>>> That all said, I am using the New KJV for daily reading.
The NKJV is one of the modern translations, and is NOT an improvement over the KJV. (many scriptures deleted)
It draws from the same manuscripts as the NIV and other modern translations.
(many scriptures deleted)
Do you have a list of them? Or a link? I am interested.
I do look at the asterisks which give some of these alternative texts.
(1) By removing the correct way to differentiate between second person singular and second person plural through keeping thee/thou/thy/thine versus ye/you/your, the reader cannot now develop a correct understanding of proper application. For instance, in Rev. 2:4 "thou hast left thy first love" is a reproach addressed to the "angel"--a principal leader--of the church, not to the church as a whole; although all the letters were circulated among the churches. The NKJV reader is going to wrongly assume that the church as a whole is the enitity being evaluated.
(2) When the AV/KJV translators felt that a "helper" word was needed for clarifying the sense of the passage, it was italicized. Thus they alerted the reader that this italicized portion was added, and not in the original text. In contrast, the NKJV freely adds or eliminates words thus making the volume an interpretation of the reviser, not limiting itself to being a faithful translation.
While the NKJV might be considered "easier to read," that quality does not make it a better document to guide the reader. In fact, one way or another, it will lead the Bible student astray. To think otherwise is foolish. And though the basis is nominally the Textus Receptus, a Byzantine/Majority textform (and NOT the Alexandrian Critical/Eclectic text), the typical full NKJV has marginal notes that argue against its genuineness, a deep flaw that diminishes the trust of the reader.
These sly detractors make the NKJV a poorer study Bible than the traditional version, IMHO.
I'm glad you brought this up, so that it can be supported by others. As your ROE state, this group is for KJV-lovers, not a place to try to supplant it or detract from it with some different version, even the "NKJV," which is not really a sequel to the KJV, but instead repeats some of the errors that "trying to make it easier to read" introduces.
No, this is not correct. The choice of the underlying extus Receptus of the NKJV was by its chief editor, Arthur Farstad, who is a proponent of the Byzanitne/Majority Textform. Farstad and Zane Hodges have in print their own Greek text that is NOT of the man-made (and to me, corrupted) Alexandrinian Critical Text that all other modern English versions are based on.
In fact, that Farstad chose the Textus Receptus (= Received, or Traditional, Text) from which the Tyndale Bible, the Coverdale Bible, the Bishop's Bible, and the Crown-Authorized Bible (KJV) were translated, is the only real claim to be titled "New King James Version." Otherwise, Farstad's supervision of translation led to generally following the KJV's phrasing. The idea seems to be to trade on the good will and good press for attaining such a demand as to justify printing it and make it a profitable venture. But drawing from the same manuscripts as the NIV--it does not.