brother my church went from KJV to NASB 95 20 years ago. I flipped to NKJV back about five years ago... Now it's the LSB is perfect?.
@@procop4063 those are all good translations, I'm confused do you mean to ask me if I think the LSB is perfect? Or do you mean what are my thoughts on the lsp?
The NKJV is better than the KJV, but that's not saying much.
I am not a fan of the nkjv. I prefer my kjv
@@jtalks5 ain't nothing wrong with that 👍
@JohnMiles117 mostly because I'm used to the rhythm of the kjv. it sounds silly, but it just doesn't feel the same to me. Now I will say I will use the nkjv if I'm explaining something to someone. Rather than try to explain greek context and how this word in this context is actually this and means this where as in this context, they used this, but in English, it's the same word. Lol
@jtalks5 😂😂 that's actually pretty accurate
NKJV is surely fading. It shouldn't be used as a primary Bible. The textual basis is, ultimately, problematic.
People have a strong attachment to Textus Receptus. People should be gently encouraged to move to a better text.
I should say even for TR the Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5 v 7 can't, I'm afraid be justified. It ought not even be in the Textus Receptus. It got there by virtue of the Vulgate but it has no basis in Greek.
I can understand there's a devotional attachment to the text if you grew up with it but ....
I find it useful when working with the Greek however. It might be useful as either an Interlinear or a parallel text could be useful.
How can you justify a Greek text that didn't exist until the 1800's?
@@goldenarm2118which text are you referring to? W&H?
@@cpnlsn88 although I agree with you that I'm not the biggest fan of the TR, I still think it's an extremely valuable translation because of the quality both of the translation and its footnotes. I still think it has a valuable place in daily use
@@richiejourney1840 I'm referring to the eclectic text that is used in all modern day translation, excluding the MEV, which used the TR. I believe this eclectic text does use Wescott and Hort; My issue is with the Alexandrian and Vaticanus texts discovered in the 1800s which have been used to supplant the TR since they are considered older. Older doesn't necessarily mean more accurate. But my thinking says that we have a textual tradition that goes back to the 300's but new translations found in the 1800's has caused a "rewriting" of the Greek text which changes the "uninterrupted" tradition. It's like in the 1800's, we were given a "new" Bible that didn't exist before, reflecting all the changes found in just the texts from Alexandria and the Vatican. Hope that makes sense.
@@goldenarm2118 I don't know if you are TR only or not, but be careful not to end up in a position that can't answer "How can you justify a Greek text that didn't exist until 1611?"
His comment is not worth a thing because if he worked on it, why didn’t he do something to correct what he is now complaining about. If it’s not any good it’s part his fault. It’s like working on a car engine and not taking any fault for it blowing up.
@@monopolylife although I understand what you're saying and there is some truth to it, I think the reason is because ultimately he didn't really have a say what texts do they used. Because he was not on the editing team he was simply on the secondary editing team. But I do agree with you that if you did have a major say in the translation that he should have spoken up more. Knowing Dan Wallace I'm sure he did