So I finally took a moment to research the NKJV. It did not take long to realize that of all the different versions available today, the NKJV is as dangerous if not worse than all other. The NKJV presents itself as being "Equivilent" to the KJV. The scholars who worked on this project sought to ride the "shirt tail" of the KJV. In their own preface they go to great lengths to present both as one in the same.
While the translators claim that the "Textus Receptus" was the "BASIC" text used in translation, they also admit that many other Greek Texts were considered. While reading some key scriptures in the NKJV I found some differences that I, as a KJV advocate, would rather the original translation over the new, and while some may think that their are no "smoking guns" in which one must be alerted over, in fact, the "weapons of mass destruction are there".
Here is the danger of the NKJV.
1. They claim to be an equivalent to the KJV (If they thought so highly of the KJV, why did they see a need to change it?)
2. They claim to use the "Textus Recptus" in thier translation, while in the next sentence admit that other Greek Texts were used. (They used other texts when the "True" text did not agree with their theology/)
3. They created the NKJV translation with footnotes. These footnotes reveal differences in other Greek Texts. When other Greek Texts disagreed with the Textus Receptus they alerted people to that fact.
a. In their own words the scholars stated that they felt that it was better for them to leave it up to the average reader as to what text they would accept, therefore they used footnotes.
(So basically if I read the NKJV and don't agree with what it says, and I find in the footnotes that another Greek Text omitted that particular part--by the guidance of the scholars of the NKJV, I have the freedom to "choose" which one I like best.)
The NKJV by far is the most dangerous of all versions in that it seeks to deceive people into thinking that it is an "Equivalent" of the KJV, when in fact it is a version that promotes the "Average Reader" to make their own decisions as to what is God's Word and what is not.
Bro. Joey Grappe
Missionary Jena Louisiana
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good post. Just to be balanced in what I've studied, lemme support this statement.
ReplyDeleteThe other Greek texts consulted were for the footnotes. So in the footnotes is where the biggest danger lies. They state things such as "Codex Aleph states" or "Codex Bet" says. Modern NKJV footnotes say things like "better readings omit..." or "older texts suggest..." All of this casts extreme doubt in the reader's mind as to whether or not he is reading God's Word. I used a 200 verse checklist, and where the NKJV was in error against the KJV, it was translational error, not a textual base error. For example: 2 Timothy 2:15 says to be diligent to present yourself approved unto God. This is a translation error. Yet the Greek texts (all of them good or bad) use the same exact Greek word here.
This leads us into the second greatest error of the NKJV translators. They actually looked at modern translations, and usually sided with them over the KJV translators. They believed modern translators were better scholars of the language than those teams of men in the 1600s. Any amount of Greek work (even after only 4 years of learning at LMBIS) will show someone that the KJV translators knew far more than the scholars of today.
All of that being said... I must ask your reasoning when you stated, "(If they thought so highly of the KJV, why did they see a need to change it?)"?
I think we must be careful. You and I both think highly of the KJV, yet we look at the Greek also. If their intentions were pure, they could have sought to bring clarity based on today's language, such as changing "let" to "hinder" and changing "suffer" to "allow". After having done thorough research, I recommend the KJVer for anyone looking for a KJV equivalent that pretty much only updates spelling and gives modern synonyms for words no longer found in our dictionary.