Rock of Ages Study Bible

[Trotter]

Did NOT the penmen of the original autographs translate what the Spirit had moved upon their hearts, or did God speak to them in angellic tongues and they interpreted?

Didn't see your question, brother. My apologies.

The original writers penned what God laid on their hearts. They wrote it in their own language and in their own style (David used imagery of the fields and kingdoms, Ezra wrote matter-of-factly like the scribe he was, and so forth). There was no "translation" as there were no spoken words; each wrote as moved by God.

Amazing how people splinter off into an anything goes group while so many others choose to stand on the KJV.

You really don't know me or my stance, then.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Didn't see your question, brother. My apologies.

The original writers penned what God laid on their hearts. They wrote it in their own language and in their own style (David used imagery of the fields and kingdoms, Ezra wrote matter-of-factly like the scribe he was, and so forth). There was no "translation" as there were no spoken words; each wrote as moved by God.


You really don't know me or my stance, then.

Have you ever noticed that still small voice is the one you hear yourself speak?

Then by your estimation our desire to stick with the KJV has the same importance as the original penmen's "style".

I guess I'm just too much into "artistry" to accept the new versions based on that analogy alone. But I do not appreciate the omissions so many versions have and the way the thought impressions are changed when reading by comparison.

I'll stick with the KJV and appreciate Rock of Ages for taking a stand where so many others zig and zag all over the globe.

 

[Bayouparson]

After it came out in 1611, the KJV was questioned by a number of believers including Baptists, especially concerning several verses where it was claimed to have renderings that were the result of Episcopal bias.

One example involves Acts 14:23. One place where the Church of England translators reveal their bias for their Episcopal church government is in Acts 14:23 where either the KJV translators, Bancroft, or another prelate omitted the words "by election" found in Tyndale's New Testament, Coverdale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, Great Bible, Taverner's Bible, Geneva Bible, and Bishops' Bible ("ordained them elders by election").

The rest of the post has been eliminated for the sake of space. This argument is something I had not heard of and find interesting. First it is important to note that the KJV was not an Episcopal Bible. The Church of England did not sanction nor order the translation of the KJV. It was brought to the Hampton Court Conference by the Puritans (who also participated in the translation) who had four issues they wanted addressed that dealt with abuses in the Church of England. Thus to say that the Episcopal Church made the translation is a misnomer and historically inaccurate. As concerning the issue at hand it is the translation of the word χειροτονησαντες. As you have noted the various English translations prior to the KJV translate the word “ordained them elders by election” (with some variation). The word has the meaning according to Strong’s Concordance as “to be a hand-reacher or voter (by raising the hand), i.e. (genitive) to select or appoint :- choose, ordain.” The idea of “raising the hand” is incorporated in the idea of “by election.” If you examine the word in Greek usage it would serve us to see what the Greek lovers prefer, Kittle’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) (which I do not), but good for the sake of argument. It says, “Raising the hand to express agreement in a vote...[i.e.] he voted for my views” (Electronic edition PC Study Bible V5). The conclusion of the definition is stated by the author of the article in the TDNT, E. Lohse, who says, “In Acts 14:23 the reference is not to election by the congregation. The presbyters are nominated by Paul and Barnabas and then with prayer and fasting they are instituted into their offices…” (Ibid). The word carries the idea of raising the hand to show support for the selection or even something akin to a hand shake. Not a vote to make the selection. Maybe the King James translators were accurate to eliminate the word “by election.” Maybe they had read the rest of the New Testament and knew the theology of Paul better than some today.
Second, if the KJV is a “bad” translation (and I do not accept this) then all the “new translations” are bad as well. All of them I examined, NIV, NASB, NASB77, ASV, NKJV, and RSV, have the statement “appointed elders.” The only difference is the KJV uses "ordain" and the new translations use "appointed." The phrase "by election" has been eliminated. It seems that the objection historically was an attempt by objectors to impugn the new Bible, the Authorized Version, the KJV. This seems to be the procedure of those who dislike the KJV, even today.

 

[Bayouparson]

Bayouperson:How come ALL new translations try to compare their Bible with the Authorized King James Bible.

Cuz some men have invented a doctrine that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible version. Not only is this doctrine false of its own statement, but couldn't be true anyway cuz it's MAN-MADE.

Thus, people compare other versions with the KJV to provide proof positive that the KJVO doctrine wrong.

And I wonder why so many KJVOs add "authorized" when speaking of the KJV? That "authorization" doesn't matter a flying farky. If it did, the GREAT BIBLE, authorized C. 1537 by Henry VIII, should be our English Bible.

Sorry for the delay in a response. A lot going on. The main reason it is called the "Authorized Version" is because that is what the users did historically. The GREAT BIBLE, while authorized, never received the acceptance and respect the KJV did. Why do people fight against something that historically has been accepted as the standard of all English translations?

 

[Trotter]

Have you ever noticed that still small voice is the one you hear yourself speak?

Then by your estimation our desire to stick with the KJV has the same importance as the original penmen's "style".

I guess I'm just too much into "artistry" to accept the new versions based on that analogy alone. But I do not appreciate the omissions so many versions have and the way the thought impressions are changed when reading by comparison.

I'll stick with the KJV and appreciate Rock of Ages for taking a stand where so many others zig and zag all over the globe.

I have no problem whatsoever with your desire to stick with the KJV, or anyone else's. I have a problem when you, or anyone else, starts going on about any other translation not being the word of God. There was no special revelation or inspiration given with the translation of any English translation (or any other language for that matter), and there is therefore no justification for the slander. I hope you understand that, at least for me, this is what I oppose, not someone's choice to use the KJV.

God can and does use all kinds of translations, both in the English language and others. We should all be thankful that He does. If only one would work then the vast majority of the world would be left out.

Why do people fight against something that historically has been accepted as the standard of all English translations?

No one is fighting the KJV, only the notion that it is something other than one of several translations. Yes, it has been used for a long time and will continue to be used... but that doesn't make it more spiritual or inspired. Using it is personal choice, but trying to put it on some kind of spiritual pedestal is adhering to a man-made doctrine. The KJV is a translation, not a new work of inspiration.

The term "Authorized" with the KJV had to do with the King's endorsement of certain publisher to print it. The KJV developed its "acceptance" because the crown forced it upon the people as the Anglican bible. It gained respect because it is still a translation of God's word.

 

[Bayouparson]

I have no problem whatsoever with your desire to stick with the KJV, or anyone else's. I have a problem when you, or anyone else, starts going on about any other translation not being the word of God. There was no special revelation or inspiration given with the translation of any English translation (or any other language for that matter), and there is therefore no justification for the slander. I hope you understand that, at least for me, this is what I oppose, not someone's choice to use the KJV.

God can and does use all kinds of translations, both in the English language and others. We should all be thankful that He does. If only one would work then the vast majority of the world would be left out.
No one is fighting the KJV, only the notion that it is something other than one of several translations. Yes, it has been used for a long time and will continue to be used... but that doesn't make it more spiritual or inspired. Using it is personal choice, but trying to put it on some kind of spiritual pedestal is adhering to a man-made doctrine. The KJV is a translation, not a new work of inspiration.

The term "Authorized" with the KJV had to do with the King's endorsement of certain publisher to print it. The KJV developed its "acceptance" because the crown forced it upon the people as the Anglican bible. It gained respect because it is still a translation of God's word.

I just noticed the dates of your dad's passing and send my condolences. He was five years younger than myself. I know you will miss him as I still miss my dad who passed away in 1987. There are still times I would like to pick up the phone and talk with him. That will have to wait until the reunion.

Now, to the matter above. It seems that we have come full circle with this discussion. There are enough differences between all the "new" translations beginning with the English Revised Version of 1880 known as the ERV all the way through the NIV, NASB, RSV, NKJV, et al. They are ALL based on a different set of manuscripts than the AV 1611, KJV. There cannot be any way to say they are all "just the word of God" when there are so many differences. The KJV stands alone in Bible translations.

 

[Logos1560]

First it is important to note that the KJV was not an Episcopal Bible. The Church of England did not sanction nor order the translation of the KJV. It was brought to the Hampton Court Conference by the Puritans (who also participated in the translation) who had four issues they wanted addressed that dealt with abuses in the Church of England. Thus to say that the Episcopal Church made the translation is a misnomer and historically inaccurate. .

All the translators of the KJV were members of the Church of England. King James I, the head of the Church of England, approved the making of the new translation. King James I or Archbishop Richard Bancroft made and approved the rules for the translating. Perhaps you forget the Puritans were stilll part of the Church of England. Those few Puritans that were among the KJV translators had been forced to conform or to stop advocating their Puritan views by the 1604 canons made by Archbishop Richard Bancroft.

In its dedication to King James in the 1611 edition, Bishop Thomas Bilson noted "that we have great hope that the Church of England shall reap good fruit thereby" [by the making of this translation].

On the title page of the 1611, this is noted: "Appointed to be read in churches" which meant appointed to be read in the state churches [the Church of England].

More on Acts 14:23
William Fulke asserted: “Our translation is true, ordained by election, and answereth the Greek word, which we translate” (Confutation, p. 158). Fulke wrote: “Our translation must be, as near as it can, to express the true signification of the original words; and so it is in that place of the Acts 14:23” (A Defence, p. 467). Thomas Cartwright maintained “it must needs be, that as he wrote, so he meant the election by voices” since the word “signifieth the lifting of them [hands] up“ (Confutation, p. 291). John Owen (1616-1683) wrote: “Before interest had guided men in what they had to do, all the translations that were extant in English did read this text, ‘And ordained them elders by election,‘ as the word doth signify; so you will find it in your old translations. But since, it was left out to serve a turn” (Works, Vol. IX, p. 435). John Owen noted that Erasmus, Vatablus, Beza, and all of our old English translations indicated that the choice of elders was "by election or the suffrage of the disciples" (Church & the Bible or Works, XVI, p. 60). The text of the Latin translation by Erasmus has “cum suffragns” at Acts 14:23. In the Paraphrase on the Acts of the Apostles by Erasmus as translated by Robert Sider, Erasmus at Acts 14:23 maintained that “presbyters were chosen throughout by popular vote in each city” (p. 93). Sider also referred to “the annotation on 14:23 where Erasmus insists that we are to understand here a choice by vote” (p. 262, note 33). The Baptist Magazine for 1871 as edited by W. G. Lewis cited Henry Stephens, editor of a Greek-Latin Lexicon in 1572 that was consulted by the KJV translators, as giving the meaning of our text Acts 14:23 as “When they had created by suffrages” (pp. 583-584). In his translation of his Greek text into Latin, Theodore Beza included the words per suffragia at Acts 14:23. Theodore Beza (1519-1605) contended that "the Christians of Asia gave their votes by lifting up their hands (Acts 14:23, Cheirotoneo)" (The Christian Faith, p. 104). James Harrington (1611-1677) translated Beza’s Latin as “When they had created them elders by suffrages in every congregation” (Prerogative, Book Two, p. 77). The Baptist Magazine for 1871 translated Beza’s rendering of this verse as follows: “When they had created for them, by suffrages, presbyters in each of the churches” (p. 583). Clearly, Greek text editors Erasmus and Beza understood the meaning “suffrage” or “election” to be in their Greek texts at Acts 14:23.


The 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible and 1672 edition of the KJV have a marginal note at Acts 14:23 that observed that the apostles "chose and placed them [pastors] by the voice of the congregation." The Geneva Bible and the 1672 edition of the KJV also have this note at Acts 14:23: “The word in the original is taken from the custom of the Greeks, whose manner was to chose their officers by lifting up of the hands.” The 1557 Whittingham’s New Testament has this note for the word “election” at Acts 14:23: “The word signifieth to elect by putting up the hands, which declareth that ministers were not made without the consent of the people.“


In his commentary on Acts, John Calvin (1509-1564) noted that this Greek word "means to determine something by raising hands, as is usually done in the assemblies of the people" (p. 19). John Cotton also asserted that “the apostles are said to have ordained elders by lifting up of hands (to wit, of the people) as the original word implieth” (Way, p. 42). In his 1612 Christian Dictionary, Thomas Wilson (1563-1622) has this third definition for election: “the choosing or appointing some unto public functions, by voices, or by a common consent (Acts 14:23) ‘when they had ordained elders by election in every church‘” (p. 122). In 1625, John Robinson referred to Acts 14:23: “where Paul and Barnabas do ordain elders in every church by suffrages (not their own as some fancy, unto whom to lift up and to lay on hands is all one) but the people’s; or by the lifting up of hands” (Just and Necessary, p. 34). Francis Turretin (1623-1687) wrote: “The apostles in every city ordain presbyters by the cheirotonian of the people (14:23) or by their free suffrages (the word being derived from the Greek custom of those who voted with stretched out and extended hands; hence transferred to any elections, sacred as well as political, it signifies to appoint by vote)“ (Institutes, III, p. 229). In 1641, John Canne referred to “officers whom the people freely chose by voices, or lifting up of hands” (Sion’s Prerogative, p. 41). In his 1674 book, Thomas Collier cited Acts 14:23 and noted: “When they had ordained them elders (by election, or lifting up of hands) in every church, cheirotonesai, to choose by holding up the hand” (Body of Divinity, p. 486). John Lightfoot reported that Sidrach Simpson (c1600-1655) maintained that this Greek word “is ’to give suffrage’ in all lexicons” (Pitman, Whole Works, XIII, p. 101). Lightfoot also quoted William Bridge (1600-1670) as saying that “the apostles appointed the people to chose; as Acts 6:3, 5, so here [Acts 14:23]“ (p. 102). Concerning Acts 14:23, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) translated the words in the original language as “when they had ordained them elders by the holding up of hands in every congregation” (Leviathan, p. 369).


In his Annotations, John Diodoti translated his own Italian Bible into English at Acts 14:23 as “when they had by common votes ordained.” James Harrington rendered Diodati’s Bible as “When they had ordained them in every church by the common votes” (Prerogative, Two, p. 78). Riplinger maintained that “the Italian Diodati” was a “pure” edition of the Bible (Hazardous, p. 646). The Dutch Annotations as translated into English by Theodore Haak in 1657 presented the first part of the text of Acts 14:23 as follows: "And when they in every church with lifting up of hands had chosen them elders." In 1657, Harrington translated the words in the Dutch Bible appointed by the Synod of Dort as “When in each church by the holding up of hands they had elected presbyters” (Prerogative, Two, p. 78). In an article in The Baptist Magazine for 1871, the author or editor W. G. Lewis asserted that they translated literally the 1637 Dutch Version at Acts 14:23 as follows: “And when they had chosen elders for them in every congregation with uplifted hands” (p. 584). Francis Turretin maintained that our French version of the Scriptures “understands cheirotonian of a creation by votes or election” (Institutes, III, p. 229). Perhaps that French version was the revision of Robert Oliventanus’ version that was made by Theodore Beza. Henry Baird noted that “Beza found time to give a careful and final revision to the French version of the Bible in common use among Protestants” (Theodore Beza, p. 330). Baird wrote: “Thus was developed the famous ’Bible of the Pastors and Professors of Geneva,’ which, from 1588 on to almost our own times, has passed through a multitude of editions and exercised a vast influence on successive generations of readers” (Ibid.). Harrington presented the rendering of the Swiss Bible of Zurich as follows: “When they had created them elders by suffrages in every congregation” (Prerogative, Two, p. 77). Along with the Latin New Testaments of Erasmus and Beza, the Italian, Dutch, French, and Swiss Bibles agreed with the pre-1611 English Bibles at Acts 14:23.

 

[Bayouparson]

FOR LOGOS1560
More on Acts 14:23


I am still learning my way around the reply portion of this forum. I have not learned how to incorporate part of a quote in a reply. I inadvertantly deleted your post. Thank you for the information. As I said in an earlier post I was not aware of this issue. Your research is to be commended and I have filed it for future reference. You have educated me on this matter and I appreciate your willingness to share it. Would you please let me know what you think of the "New Translations" handling of this verse. I know what you think of the KJV but there seems to be little difference.

 

[Logos1560]

Would you please let me know what you think of the "New Translations" handling of this verse. .

There was another thread a few months ago about this verse so I posted on it so you could see it.

There have been a few translations after 1611 that included the idea of election or voting at Acts 14:23.

The 1851 edition of the KJV's New Testament as edited by Baptists Spencer Cone and William Wyckoff began Acts 14:23 as follows:

And when they had ordained by election elders for them in each church

In Henry Alford’s 1870 revision of the KJV, Alford translated the beginning of Acts 14:23 as follows: “when they had elected for them elders in every church” (p. 218).

Most new translations seem to use "appointed" at Acts 14:23. That rendering could be understood to leave open the question of the method of appointment whether by election of the congregations or by ordination by apostles or bishops.
__________________________________--
more information concerning the KJV's rendering

In removing the two words “by election,” the 1582 Rheims New Testament could have been followed. Benjamin Hanbury wrote: “Acts 14:23 is thus translated, not only in the Genevan, but also in the former Church translation [Bishops’], ‘And when they had ordained them elders by election.‘ But the new translation, with the Rhemists, leave out the words ‘by election’! Why? It is not to be suffered that the people should have any hand in choosing their ministers; but the papal bishops must do all” (Historical Memorials, I, p. 131). The 1582 Rheims N. T. had an annotation on this verse [numbered verse 22 in Rheims] that complained about the early English Bibles’ rendering. The Rheims’ annotation stated: “The heretics, to make the world believe that all Priests ought to be chosen by the voices of the people, and that they need no other Ordering or Consecration by Bishops, pressing the profane use of the Greek word more than the very natural signification requireth and Ecclesiastical use beareth, translate, Ordained by election. Whereas in deed this word in Scripture signifeth ordering by imposition of hands, as is plain by other words equivalent (Acts 6:13, 1 Tim. 4:5, 2 Tim. 1) where the ordering of deacons, Priests, and others is called Imposition of hands: not of the people, but of the Apostles” (p. 242). William Fulke cited Roman Catholic Gregory Martin as writing: “for ‘ordaining elders by election,‘ they should have said, ‘ordaining or making priests by imposition of hands’” (Defence, pp. 247-248). Did the KJV translators or the prelate who omitted “by election” accept the Roman Catholic interpretation that this Greek word referred to “laying on of hands” for consecration to ecclesiastical offices?


In agreement with the Roman Catholic view, Thomas Bilson, co-editor of the KJV, asserted that the Greek word at Acts 14:23 signifieth “imposition of hands” and “not to ordain by election of the people, as some men of late had new framed the text” (Perpetual Government of Christ‘s Church, p. 13). Bilson maintained that the Greek word “with all Greek councils, fathers, and stories, is ’to ordain by laying on of hands‘” (p. 120). Bilson quoted from Acts 14:23: “ordained elders in every church,” omitting the words “by election“ in the pre-1611 English Bibles (p. 188). The first-hand evidence from his own book would affirm that Bilson would have wanted the words “by election” removed, and even did remove the words once when he quoted from the verse. Bilson claimed that Acts 14:23 “is the only place of the New Testament that can be brought to make any show for the popular elections of elders” (p. 137). KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes contended that “the apostles ordained priests by imposition of hands in every church, Acts 14:23” (Pattern, p. 355).


In his 1688 book, Thomas Ward, a Roman Catholic, claimed that “they thought it now convenient to pretend something more than a bare election; to wit, to receive an episcopal and priestly character, by the imposition of hands” (Errata, p. 69). Ward suggested that perhaps one reason the words by election were removed from Acts 14:23 was “that they might more securely fix themselves in their bishoprics and benefices; thinking, perhaps that bishops consecrated, might pretend to that jure divino” (Ibid.). Ward asserted that “they thought good to blot out the words ’by election‘” (p. 26).

 

[EdSutton]

Just the facts, please!

Now, to the matter above. It seems that we have come full circle with this discussion. There are enough differences between all the "new" translations beginning with the English Revised Version of 1880 known as the ERV all the way through the NIV, NASB, RSV, NKJV, et al. They are ALL based on a different set of manuscripts than the AV 1611, KJV. There cannot be any way to say they are all "just the word of God" when there are so many differences. The KJV stands alone in Bible translations.

Sorry, but there are two errors in your above statement for there is one version of those characterized as "beginning with the English Revised Version of 1880 known as the ERV all the way through the NIV, NASB, RSV, NKJV, et al." that does not fit here, where you state that "They are ALL based on a different set of manuscripts than the AV 1611, KJV."

And, FTR, I have personally previously pointed out two of these supposed statements of fact, as errors. And the first was in my own post #50 on this thread, which happened to be in response to your own post # 48.

But I guess I have to "say it again."

First, the RV did not appear until 1881, not 1880.

Second, the NT textual basis for the NKJV is the same as that of the KJV, insomuch as this is possible to determine. Others beside myself have also pointed this out, as well.

FTR, I do not care which version or versions one prefers, here (My own Bible preferences happen to be one particular edition of the KJV and one particular edition of the NKJV.), but I will not let inaccurate historical statements in this post (or others) stand unchallenged, when and if I happen to notice them.

And, I'll add one more thing.

You stated this.

The KJV stands alone in Bible translations.

Sorry, this is still an opinion, only, and not objective 'fact.'

Ed

 

[Bayouparson]

Sorry, but there are two errors in your above statement for there is one version of those characterized as "beginning with the English Revised Version of 1880 known as the ERV all the way through the NIV, NASB, RSV, NKJV, et al." that does not fit here, where you state that "They are ALL based on a different set of manuscripts than the AV 1611, KJV."

And, FTR, I have personally previously pointed out two of these supposed statements of fact, as errors. And the first was in my own post #50 on this thread, which happened to be in response to your own post # 48.

But I guess I have to "say it again."

First, the RV did not appear until 1881, not 1880.

Second, the NT textual basis for the NKJV is the same as that of the KJV, insomuch as this is possible to determine. Others beside myself have also pointed this out, as well.

FTR, I do not care which version or versions one prefers, here (My own Bible preferences happen to be one particular edition of the KJV and one particular edition of the NKJV.), but I will not let inaccurate historical statements in this post (or others) stand unchallenged, when and if I happen to notice them.

And, I'll add one more thing.

You stated this.Sorry, this is still an opinion, only, and not objective 'fact.'

Ed

It appears that both of us are wrong. The complete English Revised Version (ERV) did not appear until 1885 (The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. 3, page 371). Admittedly the NT of the ERV did appear in 1881. I will be more careful about that date.

The other point you make is that the Greek text of the NKJV is the same as the AV1611 (KJV) is not provable. I answered this in post number 34 of this thread. I will repeat it again here.
"You evidently do not know the differences between the Textus Receptus of the KJV and the Majority Greek Text of the NKJV. Here is a statement from the Introduction to The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text by Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad published by Thomas Nelson,1982. They say, "The 1825 Oxford edition of the Textus Receptus was employed as a working base against which the manuscript data were compared. Whenever our text differs from the Oxford Textus Receptus, the variation is noted in the first apparatus" (page xiii). Your claim that the Greek text of the KJV and the NKJV are the same is not true nor provable. This is why it is considered an eclectic text because they incorporate some of the readings of the critical text as well as the majority text which historically was the Textus Receptus. The advent of the Greek New Testament by Hodges and Farstad changed the understanding of the Majority Text and it is not longer the same as the Textus Receptus of the KJV." There is no intrinsic evidence that the Greek text of the NKJV is the same as the AV1611. This is not an opinion, thank you. I repeat one more time, the AV1611 is the only Bible based on the TR and the Bomberg Hebrew Text. All other versions are based on one of the critical texts, both OT and NT.

 

[rsr]

Your claim that the Greek text of the KJV and the NKJV are the same is not true nor provable.

Then it should be easy to produce a few instances in which the NKJV departs from the TR. The comments about the Hodges/Farstad Majority Text are immaterial; the NKJV did not use their Majority Text for the translated text itself. (If your disagreement is with the NKJV's use of the MT, CT, etc., in footnotes, so be it; but the fact remains that the Scrivener TR is the text used for the translation itself.)

As far as the KJV following the Bomberg, James D. Price, editor of the NKJV, noted 228 instances in which the KJV translators departed from the Bomberg Masoretic Text, preferring the Vulgate, the LXX, other ancient versions, or other sources.

 

[Bayouparson]

Then it should be easy to produce a few instances in which the NKJV departs from the TR. The comments about the Hodges/Farstad Majority Text are immaterial; the NKJV did not use their Majority Text for the translated text itself. (If your disagreement is with the NKJV's use of the MT, CT, etc., in footnotes, so be it; but the fact remains that the Scrivener TR is the text used for the translation itself.)

As far as the KJV following the Bomberg, James D. Price, editor of the NKJV, noted 228 instances in which the KJV translators departed from the Bomberg Masoretic Text, preferring the Vulgate, the LXX, other ancient versions, or other sources.

There are many but for the sake of space and time I will give you one.
Matthew 18:26 (KJV)
The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
Matthew 18:26 (NKJV)
The servant therefore fell down before him, saying, 'Master, have patience with me, and I will pay you all.'

The words "worshipped him" are missing in the NKJV. It is present in the TR (and W/H) as προσεκυνει αυτω, which means "to worship." The NKJV follows the NIV, NASB, and RSV who do the same thing. If you need more evidence let me know.

 

[sag38]

Yep, that ommission will lead people straight to hell.

 

[Bayouparson]

Yep, that ommission will lead people straight to hell.

Your cynicism is noted.

 

[Bayouparson]

Then it should be easy to produce a few instances in which the NKJV departs from the TR. The comments about the Hodges/Farstad Majority Text are immaterial; the NKJV did not use their Majority Text for the translated text itself. (If your disagreement is with the NKJV's use of the MT, CT, etc., in footnotes, so be it; but the fact remains that the Scrivener TR is the text used for the translation itself.)

As far as the KJV following the Bomberg, James D. Price, editor of the NKJV, noted 228 instances in which the KJV translators departed from the Bomberg Masoretic Text, preferring the Vulgate, the LXX, other ancient versions, or other sources.

There is one note of significance. The NKJV used the Oxford TR 1825 and as noted in my post as I quoted from the Hodges/Farstad Majority Text which you say is immaterial. If the evidence is not important why am I wasting my time pointing out these evident things if you are not interested in the truth. The Scrivener TR is not the same as the Stephanus TR. Thus the evidence is building up that maybe the NKJV did not use the same TR as the KJV. After reading the previous reply by SAG38 I'm not sure any of you folks are actually interested in any evidence that shows the above. Maybe I am wasting my time trying to get you folks to admit what is true. It is getting like watching a dog chase his tail. If he catches it he will fall down and hasn't done anything except catch himself.

 

[sag38]

You are wasting your time as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Bayouparson]

You are wasting your time as far as I'm concerned.

My friend, you are absolutely right. You folks are like the person who said, "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up." Thanks for your honesty.

 

[sag38]

I could say the same thing about you. But, for the most part you have not shared facts as much as you have shared opinion.

 

[Bayouparson]

I could say the same thing about you. But, for the most part you have not shared facts as much as you have shared opinion.

Plenty of facts have come forth from my posts. You folks just dismiss them because they do not line up with your pre-conceived bias. The people defending the NKJV have posted plenty of opinions. The only thing you can bring to the table is accusations.