My 2 favorite translations are the NKJV and the CSB. I preach from the NKJV. I believe it should NOT be changed. We have about 60 plus years before need to be worried about the language becoming archaic. The older it gets the more it will stand out from the other translations if not changed. I’d be ok with an updated set of footnotes.
Yes please don't change it. When you "update" words you lose the actual point. Money is not the same as mammon for example. *(Matthew 6:24)* Totally different. While that may be a form of literal translation of the word to modern day English you have no background on the meaning. Even "wealth" would be a better translation, but it's still leaving some meaning behind. It really means to not allow your riches to become an idol. However, a newer believer sees this word and may think it's wrong to have money. It may seem small, but to the baby Christian it can make a world of difference. I'd much rather increase my vocabulary than get the wrong idea from the Word. Good Bibles will have this at footnotes and define the archaic words, but not all Bibles do. Some don't have footnotes or references at all.
I'm concerned any updates would lean leftward. My favorite translation is ESV, then KJV and then NKJV. I'm amazed how often when I'm struggling to clarify a verse when I finally read it in the NKJV, I grasp it. Great translation, don't screw it up. Notes okay.
they took versus out the ESV because it uses the CT. So it appears to be more conservative but is subtle in its left leanings. KJV won't likely change and it's in the public domain so the 1611 and 1769 versions will continue to remain available as there is demand for them.
I'm with Tim Nickels. I was always a KJV fan until I bought a new Bible a few years ago and decided to go with the NKJV and haven't looked back. I have the 1982 version from Holman Super Giant Print and I love it! This year I'm reading the whole Bible in chronological order for the 3rd time. And at 65 yrs old, I wouldn't buy an updated version now or in whatever future the Good Lord allows me. IMHO, updating it might be good for younger people, but I love the older translation. A newer translation may sound more like reading a secular novel and not the Bible.
The English language doesn’t change as fast as some people believe. I think slight updates might be needed every 100 years or so. But to say that we need updated translations every 20 years is not tenable. “Slang” may change that rapidly, but not formal, non-slang English. I’m in agreement with Nickels, update the notes. Concerning the text itself, the ONLY change I’d make is in Revelation 22:19 where “Book of Life” should be changed to “Tree of Life.” It is highly likely that the original autograph said “Tree of Life” based on the context. Just my two cents. God bless!
If your goal is to not bring new people to god because the book is old and it’s like me talking to my RACIST grandfather with old world views lol Go explain to a 18 year old the word Begot and Chastise and see if your stance remains
@@Turn-The-Other-Cheek-1Kings22 The NASB, CSB, NLT, and NIV have that covered. But again, these translations don’t need updating every 20 years. Besides, if an 18 year old doesn’t understand what the words begot and chastise mean, they should go back to school, or get their money back if they went to private school.
Yea I agree with you about people being dumb but sadly that’s how it is . I encourage you to be open minded to that . I’m currently trying to convince some younger family members to read the Bible and I’m running into problems . The NLT gets a base message across, it’s deeply opinionated and is wrong in someplace because of their opinions. Look at ester and hamin getting hung . It’s not memorizable if that makes sense . I can’t hand them a “the scriptures “ because it’s to Hebrew-ee. The kjv is archaic and even I can’t understand it. The NKJV would be perfect if it just used normal words
@@Turn-The-Other-Cheek-1Kings22 I completely get what you’re saying. Even younger members in my extended family have a hard time reading long sentences because they are so used to texting abbreviations. I do not read the KJV regularly because of the archaic words you mentioned, even though I know what most of them mean. With translations, it seems hard to find an optimal one that checks all the boxes, but we do have a few great ones. But we do seem to have a glut of available translations today. Not sure if that’s good or bad. I guess it depends.
Considering the current popularity of the NKJV (it's consistently in the top 10 best selling translations every month), other than the notes, I see no compelling reason to change it. It has a very solid fan base who may dig their heels in and revolt if the text is updated. Think about the NIV84 vs. NIV2011 fiasco - it caused Many people to jump ship and move to the ESV, while many others are still clinging to their now out of publication NIV84.
So if there a footnote, we can put anything in the text of a Bible?? Erasmus had one Greek copy of Revelation and he was overly influenced by the Vulgate. Having a footnote does note legitimate a hopelessly inferior greek text.
Gotta agree with some other comments. 40 years is not enough time to justify updating English. There are more “modern” TR based translations if you can’t jive with 1980’s English haha.
@@AmericanninjamanKind of... the Old Testament and Apocryphal translations in that Bible are actually an Orthodox translation which heavily depends on the Septuagint (LXX), while the New Testament text is indeed the NKJV. Don't get me wrong, though, it's a great and insightful Bible, and the notes often bring a different perspective to light, which whilst I don't always agree, can be a springboard for reconsideration, further thought and meditation.
I don't think the NKJV should be updated. I didn't know that updates were a thing until I started attending a church that used the ESV. I bought my wife and myself each an ESV Thinline, and we started reading them and taking them to church. We were both confused about why the text in our Bibles didn't match the text on the screen. It was close, but not always the same. That's what started my Bible journey, learning about different translations and schools of thought. I agree with Nickels, and I'm not an NKJV guy, update the notes, but leave the text alone.
Thank you Tim. Just want to leave a quick note to say thank you for your videos. The passion for all things Bible comes through the screen and I’ve found myself diving more into the word and getting fascinated with the aesthetics of different Bibles myself now. Much love from Hong Kong ❤️
be careful with Schuyler though, the customer service is horrendous to say it nicely and the chances of getting a Bible from them that doesnt have a rip in the leather or the binding falling apart or very very light print for the text and spotty other places or at the very least insanely wrinkled pages in the front which I have received MANY like this. Oh and no matter the issue and even though they claim if there are defects they will help, they will not help at all. They will not just not help they will make sure to make money on you returning a defective item by charging you to ship it as well as a restocking fee for an issue they sent the Bible with and then they will even tell you sometimes the Bible isn't in good enough shape for them to sell new but I have to pay a restocking fee even though the issues they're not able to sell it new for are the issues it got to me with! be very careful with Schuyler to say the least. Mainly pray you never ever have to deal with the customer service and if you do pray twice that her name is not Karen.
The only way I’d even be ok with it is, if Thomas Nelson would guarantee to continue printing the original. Not get rid of it like Zondervan did with NIV 84. But I personally don’t think we need it, other than maybe the notes.
As many have already commented, the English language has not changed enough in 40 years to warrant an update to the translation. The suggestion to do a revision but keep the 82/84 leads to two big concerns - 1) they decide for financial reasons that they can't keep both so they drop the 82/84 and/or 2) they let the 82/84 rot and put all their money on the new version in terms for different product offerings, covers, styles, layouts etc. The last reason an update to the NKJV should not be done is, as others have already mentioned, revisions tend to become more theologically liberal. Who can decide what a "light" revision would constitute? And I haven't seen anyone else mention this, but this has already been attempted with the MEV (if I understand it correctly). Not by Thomas Nelson, but still. Has it gained any traction at all? Maybe not an apples to apples comparison, but still worth considering in the conversation.
Good question about the MEV… I don’t think that project had nearly the kind of support or marketing that Nelson would be able to give a new NKJV, so I’m not sure that its lack of success is an indicator.
A friend in my church does all his memorization in the NKJV because of all of the updates to the NASB and the ESV. He’s gonna be mad when he hears this conversation taking place. 😂
Haha, I can totally imagine. I bought a CSB 2020 edition because I was gonna memorize and I didn't want to memorize in the 2017 edition 'cause it would eventually go out of print and people would get confused if I quote things that aren't in their bible.
Love your videos, Tim, but I couldn't disagree with you more on this. Not one time while reading the NKJV have I felt it came off dated like the KJV you tried comparing it to. Footnotes? Sure, maybe, but the text? I see zero reason to update it.
No, as already stated, there are other translations that have that covered. The MEV is an excellent TR translation in modern English. It is not as popular as others though.
I love seeing the almost unanimous consensus of NO! I am in the "no" camp as well. Didn't like the 2020 update to the NASB. I want to keep and defend legacy translations. There are a slew of good Critical Text translations and anyone who wants an update to the NKJV translation should just choose one of those 🤣
Tim Nickel’s face at 4 mins! 😂 That said, I was KJV most of my life, so I love the NKJV, and am now also an ESV reader, too. It is the poetic flow in the NKJV that is still so King James, without the archaic terms, that I love so much. It is hard to imagine what a NKJV update would be like, but if TN kept one as it is now as well as made a new one beside it, there would remain a choice for bible readers. I will keep what I already have, though. 😀
No, do not “update” the NKJV. If Thomas Nelson wants to do something like that then they should just make a new translation and brand it with its own new translation moniker but keep our NKJV in publication. Update footnotes, fine.
I am a fan and reader of the NKJV. The translation should NOT be updated. However, I agree, the notes could be updated if important new information becomes available.
I would say the language in the NKJV is fresh for today so much the so that you could fool me and say the NKJV was done in 2022 and I wouldn’t know it was done in 1982. Do you have an example of language in the NKJV that would be considered dated?
Just seeing this. It is not that the NKJV ought to be updated, but it is for us to be transformed by it. For the quality of our current English is in decline, not improving. This parallels with the decline of Biblical literacy as well despite the ever-growing list of new versions and updates. What is not mentioned here is that publishing Bibles is a business and with each update there is new sales and profits. If one is going to write a book about translations, one ought to have a chapter on the business of translations, cost and profits. At least Thomas Nelson is not partaking what other publishers are in profiting off of new translations. Amos 8:11-13 NKJV 11 “Behold, the days are coming,” says the Lord God, “That I will send a famine on the land, Not a famine of bread, Nor a thirst for water, But of hearing the words of the Lord. 12 They shall wander from sea to sea, And from north to east; They shall run to and fro, seeking the word of the Lord, But shall not find it." I happen to like the elegance and the accuracy of the NKJV translation. The current notes are sufficient.
I truly love the NKJV and ESV. Top is NASB. Word to Word grabs more deep dive word searches. You lose it in other version. The only thing as a Bible study person is wider margins and pertinent Plus tables and other items. Font size is important to a 10.5 to 11 font.
Love how many Bible translations there are for people to be able to get more and more glimpses of the nature and character of God! So awesome! Love your channel Tim!
I love the NKJV. I've been reading it for decades. But I would not say the language is easy. I have to explain what words mean to younger and/or unchurched people all the time. That said it does a good job bringing the KJV style into a more readable form. I wouldn't want to update it, I'd rather read a number of alternate translations to complement it. The NKJV has a great niche, it's got it's own thing going. "If you chase two rabbits you will lose them both." - ancient Native American idiom
No I don't think it should be updated. If you want an updated "NKJV" read the MEV (Modern English Version) it's TR based but isn't afraid to break away from the sentence structure of the KJV.
@@moisesg.v.1575I’d personally go for the Barbour Simplified King James for this reason. The MEV just comes across as a slapdash product all around, Charisma House just wanting to have their own Bible to market instead of a careful update of the King James. Personally though, I wish the WEB Bible got more respect, since it’s basically the only major Majority text translation of the Bible out there, yet hasn’t had a proper printing outside of vanity presses and being the foundation of other niche translations (like the Eastern Orthodox Bible New Testament and the Messianic Jewish New Jerusalem Version)
Thank God for the NKJV. It's important that we have a modern translation of the Textus Receptus. One of the greatest things that the KJV did, was create unity of language. My church shouldn't have to update the Bibles it uses every couple years. There is no reason why a Bible translation shouldn't be good for 100 years. If someone wants to make a new translation, then name it something different. If someone updates the text of the NKJV, then you have thrown fuel on the KJV Onlyism fire.
you update the NKJV and you end up with the CSB (which I like) or worse yet NRSVue .. I don't need more Oh Mortal...or humankind, etc... I agree with Nickelsworth update the Notes only.
I confess that I'm not a fan of updating the NKJV. I *DO* like the idea of updating the notes, and I wouldn't mind if the updated notes were really complete notes similar to (but maybe not as extensive as) the NET full notes edition; I think that would be very cool. But I think that at the moment, the NKJV is fine language-wise. I'm 60, and have loved the NKJV for quite a while ;-) Perhaps my mindset is that the NKJV is in the "classic translation" genre like the KJV - the elevated language (as it has come to be perceived, at least for the KJV), the poetic and beautiful style... - I feel that the classics like this need quite a bit more, ah, PATINA on them before they should be updated. But, that's me, and of course your mileage may vary LOL
I think there should be a very compelling reason (or reasons) to update a translation. I'm not sure the English language has changed much in the past 40 years to warrant an update to the NKJV. Maybe look at it in another 40 years.
I'd get rid of the footnotes altogether. I can't stand when a bible has a little note at the bottom saying, effectively, "the verse could say this OR it could say that...". I don't want any doubt about what God has said; the translators job is to tell me what they think he said, not to be on the fence about anything.
Tim - keep up the Bible reviews - really appreciate and enjoy! We virtually have an update to the NKJV in the MEV. How about one of the publishers obtain the rights to the Modern English Version and get this out in larger distribution. Currently attend a weekly Bible Study where the Pastor/teacher uses the MEV and many others use the NKJV. I would prefer to update the notes to the existing NKJV and leave the text as is. God Bless
I have the NKJV and study from it. I vote no change to text, only the notes as well. For study purposes, I love this translation. It makes me look words up and delve into my studies more than modern translations. The fact that Thomas Nelson doesn’t make updates is what draws me into this translation and makes it unique from others. Plus, it avoids the common controversies other translations face. Is it perfect? No, no translation is perfect. Eventually it will need an update, as it’s an update from the KJV (which is still read today). I just don’t think we need frequent updates like other translations. Please don’t touch my favorite translation Thomas Nelson!
@@danbratten3103I would argue the NKJV includes the translation of the TR, the MT, and the CT. They’re all included in the translation. I also don’t see where updates in the Greek text requires a different name. The goals of the NKJ are still valid with the MT being the primary text, in my view.
The KJV is still the #1 most widely READ Bible, though year by year, and even today people are reluctantly switching to the NKJV. NKJV has had a long term strategy that is still in effect, with a ton more KJVers available to win over. If they abandon this strategy now, I think the slow and steady momentum will be lost. There also isn't any recent renewed interest in the TR base. That's the historical context the NKJV was birthed out of. Perhaps as AI takes over the development of the Critical Text, and some questionable changes start to happen, there could be a call to return to the traditional text, in which case a new TR Bible might succeed, but we're not there yet.
Language has not changed significantly in content, just style, and not for the better. Language does evolve, but it is very slow. We can consider a revision every 100 years or so.
I just can’t understand why they would need to update the text so often. Language does change but not that fast. The KJV is 400 years old and yes it has an older style language but it’s not hard to understand. English hasn’t changed so much since the 80’s that we would need to update the text imo.
My prediction is that over time the nkjv will become much more popular. Not changing the text will be one of the main reasons why it will be much more widely read in the future. Its the replacement for the kjv and the transition to it will happen for sure but very slowly given the gravitas of the original kjv. that's my take on it anyway.
I am not big on updates. I feel that a translation should have just one update and then do updates only on footnotes. I am a CSB fan boy, i really dislike that i need to check to see if it is the 2017 or the 2020 version.
No, it shouldn't. I'm not a TR-only guy, either. I just think it is a great-sounding translation that preserves the rhythm and cadences of the KJV. And that was the stated primary purpose of the NKJV - keeping the KJV flavor while dialing back the anachronisms for modern audiences. The NKJV is nowhere near reaching the level of unreadability of the KJV. I think what some of your friends may be complaining about is that the NKJV sounds formal. That's entirely different than it being loaded with outdated words and false friends. There are SO many translations that are more casual and more conversational that readers can choose from. (In fact, way more than enough.) The NKJV has its own perfect niche as the torchbearer for the aesthetic of the KJV. As far as notes go, I'm all about updating those. The originals are a helpful bridge to CT scholarship. As long as they retain the style and brevity on those, all should be well. Even then, Nelson will be accused of a cash grab, though.
I'm so looking forward to your book! Love this stuff. I can see both sides of this argument - holding on to the beloved version, but also updating the notes and maybe even text (?) to include new, accurate observations that allow for a more meaningful and deep study of the scriptures.
Save it for 2082 . . . or perhaps 2111. By that point, the NKJV's English will be starting to sound genuinely archaic and not just old-fashioned (which is EXACTLY what appeals to the NKJV crowd in the first place).
I like this kind of content a lot. Though I disagree with your position, I like that you are engaging with the content and philosophy of translations. You definitely sold me on your book.
As with any translation, I would agree that updates for current changes to normal speech for the times would be warranted. I started my Christian life as a youth with the King James, and when I came back to the church and realized that there are understandable translations out there I was blown away. I still love the KJV, but I also love to compare and contrast different versions.
I am surprised that anyone would think that the NKJV should be updated. Language doesn't change that fast and 40 years has not produced enough societal change to substantiate any reason for an update. If the notes bear updating, so be it. Not a huge fan of translations that are constantly updated. ESV, NLT, etc.
Scroll through the comments and you’ll see that several people have listed lots of words from the NKJV that are already out of use or mean something different.
I would argue that language hasn't changed that much in the past 40 years. Many of the language trends of today are little more than passing fads born of political forces which tend to be in contradiction to our faith. The majority of normal people (to include non-believers) still speak the same way.
Yes, the footnotes and also update some of the harder to read words. There are some words that the average person doesnt use today and it makes it a little harder to understand. I love their text base and the poetic sound of it!
I haven't read through the 142 comments (thus far) and, so, I don't know if anyone else made this comment: the MEV, Modern English Version, is already a great update to the NKJV in my opinion. So we can leave the NKJV alone and pick up a MEV Bible for an adequate update. Anyone?
I think it is really a bit too early to change the NKJV at this time, except for the notes. However, I do agree with Tim Wildsmith that the NKJV may need an update but for me, that is further down the road.
No just no I am 17 years old I have studied the text for three years now and have worn out three new King James bibles I hate this stupid gender thing because some places they do it completely wrong and then it changes and warps the meaning of the Bible I love the way the new King James reeds and I'm autistic if I can read it fine then you can read it and understand I have a reading disability and I can read perfectly fine from the new King James without any struggles
Even though the NKJV has never been my primary translation, I would still say leave it as is. Back in 2016, there was a KJV update of the NT that was released (PDF) with the OT to follow. To my knowledge, the OT still hasn’t been released but when it is that could possibly serve as the update that you’re desiring. It’s just like with the NASB. Even though they updated it in 2020, I’m glad they are still keeping the 1995 around. Just my thoughts.
I’d probably switch to the kjv if it got updated for my TR, I like quite a few translations but nkjv is one of my top 2. Notes are whatever that could go either way for me, as long as they keep black letter versions available like the two brother Tim has right there.
Other than second kings 23:29 which should read “went out against” I’m unaware of any issues needing to be corrected or updated in the NKJV. Add to the fact that every update today seems to consider political and cultural issues I’m skeptical of any update to any translation.
I appreciate your reviews, Tim, but I really don't see the need for an NKJV update. According to a chart on the Christian Book Distributors website, the NKJV is written at a 7th grade reading level, while the ESV with its 'Yoda-isms,' is at the 10th grade reading level. Also, I'm afraid an update would adversely affect the poetic flow that it inherited from the KJV - which the extensive NKJV translation and editorial team went to great lengths to retain. I'm sure you've read it, but if you haven't, Art Farstad's book on the making of the NKJV is a great read. It is entitled 'In the Great Tradition: The New King James Version.' PS: Some major publisher really needs to fulfill Dr. Farstad's vision and give us a widely-published Majority Text translation...
I understand why so many people don't want the NKJV to be updated. It's a translation that's not as dependent on new discoveries as Critical Text Editions, and therefore less prone to require an update. I agree with those who say that it would be nice to have an expanded and updated textual note section reflecting the variances. However, I do think there would have been a neat opportunity for Thomas Nelson to do an update in 2024, and then another update in 2064, and so on with 40 years in-between each new update. As you said, our usage of language evolves and changes overtime. Words used 40 years ago in certain circumstances may be the more archaic meaning of the words as we would use them today. The reason for 40 years is that is the number marked for a generation, which I think would be fitting if you are updating a Bible Translation based on a static manuscript tradition. It doesn't need much updating other than individual words or phrases here and there that may not make as much sense as they did to readers in 1984.
In my mind the ESV is already the updated version. Leland Ryken wrote an entire book on the literary effects of the KJV and he’s the literary advisor for the ESV. But yes, the NKJV is just English, yes English words. If we are talking about Majority Text vs Critical text, ok have an opinion about the actual Greek words first. But a translation is a bridge to the Receptor language. I get having a translation that you are used to, but there should be no dogmatism about this(unless ofc it’s truly heretical, then be dogmatic)
Stability leads to confidence. If they start the periodic cycle of changes they risk losing some of the confidence they’ve earned over the years. I think they should give it another 10-20 years and the release a new translation, leaving the NKJV in its current form. I wouldn’t mind an update to the notes in the mean time.
Really, if you think about it there are many “modern” translations available. At one point, do we end up with every translation sounding the same? And would we want that?
I don't think there should be changes or updates to any translation, beyond correcting clear mistakes, like spelling or typos, etc. I feel like these should be handled like the LSB. If you make significant changes, make it a new translation, to make sure it's very clear which Bible you have in your hand.
It's seems everytime "they" update any of the newer translations, the Bible's text is watered down even gender-fiedand, neutral, etc. I'm not a KJV, NKJV only or any translation for that matter. Changes to Reference Notes, etc is needed periodically... But leave the text alone
I disagree that the NKJV language will go out of style. I feel exactly the opposite actually. I was reading the NASB95, and can clearly see what you’re talking about with phrases like “he lived to a ripe old age.” I was totally turned off by that because that is such a 90’s American thing to say. But the NKJV and the KJV seem to have a timeless beauty to the text, at least in my opinion. I was in a Bible study a few years ago though, and there were some serious variances in Ecclesiastes among all of our different translations if I recall. My pastor, an ESV guy, was not a fan of the NKJV rendering of some of the text.
Understand that we are watching our entire culture being revised in front of our eyes. The church and the Bible as we (Gen x and older) have known then are not welcome. Churches and publishers are not immune to the pressures now being applied. Many of us crave something from the past we can rely on. It's not that I don't know we need to change or rather purify the church. But I don't think this generation has the education or moral capacity to revise an establishment like NKJV with integrity.
I think the current NKJV should be kept in print, with updated footnotes. I’m probably in the minority, and would like a slightly updated version of the NKJV text while keeping the old one in print. May be following a Lockman style approach, or give it a totally new name. Ps 23:1 Is one great example of slightly outdated language “I shall not want” I get it, it’s classical. Which is why I’m advocating for keeping the 1984 in print while doing an update to cater to a totally new demographic, like me, and my kids…
dude is young, that's why he says NKJV should be updated every 10-15 years. The fact is God's word doesn't change so frequent updates are bad and should be done only after careful consideration to fix egregious errors.
My 2 favorite translations are the NKJV and the CSB. I preach from the NKJV. I believe it should NOT be changed. We have about 60 plus years before need to be worried about the language becoming archaic. The older it gets the more it will stand out from the other translations if not changed. I’d be ok with an updated set of footnotes.
I LOVE the NKJV. It’s my main translation but it is already archaic in certain areas.
word
Yes please don't change it. When you "update" words you lose the actual point. Money is not the same as mammon for example. *(Matthew 6:24)* Totally different. While that may be a form of literal translation of the word to modern day English you have no background on the meaning. Even "wealth" would be a better translation, but it's still leaving some meaning behind. It really means to not allow your riches to become an idol. However, a newer believer sees this word and may think it's wrong to have money. It may seem small, but to the baby Christian it can make a world of difference. I'd much rather increase my vocabulary than get the wrong idea from the Word. Good Bibles will have this at footnotes and define the archaic words, but not all Bibles do. Some don't have footnotes or references at all.
The CSB is horrible. A feminist translation for Marxists.
Only footnotes. Text should remain frozen.
Why is that?!?! The English language is constantly changing!!
@@arkansasrebel348what paassages in the NKJV are you referring to that would warrant a change due to the English language constantly changing?
Cowabunga I agree with you 100%
The footnotes should be updated since the CT has changed in recent times.
I'm concerned any updates would lean leftward. My favorite translation is ESV, then KJV and then NKJV. I'm amazed how often when I'm struggling to clarify a verse when I finally read it in the NKJV, I grasp it. Great translation, don't screw it up. Notes okay.
they took versus out the ESV because it uses the CT. So it appears to be more conservative but is subtle in its left leanings. KJV won't likely change and it's in the public domain so the 1611 and 1769 versions will continue to remain available as there is demand for them.
I'm with Tim Nickels. I was always a KJV fan until I bought a new Bible a few years ago and decided to go with the NKJV and haven't looked back. I have the 1982 version from Holman Super Giant Print and I love it! This year I'm reading the whole Bible in chronological order for the 3rd time. And at 65 yrs old, I wouldn't buy an updated version now or in whatever future the Good Lord allows me. IMHO, updating it might be good for younger people, but I love the older translation. A newer translation may sound more like reading a secular novel and not the Bible.
I like the NKJV specifically because it will never change. I’m tired of new translations.
The English language doesn’t change as fast as some people believe. I think slight updates might be needed every 100 years or so. But to say that we need updated translations every 20 years is not tenable. “Slang” may change that rapidly, but not formal, non-slang English. I’m in agreement with Nickels, update the notes. Concerning the text itself, the ONLY change I’d make is in Revelation 22:19 where “Book of Life” should be changed to “Tree of Life.” It is highly likely that the original autograph said “Tree of Life” based on the context. Just my two cents. God bless!
If your goal is to not bring new people to god because the book is old and it’s like me talking to my RACIST grandfather with old world views lol
Go explain to a 18 year old the word Begot and Chastise and see if your stance remains
@@Turn-The-Other-Cheek-1Kings22 The NASB, CSB, NLT, and NIV have that covered. But again, these translations don’t need updating every 20 years. Besides, if an 18 year old doesn’t understand what the words begot and chastise mean, they should go back to school, or get their money back if they went to private school.
Yea I agree with you about people being dumb but sadly that’s how it is . I encourage you to be open minded to that . I’m currently trying to convince some younger family members to read the Bible and I’m running into problems .
The NLT gets a base message across, it’s deeply opinionated and is wrong in someplace because of their opinions. Look at ester and hamin getting hung .
It’s not memorizable if that makes sense .
I can’t hand them a “the scriptures “ because it’s to Hebrew-ee. The kjv is archaic and even I can’t understand it.
The NKJV would be perfect if it just used normal words
@@Turn-The-Other-Cheek-1Kings22 I completely get what you’re saying. Even younger members in my extended family have a hard time reading long sentences because they are so used to texting abbreviations. I do not read the KJV regularly because of the archaic words you mentioned, even though I know what most of them mean. With translations, it seems hard to find an optimal one that checks all the boxes, but we do have a few great ones. But we do seem to have a glut of available translations today. Not sure if that’s good or bad. I guess it depends.
Tim Nickels is right. The NKJV is such a wonderful translation. I am German and I understand it very well. I just love it. DON'T CHANGE THE NKJV!
What you get with not updating is a historical snapshot unadulterated by today's bias. That is valuable in a fast changing world.
Well said!
Interesting point!
Considering the current popularity of the NKJV (it's consistently in the top 10 best selling translations every month), other than the notes, I see no compelling reason to change it. It has a very solid fan base who may dig their heels in and revolt if the text is updated. Think about the NIV84 vs. NIV2011 fiasco - it caused Many people to jump ship and move to the ESV, while many others are still clinging to their now out of publication NIV84.
Agreed. I've been a NKJV fan for over 35+ years.
How about accuracy?? There’s just no justification for using the received text if it differs with BOTH the critical and majority text.
@@chrisa4583and yet the NKJV points that out in the foot notes, every single time the text deviates from the MT, or CT.
So if there a footnote, we can put anything in the text of a Bible?? Erasmus had one Greek copy of Revelation and he was overly influenced by the Vulgate. Having a footnote does note legitimate a hopelessly inferior greek text.
Gotta agree with some other comments. 40 years is not enough time to justify updating English. There are more “modern” TR based translations if you can’t jive with 1980’s English haha.
With recent editions of the KJV containing the Apocrypha, it would be great to see an edition of the NKJV with an updated KJV Apocrypha.
Thomas Nelson has the orthodox study bible which has the NKJV with apocrypha.
@@AmericanninjamanKind of... the Old Testament and Apocryphal translations in that Bible are actually an Orthodox translation which heavily depends on the Septuagint (LXX), while the New Testament text is indeed the NKJV.
Don't get me wrong, though, it's a great and insightful Bible, and the notes often bring a different perspective to light, which whilst I don't always agree, can be a springboard for reconsideration, further thought and meditation.
Considering that future translation will likely say stuff like menstruating person. I thinking it is okay to not update translations all the time.
I don't think the NKJV should be updated. I didn't know that updates were a thing until I started attending a church that used the ESV. I bought my wife and myself each an ESV Thinline, and we started reading them and taking them to church. We were both confused about why the text in our Bibles didn't match the text on the screen. It was close, but not always the same. That's what started my Bible journey, learning about different translations and schools of thought. I agree with Nickels, and I'm not an NKJV guy, update the notes, but leave the text alone.
Thank you Tim. Just want to leave a quick note to say thank you for your videos. The passion for all things Bible comes through the screen and I’ve found myself diving more into the word and getting fascinated with the aesthetics of different Bibles myself now. Much love from Hong Kong ❤️
Wow, thank you!
be careful with Schuyler though, the customer service is horrendous to say it nicely and the chances of getting a Bible from them that doesnt have a rip in the leather or the binding falling apart or very very light print for the text and spotty other places or at the very least insanely wrinkled pages in the front which I have received MANY like this. Oh and no matter the issue and even though they claim if there are defects they will help, they will not help at all. They will not just not help they will make sure to make money on you returning a defective item by charging you to ship it as well as a restocking fee for an issue they sent the Bible with and then they will even tell you sometimes the Bible isn't in good enough shape for them to sell new but I have to pay a restocking fee even though the issues they're not able to sell it new for are the issues it got to me with! be very careful with Schuyler to say the least. Mainly pray you never ever have to deal with the customer service and if you do pray twice that her name is not Karen.
The only way I’d even be ok with it is, if Thomas Nelson would guarantee to continue printing the original. Not get rid of it like Zondervan did with NIV 84. But I personally don’t think we need it, other than maybe the notes.
I’ve used the NKJV since I began preaching & teaching in 1985. It is great just the way it is. I enjoy your channel!!
YES!! NKJV is my main use bible. recently I got the MEV and I really like it. It very similar yet a bit more modern than NKJV and love it!!
Good for you, that is what all others that want a change to the NKJ should do as well.
Enjoy!
As many have already commented, the English language has not changed enough in 40 years to warrant an update to the translation. The suggestion to do a revision but keep the 82/84 leads to two big concerns - 1) they decide for financial reasons that they can't keep both so they drop the 82/84 and/or 2) they let the 82/84 rot and put all their money on the new version in terms for different product offerings, covers, styles, layouts etc. The last reason an update to the NKJV should not be done is, as others have already mentioned, revisions tend to become more theologically liberal. Who can decide what a "light" revision would constitute?
And I haven't seen anyone else mention this, but this has already been attempted with the MEV (if I understand it correctly). Not by Thomas Nelson, but still. Has it gained any traction at all? Maybe not an apples to apples comparison, but still worth considering in the conversation.
Good question about the MEV… I don’t think that project had nearly the kind of support or marketing that Nelson would be able to give a new NKJV, so I’m not sure that its lack of success is an indicator.
A friend in my church does all his memorization in the NKJV because of all of the updates to the NASB and the ESV. He’s gonna be mad when he hears this conversation taking place. 😂
Haha, I can totally imagine. I bought a CSB 2020 edition because I was gonna memorize and I didn't want to memorize in the 2017 edition 'cause it would eventually go out of print and people would get confused if I quote things that aren't in their bible.
I love to see a debate between you and Tim Nickles about the NKJV translation! Thank you.
Love your videos, Tim, but I couldn't disagree with you more on this. Not one time while reading the NKJV have I felt it came off dated like the KJV you tried comparing it to. Footnotes? Sure, maybe, but the text? I see zero reason to update it.
No, as already stated, there are other translations that have that covered. The MEV is an excellent TR translation in modern English. It is not as popular as others though.
I love seeing the almost unanimous consensus of NO! I am in the "no" camp as well. Didn't like the 2020 update to the NASB. I want to keep and defend legacy translations. There are a slew of good Critical Text translations and anyone who wants an update to the NKJV translation should just choose one of those 🤣
Great point!
Nope. The reason I like the NKJV is that it has not been updated in a long time, too many translations update way too often!
Tim Nickel’s face at 4 mins! 😂 That said, I was KJV most of my life, so I love the NKJV, and am now also an ESV reader, too. It is the poetic flow in the NKJV that is still so King James, without the archaic terms, that I love so much. It is hard to imagine what a NKJV update would be like, but if TN kept one as it is now as well as made a new one beside it, there would remain a choice for bible readers. I will keep what I already have, though. 😀
No, do not “update” the NKJV. If Thomas Nelson wants to do something like that then they should just make a new translation and brand it with its own new translation moniker but keep our NKJV in publication. Update footnotes, fine.
I am a fan and reader of the NKJV. The translation should NOT be updated. However, I agree, the notes could be updated if important new information becomes available.
I would say the language in the NKJV is fresh for today so much the so that you could fool me and say the NKJV was done in 2022 and I wouldn’t know it was done in 1982. Do you have an example of language in the NKJV that would be considered dated?
Just seeing this. It is not that the NKJV ought to be updated, but it is for us to be transformed by it. For the quality of our current English is in decline, not improving. This parallels with the decline of Biblical literacy as well despite the ever-growing list of new versions and updates. What is not mentioned here is that publishing Bibles is a business and with each update there is new sales and profits. If one is going to write a book about translations, one ought to have a chapter on the business of translations, cost and profits. At least Thomas Nelson is not partaking what other publishers are in profiting off of new translations.
Amos 8:11-13 NKJV
11 “Behold, the days are coming,” says the Lord God,
“That I will send a famine on the land,
Not a famine of bread,
Nor a thirst for water,
But of hearing the words of the Lord.
12 They shall wander from sea to sea,
And from north to east;
They shall run to and fro, seeking the word of the Lord,
But shall not find it."
I happen to like the elegance and the accuracy of the NKJV translation. The current notes are sufficient.
I truly love the NKJV and ESV. Top is NASB. Word to Word grabs more deep dive word searches. You lose it in other version. The only thing as a Bible study person is wider margins and pertinent Plus tables and other items. Font size is important to a 10.5 to 11 font.
Love how many Bible translations there are for people to be able to get more and more glimpses of the nature and character of God! So awesome! Love your channel Tim!
I love the NKJV. I've been reading it for decades. But I would not say the language is easy. I have to explain what words mean to younger and/or unchurched people all the time. That said it does a good job bringing the KJV style into a more readable form. I wouldn't want to update it, I'd rather read a number of alternate translations to complement it. The NKJV has a great niche, it's got it's own thing going.
"If you chase two rabbits you will lose them both." - ancient Native American idiom
No I don't think it should be updated. If you want an updated "NKJV" read the MEV (Modern English Version) it's TR based but isn't afraid to break away from the sentence structure of the KJV.
The MEV is full of typos, errors and misinterpretations. Unless it's fixed it should be avoided.
@@moisesg.v.1575interesting, I found some typos in Psalm 10:13 & 2 Thess. 2:13, what were some that you found?
@@moisesg.v.1575I’d personally go for the Barbour Simplified King James for this reason. The MEV just comes across as a slapdash product all around, Charisma House just wanting to have their own Bible to market instead of a careful update of the King James.
Personally though, I wish the WEB Bible got more respect, since it’s basically the only major Majority text translation of the Bible out there, yet hasn’t had a proper printing outside of vanity presses and being the foundation of other niche translations (like the Eastern Orthodox Bible New Testament and the Messianic Jewish New Jerusalem Version)
Thank God for the NKJV. It's important that we have a modern translation of the Textus Receptus. One of the greatest things that the KJV did, was create unity of language. My church shouldn't have to update the Bibles it uses every couple years. There is no reason why a Bible translation shouldn't be good for 100 years. If someone wants to make a new translation, then name it something different. If someone updates the text of the NKJV, then you have thrown fuel on the KJV Onlyism fire.
you update the NKJV and you end up with the CSB (which I like) or worse yet NRSVue .. I don't need more Oh Mortal...or humankind, etc... I agree with Nickelsworth update the Notes only.
That’s why the MEV is my daily reader
Have you taken a look at that translation, Bro. Wildsmith?
I confess that I'm not a fan of updating the NKJV. I *DO* like the idea of updating the notes, and I wouldn't mind if the updated notes were really complete notes similar to (but maybe not as extensive as) the NET full notes edition; I think that would be very cool. But I think that at the moment, the NKJV is fine language-wise. I'm 60, and have loved the NKJV for quite a while ;-)
Perhaps my mindset is that the NKJV is in the "classic translation" genre like the KJV - the elevated language (as it has come to be perceived, at least for the KJV), the poetic and beautiful style... - I feel that the classics like this need quite a bit more, ah, PATINA on them before they should be updated.
But, that's me, and of course your mileage may vary LOL
Ms KatWilton, I absolutely agree with you. Well said.
Great point!! 😊
I think there should be a very compelling reason (or reasons) to update a translation. I'm not sure the English language has changed much in the past 40 years to warrant an update to the NKJV. Maybe look at it in another 40 years.
Hands off my NKJV 😂
Don't change it. Agree maybe only the footnotes.
I'd get rid of the footnotes altogether. I can't stand when a bible has a little note at the bottom saying, effectively, "the verse could say this OR it could say that...". I don't want any doubt about what God has said; the translators job is to tell me what they think he said, not to be on the fence about anything.
Tim - keep up the Bible reviews - really appreciate and enjoy! We virtually have an update to the NKJV in the MEV. How about one of the publishers obtain the rights to the Modern English Version and get this out in larger distribution. Currently attend a weekly Bible Study where the Pastor/teacher uses the MEV and many others use the NKJV. I would prefer to update the notes to the existing NKJV and leave the text as is. God Bless
I have the NKJV and study from it. I vote no change to text, only the notes as well. For study purposes, I love this translation. It makes me look words up and delve into my studies more than modern translations. The fact that Thomas Nelson doesn’t make updates is what draws me into this translation and makes it unique from others. Plus, it avoids the common controversies other translations face. Is it perfect? No, no translation is perfect. Eventually it will need an update, as it’s an update from the KJV (which is still read today). I just don’t think we need frequent updates like other translations. Please don’t touch my favorite translation Thomas Nelson!
I absolutely believe it should be based on the majority text.
@chrisa4583 then they should drop the name New King James Version, since the NKJV, like the KJV, was translated from the Textus Receptus.
@@danbratten3103I would argue the NKJV includes the translation of the TR, the MT, and the CT. They’re all included in the translation. I also don’t see where updates in the Greek text requires a different name. The goals of the NKJ are still valid with the MT being the primary text, in my view.
The KJV is still the #1 most widely READ Bible, though year by year, and even today people are reluctantly switching to the NKJV. NKJV has had a long term strategy that is still in effect, with a ton more KJVers available to win over. If they abandon this strategy now, I think the slow and steady momentum will be lost. There also isn't any recent renewed interest in the TR base. That's the historical context the NKJV was birthed out of. Perhaps as AI takes over the development of the Critical Text, and some questionable changes start to happen, there could be a call to return to the traditional text, in which case a new TR Bible might succeed, but we're not there yet.
Language has not changed significantly in content, just style, and not for the better. Language does evolve, but it is very slow. We can consider a revision every 100 years or so.
I just can’t understand why they would need to update the text so often. Language does change but not that fast. The KJV is 400 years old and yes it has an older style language but it’s not hard to understand. English hasn’t changed so much since the 80’s that we would need to update the text imo.
Someone comments a few examples that already feel outdated: brethren, eventide, perdition…
My prediction is that over time the nkjv will become much more popular. Not changing the text will be one of the main reasons why it will be much more widely read in the future. Its the replacement for the kjv and the transition to it will happen for sure but very slowly given the gravitas of the original kjv. that's my take on it anyway.
I am not big on updates. I feel that a translation should have just one update and then do updates only on footnotes. I am a CSB fan boy, i really dislike that i need to check to see if it is the 2017 or the 2020 version.
No, it shouldn't. I'm not a TR-only guy, either. I just think it is a great-sounding translation that preserves the rhythm and cadences of the KJV. And that was the stated primary purpose of the NKJV - keeping the KJV flavor while dialing back the anachronisms for modern audiences. The NKJV is nowhere near reaching the level of unreadability of the KJV. I think what some of your friends may be complaining about is that the NKJV sounds formal. That's entirely different than it being loaded with outdated words and false friends. There are SO many translations that are more casual and more conversational that readers can choose from. (In fact, way more than enough.) The NKJV has its own perfect niche as the torchbearer for the aesthetic of the KJV. As far as notes go, I'm all about updating those. The originals are a helpful bridge to CT scholarship. As long as they retain the style and brevity on those, all should be well. Even then, Nelson will be accused of a cash grab, though.
Well said! Amen!!
Please please keep the current nkjv if persons want different there are plenty of other good translations available.
They changed the 84 NIV and look how that has turned out.
I wish there were more black letter text editions of the nkjv
Thanks for your post, Tim. I'm fond of the NKJV and like the philosophy Thomas Nelson has used for updating references in the margins.
I don’t feel that NKJV needs updating. But updating footnotes would be cool.
Tim i agree with you 💯, God Bless
Sorry Tim Wildsmith! I agree with Tim Nichols on this one. I would keep the text of the NKJV unchanged. Updated footnotes would be good, though.
I'm so looking forward to your book! Love this stuff. I can see both sides of this argument - holding on to the beloved version, but also updating the notes and maybe even text (?) to include new, accurate observations that allow for a more meaningful and deep study of the scriptures.
Save it for 2082 . . . or perhaps 2111. By that point, the NKJV's English will be starting to sound genuinely archaic and not just old-fashioned (which is EXACTLY what appeals to the NKJV crowd in the first place).
Redoing the notes would be an interesting development, but touching the text would be a touchy subject.
I like this kind of content a lot. Though I disagree with your position, I like that you are engaging with the content and philosophy of translations. You definitely sold me on your book.
Thanks! I’m excited to do even more of this content when the book releases!
I wholeheartedly agree with you, Tim. As long as it stays a formal translation, I'm super down for an update.
As with any translation, I would agree that updates for current changes to normal speech for the times would be warranted.
I started my Christian life as a youth with the King James, and when I came back to the church and realized that there are understandable translations out there I was blown away. I still love the KJV, but I also love to compare and contrast different versions.
I love the NKJV as it is, hope they do not update it.
I am surprised that anyone would think that the NKJV should be updated. Language doesn't change that fast and 40 years has not produced enough societal change to substantiate any reason for an update. If the notes bear updating, so be it. Not a huge fan of translations that are constantly updated. ESV, NLT, etc.
Scroll through the comments and you’ll see that several people have listed lots of words from the NKJV that are already out of use or mean something different.
No. Please, Thomas Nelson, DO NOT UPDATE THE NKJV. Like Nickels says, "Leave the text alone."
I would argue that language hasn't changed that much in the past 40 years. Many of the language trends of today are little more than passing fads born of political forces which tend to be in contradiction to our faith. The majority of normal people (to include non-believers) still speak the same way.
Yes, the footnotes and also update some of the harder to read words. There are some words that the average person doesnt use today and it makes it a little harder to understand. I love their text base and the poetic sound of it!
I haven't read through the 142 comments (thus far) and, so, I don't know if anyone else made this comment: the MEV, Modern English Version, is already a great update to the NKJV in my opinion. So we can leave the NKJV alone and pick up a MEV Bible for an adequate update. Anyone?
I think that they should release NKJV with Apocrypha.
I think it is really a bit too early to change the NKJV at this time, except for the notes. However, I do agree with Tim Wildsmith that the NKJV may need an update but for me, that is further down the road.
No just no I am 17 years old I have studied the text for three years now and have worn out three new King James bibles I hate this stupid gender thing because some places they do it completely wrong and then it changes and warps the meaning of the Bible I love the way the new King James reeds and I'm autistic if I can read it fine then you can read it and understand I have a reading disability and I can read perfectly fine from the new King James without any struggles
I'm tentatively ok with the notes being updated.
Malachi 3:6 I am the Lord, I change not.
Why does man not follow God's pattern?
Even though the NKJV has never been my primary translation, I would still say leave it as is. Back in 2016, there was a KJV update of the NT that was released (PDF) with the OT to follow. To my knowledge, the OT still hasn’t been released but when it is that could possibly serve as the update that you’re desiring. It’s just like with the NASB. Even though they updated it in 2020, I’m glad they are still keeping the 1995 around. Just my thoughts.
I'm in the No camp on changing it. Yes language has changed especially in the US not necessarily in a good way, sorry. Yes update the notes. 💕
I’d probably switch to the kjv if it got updated for my TR, I like quite a few translations but nkjv is one of my top 2. Notes are whatever that could go either way for me, as long as they keep black letter versions available like the two brother Tim has right there.
Great video brother!
I would love to hear @MatthewEverhard 's perspective on an NKJV update.
People have a lot of security in Bible translations that don’t change. If the NKJV was updated, people would be going back to the KJV.
I think it’s going to be a while until the NKJV is outdated on a language basis. Not exactly sure when, but probably around the 100yr mark.
Leave the current text as it stands. Update the KJV apocrypha to NKJV standards and offer bibles which include the "now full" NKJV canon.
Do not update the NKJV because would love it to remain as it is ❤
Other than second kings 23:29 which should read “went out against” I’m unaware of any issues needing to be corrected or updated in the NKJV. Add to the fact that every update today seems to consider political and cultural issues I’m skeptical of any update to any translation.
But that is not an issue specific to the NKJV alone.
I agree!!
I appreciate your reviews, Tim, but I really don't see the need for an NKJV update. According to a chart on the Christian Book Distributors website, the NKJV is written at a 7th grade reading level, while the ESV with its 'Yoda-isms,' is at the 10th grade reading level. Also, I'm afraid an update would adversely affect the poetic flow that it inherited from the KJV - which the extensive NKJV translation and editorial team went to great lengths to retain. I'm sure you've read it, but if you haven't, Art Farstad's book on the making of the NKJV is a great read. It is entitled 'In the Great Tradition: The New King James Version.' PS: Some major publisher really needs to fulfill Dr. Farstad's vision and give us a widely-published Majority Text translation...
I understand why so many people don't want the NKJV to be updated. It's a translation that's not as dependent on new discoveries as Critical Text Editions, and therefore less prone to require an update. I agree with those who say that it would be nice to have an expanded and updated textual note section reflecting the variances. However, I do think there would have been a neat opportunity for Thomas Nelson to do an update in 2024, and then another update in 2064, and so on with 40 years in-between each new update. As you said, our usage of language evolves and changes overtime. Words used 40 years ago in certain circumstances may be the more archaic meaning of the words as we would use them today. The reason for 40 years is that is the number marked for a generation, which I think would be fitting if you are updating a Bible Translation based on a static manuscript tradition. It doesn't need much updating other than individual words or phrases here and there that may not make as much sense as they did to readers in 1984.
In my mind the ESV is already the updated version. Leland Ryken wrote an entire book on the literary effects of the KJV and he’s the literary advisor for the ESV.
But yes, the NKJV is just English, yes English words. If we are talking about Majority Text vs Critical text, ok have an opinion about the actual Greek words first. But a translation is a bridge to the Receptor language.
I get having a translation that you are used to, but there should be no dogmatism about this(unless ofc it’s truly heretical, then be dogmatic)
Yes I agree completely!
Stability leads to confidence. If they start the periodic cycle of changes they risk losing some of the confidence they’ve earned over the years.
I think they should give it another 10-20 years and the release a new translation, leaving the NKJV in its current form.
I wouldn’t mind an update to the notes in the mean time.
Really, if you think about it there are many “modern” translations available. At one point, do we end up with every translation sounding the same? And would we want that?
I don't think there should be changes or updates to any translation, beyond correcting clear mistakes, like spelling or typos, etc. I feel like these should be handled like the LSB. If you make significant changes, make it a new translation, to make sure it's very clear which Bible you have in your hand.
Can anyone help me? How much do you like the NKJV? I have been looking for one. Any suggestions? Thank you in advance.
I like the idea of leaving the current version in print and add a 2024/25 version.
It's seems everytime "they" update any of the newer translations, the Bible's text is watered down even gender-fiedand, neutral, etc.
I'm not a KJV, NKJV only or any translation for that matter. Changes to Reference Notes, etc is needed periodically... But leave the text alone
I disagree that the NKJV language will go out of style. I feel exactly the opposite actually. I was reading the NASB95, and can clearly see what you’re talking about with phrases like “he lived to a ripe old age.” I was totally turned off by that because that is such a 90’s American thing to say. But the NKJV and the KJV seem to have a timeless beauty to the text, at least in my opinion. I was in a Bible study a few years ago though, and there were some serious variances in Ecclesiastes among all of our different translations if I recall. My pastor, an ESV guy, was not a fan of the NKJV rendering of some of the text.
Definitely in favor of updating the notes. I believe we have time before an update of the text is required. Updates stress me out 🤷🏻♀️
Understand that we are watching our entire culture being revised in front of our eyes. The church and the Bible as we (Gen x and older) have known then are not welcome. Churches and publishers are not immune to the pressures now being applied. Many of us crave something from the past we can rely on. It's not that I don't know we need to change or rather purify the church. But I don't think this generation has the education or moral capacity to revise an establishment like NKJV with integrity.
They should simply add a series containing the deuterocanonical/apocryphal books. I would be very interested in that. Btw love the channel!
I think the current NKJV should be kept in print, with updated footnotes.
I’m probably in the minority, and would like a slightly updated version of the NKJV text while keeping the old one in print. May be following a Lockman style approach, or give it a totally new name. Ps 23:1 Is one great example of slightly outdated language “I shall not want”
I get it, it’s classical. Which is why I’m advocating for keeping the 1984 in print while doing an update to cater to a totally new demographic, like me, and my kids…
if you use th NET with full notes right along side of NKJV You Have a Winning Combination. !
dude is young, that's why he says NKJV should be updated every 10-15 years. The fact is God's word doesn't change so frequent updates are bad and should be done only after careful consideration to fix egregious errors.
It’s a slippery slope if they decide to update it. I don’t think it would be a good idea.
Update it!