I can go along with that. My only fear is that it “elevates” exposition to the point that people could just rely on that rather than doing the study themselves, if a “literal” translation makes it difficult.

Since many people will not invest their money in solid study works or their time to learn the languages, all we have left for the majority of our congregations are exposition sessions (whether teaching services or Bible study times) and helpful translations.

Of course, I would prefer more study times and more people learning the languages, and we’re working toward that in our church, too.

I agree with you. I do, however, prefer to translate literally, and leave the explaining to exposition. I don’t like confusing translation with explanation.

The NKJ notes reflect both the Critical Text (NU) and the Majority Text (M). I use the Critical Text via Bibleworks.

I agree, Becky. Of course, there are some truly bad Bibles out there, but most of them are not. Even solo-translator paraphrases have their use, but the best Bibles are those that try to bring the inspired words into our (modern) language without including their theological bias.

It’s keeping up with the modern language that requires new translations. On the other hand, I wish every Christian would take just one year of beginner’s Greek (at least), so they could better utilize the study resources available that reference the original languages. That would be a tremendous step in personal study.

Yeah, I had just read the Preface to the NKJV before you posted this. I haven’t used it much at all, so I didn’t realize how many notes they did include.

While I certainly lean Alexandrian, I actually prefer the Critical Text (NA26-27 / UBS3-4) because it looks at all of the families, instead of just one side or the other. It’s one of the reasons I do like the NASB and NET. I also like the NET, because they use the notes (over 60,000) to point out the reasons behind the translation decisions.

I understand what you’re saying about the “literal” versus the more “dynamic” translations, and I used to think that way, too. The reason I chose to move to the NET is because I think that “good, literal” Greek/Hebrew does not always make “good, literal” English.

While I strongly believe that God inspired the very words of Scripture, I also strongly believe in getting those words into the best form of the translation language, whether that be one word per original word or a whole phrase per original word, if that best brings out the original thoughts of the original words.

Of course, as pastors-teachers, I also think we should become as fluent in the original languages as possible, so we don’t have to rely on someone else’s translation. We can see it for ourselves. That’s pretty awesome!

When in doubt, the NKJV favors the MAJ text. From the NKJV Preface: “In light of these facts, and also because the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the footnotes.”

Your statement assumes the supremacy of the Alexandrian text (for which there are arguments for or against, and thus Farstad’s NKJV project – read the NKJV preface: http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/cms_content?page=186191&sp=57319). I believe that it is possible (and likely) that neither family of texts is “perfect,” and therefore one needs to look at the entire Greek text supply. I do think the MAJ has added text (1 Tim 3:3, for example: “not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle,” where “not greedy for money” is Biblically accurate (found in Titus 1) but not textually accurate. It doesn’t even make sense in 1 Tim 3:3, where the opposite of “not violent” is “gentle,” not greedy. It doesn’t impact our teaching, just the flow of the passage.

I cannot cite a case off the top of my head where I believed the MAJ text was more accurate, but I have found such. I believe that if it is possible for people to add to the text (likely out of uncertainty between multiple copies), it is equally likely that those that copied the Alexandrian family could leave off text (we see that in many copy situations – errors do occur in copying, and that’s why there are so many variants).

I lean toward the “less is more” theory of the Greek texts, but I still do not believe in a perfect text. Thus I am compelled to look at both families, and I believe that limiting one’s focus to the NU text is an unneeded hazard (and one reason I’ve never liked the NAS/NAU).

I have found the NKJV to be very accurate, as a whole. I’ve found nothing yet to surpass it as a usable, accurate English text. The NAU was still too clunky, and the ESV has failed to be as accurate in most of my examinations (though it has improved on it in a few cases). The NET is too generalizing (not as literal as I believe it should be), as is the NIV (conservative, but not literal). Plus, I prefer to see notes from both the NU and MAJ, a feature which you have in the NKJV and no other (to that extent). It gives you brief, general insight into the variants, which I find a great benefit to the reader.

For what it’s worth.

A couple of our pastors used the NKJV, probably for the same reason.

Isn’t the NKJV still based on the TR/Byzantine family of texts, though? Can it really be considered an accurate translation if its underlying text isn’t “accurate”? Aren’t the footnotes more accurate than the text itself?

(How many times do I have to type “accurate” until it starts to sound really weird?)

(1) More modern language, so it is more easily understood.
(2) Compatible in word order with users of the KJV (not much of an issue now)
(3) Compatible with much memory work done in the past (similar to KJV)
(4) Marginal notes for NU and M texts, that give variances of Greek families of texts(something no other translations do that I know of).
(5) An accurate, literal translation.

We’ve seen no reason to move to something else, as #’s 1, 4, & 5 remain.