Pastor, you have given a great presentation on the NKJV. The NKJV is the version I read from. I like the NKJV, NASB, KJV, NIV, ESV and have read through the NLT. If a person wants to really do a Bible Study, I think the best would be to look at the NKJV, NASB and ESV. The easiest read for me is the NIV, and that version is great to get a thought for thought, rather than a Word for Word idea. Where the NKJV and NASB are similar is that they both capitalize the Personal Pronouns for Deity. What the NKJV is really good on, and you mentioned this, is when a verse is found in the Textus Receptus, yet not in the newer discovered, older than Textus Receptus, Greek manuscripts, like Codex Sinaiticus, or Codes Vaticanus. The thing I will never understand about KJV-Only people is that they are not using the 1611 version, rather the 4th Edition from 1769. Also, the Textus Receptus, was originally written from the "Majority Text" by the Catholic Priest Erasmus, that was dated from the 12th Century, and Erasmus had to back translate to Greek almost all of the Book of Revelation, and other sections, from a 7th Century edition of the Latin Vulgate. I bring up the Catholic part of Erasmus, since KJV-Only people are totally opposed to the Roman Catholic Church, yet Tyndale's Bible, Die Bibel, by Luther and KJV are all using the Textus Receptus of Erasmus or Stephanus, (I have one of Stephanus Greek Interlinear). By the way, "...He came into the neighborhood...," is TOO much for me!
I grew up with the NIV, then in my 20s switched to the HCSB. After about 15 years of using that I switched to the NKJV. Partly because I wanted a more formal translation, partly because I wanted a Bible that used the TR (and the NKJV has fantastic textual notes), but mostly because I loved the language it used. So I’ve been using the NKJV for a bit over a year now, have read the Bible about 1.5 times, and am still loving it. It also got me more interested in the KJV, so I’m a little over halfway through reading the Bible in that translation too.
Yes, the NKJV is the Bible of my Church. I like the MEV (Modern English Version) better. I think it is both more accurate and easier reading than even the NKJV. But it is not very popular, hence, no goatskin editions.
Thank you for this! I’ve been using the NIV translation for a good while now, but I’m looking to ask my parents to buy me an NKJV! I use the nkjv when I’m on the Bible app and I like the translation better than the NIV.
What it does especially well is offer a thorough textual apparatus in the New Testament. It also does fairly well on this point in the Old Testament, but it could use a minor revision to its footnotes now that we're 40 years out from its most recent update.
Romans 4:25 in the NKJV contains a blasphemous reading. Christ was not raised BECAUSE OF our justification. He was raised FOR our justification. We are justified BECAUSE of the resurrection.
@@jasonwells5760 That's what the NKJV clearly means. The word "because" here does not mean that our justification comes before his resurrection, but that the need to bring about our justification is the inciting reason for his resurrection.
@@MAMoreno Nice try. I'm interested in what it SAYS. Not interested in what you think it means. It's not dishonest to quote the verse as it stands in the NKJV. Interesting also that in Reina's 1569 Spanish Bible as well as in Valera's 1602 revision, the preposition "por" is used in the second half of the verse (“el cual fue entregado por nuestros delitos y resucitó por nuestra justificación”), yet in all subsequent revisions and translations from the Reina Valera line, the correct preposition "para" is used.
@@jasonwells5760 No, the issue here is that you're wrongly limiting the word "because" to chronological causation (X happens, which causes Y) and ignoring its applicability to other forms of causation (X happens in order to bring about Y). Here is the Thomas Nelson NKJV Study Bible's note at Romans 4.25: "Jesus was delivered up to death, taking the penalty of our sin on Himself. Just as God brought life from Abraham and Sarah, who thought they were unable to have children, so God raised Jesus back to life. Jesus’ resurrection brought us justification before God because His resurrection proves that God accepted Jesus’ sacrifice for us." If even the publisher of the translation says, "This is what the words in the NKJV mean," then we can take it that this is what the words in the NKJV mean.
2 Cor 3:4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: 3:5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. That being said, I prefer the KJV... Even though I read other translations...
Like review it? Because I’ve already read through it on my own… and don’t prefer it, mostly because if I wanted to read a language that was that ancient, I’ll just read the Hebrew and Greek.
Romans 4:25 in the NKJV contains a blasphemous reading. Christ was not raised BECAUSE OF our justification. He was raised FOR our justification. We are justified BECAUSE of the resurrection.
I’m almost 100% certain the NKJV derives its translation of the New Testament from the Textus Receptus (received text)… it is an update to the KJV… so it would have to be in that line of translation. That is why they retain all the verses of the KJV.
