I sometimes, on rare occasions, will look at Modern Bibles (Modern Critical Text Bibles which are corrupt) on BibleHub to help clarify uncommon words in the KJV when the wording happens to match. However, I will not use the NKJV for this purpose. Why? The NKJV has three major problems, which is why I do not even use it to help explain archaic words in the KJV.
#1. While the NKJV is primarily based on the Textus Receptus, it does not always follow it. For example, in 1 John 3:16, the phrase “of God” is removed, and in this case, the NKJV follows the Critical Text instead. Many are deceived into thinking the NKJV is a true TR Bible that follows the same Textus Receptus as the KJV, but this is not always the case. It is not a genuine modernized KJV update as it claims to be. In fact, none of its translators were friendly toward the Textus Receptus. So when the cover says “King James” after the word “New,” it is misleading. The NKJV is a hybrid TR and should have been called something else because it does not consistently follow the TR.
#2. The NKJV updates certain words to align with Modern Bibles like the NIV, ESV, and CSB, all of which are based on the Critical Text. This means it makes translation choices in English that mirror these Critical Text versions rather than the KJV. 2 Timothy 2:15 is one clear example of this, changing “Study” to “Be diligent,” which weakens the emphasis on personal study and turns it into a vague encouragement toward general effort.
#3. The NKJV includes footnotes marked “NU” (Nestle Aland and United Bible Societies) to nudge readers toward the Critical Text, and “M” to reference the so-called Majority Text. Yet this “Majority Text” is not truly representative of the full Byzantine majority of manuscripts we have today. Printed Majority Text editions today are based on roughly 300 to 600 Greek manuscripts, not the 5,800 manuscripts that make up the real Byzantine Majority.
Note: I believe the KJV is the perfect words of God in 1600s English, but that does not mean I will not use Modern English Bibles on rare occasion if it helps flesh out the uncommon words in the KJV. But many are not capable of doing this because this. Why? Because there is the danger of following the Modern Bibles when they are making a completely different change to what the KJV says. I see the Modern Bibles sort of like a dictionary. Sometimes the word fits, and other times it does not. But I do look at the context, pray, look at the original language words, look at what other believers think through history, etcetera.
....
....
#1. While the NKJV is primarily based on the Textus Receptus, it does not always follow it. For example, in 1 John 3:16, the phrase “of God” is removed, and in this case, the NKJV follows the Critical Text instead. Many are deceived into thinking the NKJV is a true TR Bible that follows the same Textus Receptus as the KJV, but this is not always the case. It is not a genuine modernized KJV update as it claims to be. In fact, none of its translators were friendly toward the Textus Receptus. So when the cover says “King James” after the word “New,” it is misleading. The NKJV is a hybrid TR and should have been called something else because it does not consistently follow the TR.
#2. The NKJV updates certain words to align with Modern Bibles like the NIV, ESV, and CSB, all of which are based on the Critical Text. This means it makes translation choices in English that mirror these Critical Text versions rather than the KJV. 2 Timothy 2:15 is one clear example of this, changing “Study” to “Be diligent,” which weakens the emphasis on personal study and turns it into a vague encouragement toward general effort.
#3. The NKJV includes footnotes marked “NU” (Nestle Aland and United Bible Societies) to nudge readers toward the Critical Text, and “M” to reference the so-called Majority Text. Yet this “Majority Text” is not truly representative of the full Byzantine majority of manuscripts we have today. Printed Majority Text editions today are based on roughly 300 to 600 Greek manuscripts, not the 5,800 manuscripts that make up the real Byzantine Majority.
Note: I believe the KJV is the perfect words of God in 1600s English, but that does not mean I will not use Modern English Bibles on rare occasion if it helps flesh out the uncommon words in the KJV. But many are not capable of doing this because this. Why? Because there is the danger of following the Modern Bibles when they are making a completely different change to what the KJV says. I see the Modern Bibles sort of like a dictionary. Sometimes the word fits, and other times it does not. But I do look at the context, pray, look at the original language words, look at what other believers think through history, etcetera.
....
....
