An Examination & Critique of The NEW KING JAMES VERSION.

[Alan Gross]

An Examination of
The NEW KING JAMES VERSION,
"NKJV" review part #1.
"NKJV" review part #2.
PARTS 1&2 by A. Hembd, MACS
Reformation International Theological Seminary
A consultant to The Trinitarian Bible Society.

(See also: "NKJV" Critique, in relation to its accuracy, etc.)

"Statement of the overall purpose of this paper we endeavor, the Lord helping us,
to address the matters set forth above, along with the translational problems of the NKJV,
in the following manner:

"1. We shall show the critical text for what it is: a recovery of the Alexandrian text
of the 4th century AD, which is an Egyptian revision and c*******d of the Apostolic text. \
Therefore, we will affirm that it is wrong for the New King James Version
to include text-critical notes in its margin from this very c*******d text, etc...

"The Alexandrian text was c*******d by the following things, among others:

(1) it was c*******d by the superimposition of Coptic (i.e., Egyptian) spellings,
grammatical structures, and word order upon the text;

(2) it was c*******d in many places by the re-editing of the Apostolic Greek text
to make it match the Coptic (Egyptian) text;

(3) it was c*******d by the critical work of the early Church Father Origen
and his followers, who often critically amended the text
according to their mystical/allegorical interpretations of passages of Scripture;
and finally,

(4) it was c*******d by heretics in Egypt who emasculated the text in key places.

"2. In the second place, we shall demonstrate how the Church at large,
after the persecutions of the 2nd and 3rd centuries,
and particularly after the Council of Nicea in the 4th century,

began to revise their manuscript copies universally
to the standard of the faithful apographs (copies descended directly from the originals)
that were yet maintained in the apostolic churches of Asia Minor
(which was the Byzantine Empire) and of Rome, and hence,
set forth the rise of the Byzantine text to the ascendancy,
and the universal rejection of the Egyptian text for the next 1,400 years.

"3. In the third place, we shall show how the Textus Receptus
was the result of faithful men who labored to see that the best text
from the copies of the traditional text found its way into the printed editions,

that many eyes were on the text to correct it, and that the Reformation fathers
were right in eight passages in the Textus Receptus to follow a Greek minority reading 8
when that reading was backed with nearly universal Latin support; and that thereby,
through consulting an overwhelming Latin witness,
the true readings were restored universally on the printed page.

"4. We in the fourth place shall show that the so-called Byzantine majority texts
of both Hodges and Farstad, and Pierpont and Robinson, are fatally flawed, in that,
by their own confession,9 their editors relied primarily
upon the work of Baron Hermann von Soden and his text of 1913.

Herman Hoskier, an advocate of the traditional text,
cites in his 1914 review of von Soden’s text in the Journal of Theological Studies
indisputable proof that von Soden’s Greek text is,
in his words, ‘honeycombed with errors’.10 Similarly Frederick Wisse,
who is himself very sympathetic of von Soden’s aims
though frank about his inaccuracies, says that ‘…von Soden’s inaccuracies
cannot be tolerated for any purpose.

His apparatus is useless for a reconstruction of the text of the MSS he used’.11

"5. We shall then, as enabled, address the translational flaws of the NKJV
in both the Old and New Testaments. We shall demonstrate
that these flaws are not minor in nature, but that, to the contrary,
together with the marginal notes, they impact key doctrines of the Word of God:
doctrines such as the hypostatic union of the two natures in Christ,
the incarnation, the eternal generation of the Person of the Son,
the divinity of Christ, and the eternal punishment of the wicked in hell.

"6. In the last place, we shall exhort our readers
to cling to the tried and proven Authorised Version."

Note: 8. There appear to be only two instances in which the Textus Receptus actually incorporated a Latin reading into the Greek text. Those are Acts 9.5 and Revelation 22.19 (although the Authorised Version does put the majority Greek reading for Revelation 22.19 in the marginal notes). There also appear to be two spelling errors, one of which makes for an actual change in meaning. One spelling error is found in Revelation 17.4, where the copyist spelled ‘unclean’ as akaqarthtoj instead of akaqarta. This little blemish in no wise impacts the meaning of the verse. The other verse in which the spelling error does impact the meaning slightly, and which is a typographical error, is found in Revelation 17.8. The error is found in the words ‘the beast which was, and is not, and yet is’. The words for ‘yet is’ are kaiper estin where the reading should be kai parestai. (The words were broken in the wrong place.) kai parestai is the reading of all the Greek manuscripts. This changes the phrase to read ‘the beast which was, and is not, and is about to be’. We agree with Dr Edward Hills when he says that this very minor blemish could be remedied with a mere footnote (King James Version Defended [Des Moines, Iowa USA: Christian Research Press, 2000], p. 202). These four very minor blemishes in the Textus Receptus (often made much of by modern textual critics) are nothing to be compared with the thousands of errors one encounters in the Egyptian texts, nor with the Coptic readings (which number in the hundreds in the four Gospels alone) and readings tinctured by heretics which are found even in the Nestle-Aland/UBS text. We shall be enlarging upon the Coptic corruption of the Egyptian text, and how the Nestle-Aland/UBS text is a resurrection of the Egyptian text of the 4th century, during the course of this article.

9. Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad, The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, 2nd ed. (Nashville, TN, USA: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1985), p. xv. The editors say: ‘For the evidence of the Majority text, the present edition rests heavily upon the information furnished by Hermann von Soden in his Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments’. Also, reference is made to William G. Pierpont and Maurice A. Robinson, The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine/Majority Textform (Rosewell, GA, USA: Original Word Publishers, 1991), p. xiii, ‘The present Byzantine/Majority Text was jointly edited and refined by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont during the period 1976–1991. The primary textual apparatuses utilized in the preparation of this edition were those of Hermann Freiherr von Soden and Herman C. Hoskier’. These same apparatuses were utilized by Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad in their majority text edition of the Greek New Testament. Von Soden was utilized almost exclusively by both these editions for all books except Revelation, where Hoskier was consulted, although in a critical fashion.

10. H. C. Hoskier, ‘Von Soden’s Text of the New Testament’, Journal of Theological Studies 15 (April 1914): 307. This is available on microfiche at Dallas Theological Seminary.

11. Frederick Wisse, The Profile Method for the Classification and Evaluation of Manuscript Evidence as Applied to the continuous Greek text of the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, MI, USA: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1962), pp. 16–17. Here Wisse reviews von Soden’s very great inaccuracies in collating the evidence in Luke 1.

 

[Conan]

It is to be remembered, that the original KJV had the exact same kind of textual footnotes in the 1611 KJV.

The NKJV faithfully continues the KJV into more Modern English. Perhaps that is what kjvonlyism is really upset about.

 

[Logos1560]

In 1869 over 100 years before the printing of the NKJV, an edition of the KJV’s N. T. that had hundreds of textual marginal notes from Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Alexandrinus was published.

 

[Logos1560]

The 1611 edition of the KJV had some textual marginal notes that referred to readings found in the corrupt Latin Vulgate of Jerome or the corrupt Greek Septuagint.

At Hebrews 6:1, Backus maintained that the 1611 KJV has in the margin "a literal translation of the Vulgate 'the word of the beginning of Christ'" (Reformed Roots, p. 147). At Matthew 4:12, Backus asserted that the 1611 KJV put “the Vulgate reading ‘delivered up’ in the margin” (p. 48). Scrivener suggested that the 1611 marginal note at 2 John 8 came from the Vulgate (Authorized Edition, p. 59). In its marginal note at Mark 7:3, the 1611 KJV has an alternative translation, the literal meaning of the Greek, and the translation of a church father: "Or, diligently, in the Original, with the fist; Theophilact, up to the elbow." The KJV translators put the following marginal note in the 1611 for “mercies” at Acts 13:34: “Greek, [hosios] holy, or just things; which word in the Septuagint, both in the place of Isaiah 55:3, and in many others, use for that which is in the Hebrew mercies.“ At Acts 13:18, the 1611 KJV has another marginal note that refers to the Septuagint and that refers to a church father--Chrysostom.

At Luke 10:22, the textual marginal note in the 1611 stated: "Many ancient copies add these words, 'And turning to his disciples, he said.'" The 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible has in its text at the beginning of Luke 10:22 the following: “Then he turned to his disciples.“ Scrivener suggested that the words in the 1611 margin at Luke 10:22 “are from the Complutensian edition and Stephen’s of 1550” (Authorized Edition, p. 58). At Luke 17:36, the textual marginal note in the 1611 stated: "This 36 verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies." At 2 Peter 2:2, the textual marginal note in the 1611 noted: "Or, lascivious wages, as some copies read." At Acts 25:6, the textual marginal note in the 1611 was the following: "as some copies read, no more then eight or ten days."

Other marginal notes that gave variant readings in the 1611 KJV can be found at Judges 19:2, Ezra 10:40, Psalm 102:3, Matthew 1:11, Matthew 26:26, Acts 13:18, 1 Corinthians 15:31, Ephesians 6:9, James 2:18, 1 Peter 2:21, 2 Peter 2:11, and 18. The 1611 marginal note beginning with “or” at Hebrews 5:2 could be properly considered a textual note since it basically agrees with Beza and the Geneva translation [“which is able sufficiently to have compassion”] while the makers of the KJV may follow the Latin Vulgate reading “who can have compassion” in their text. At Hebrews 5:7, the 1611 marginal note beginning with “or” could be considered a textual note since it indicates the reading of Erasmus [“pro sus reverential”] as followed by Tyndale’s and the Great Bible. In addition, the 1611 marginal note beginning with “or” at Romans 8:11 [“because of his spirit] could also be considered a textual note since Edward F. Hills presented this as a textual difference or variation in editions of the Textus Receptus with Beza having “by his Spirit” and Erasmus and Stephanus having “because of his Spirit” (KJV Defended, p. 222). Scrivener listed Romans 8:11 as one of thirty-seven NT textual marginal notes in the 1611 (Authorized Edition, p. 58). Scrivener indicated that the 1611 marginal note beginning with “or” at Revelation 6:8 “to him” is with “Complutensian, Vulgate, [and] Bishops’ Bible” (p. 59). Backus noted that “at Matthew 7:14 the ‘how’ reading occurs in AV margin (after the Vulgate)” (Reformed Roots, p. 70), and Scrivener listed it as a textual note (Authorized Edition, p. 58). At Mark 1:34, Backus indicated that the KJV followed the Bishops’/Tyndale/Vulgate reading “because they knew him” while “keeping the Beza/Geneva reading [“to say that they knew him”] as marginal alternative” (Reformed Roots, p. 66). In the 1611 at Mark 14:72, Backus asserted that “the Vulgate reading ‘he began to weep’ is suggested as a marginal alternative along with ‘he wept abundantly’ after Erasmus” (p. 75). At Galatians 4:15, Backus maintained that the KJV “adopts the Vulgate text more explicitly than Bois, reading ‘Where is then,’ but inserting the TR reading in the margin” (pp. 135-136). In its marginal note at Luke 8:18, the 1611 KJV evidently has the Latin Vulgate reading “thinking that he hath” (p. 84). At Luke 7:30, the 1611 KJV is said to put the Latin Vulgate reading “frustrated” in its marginal note (p. 83). Concerning Luke 8:18, Backus suggested that “the Vulgate reading ‘thinking that he hath’” is “retained in the margin” (p. 84). At Luke 17:20, Backus indicated that Whittingham, Geneva, Bishops, and KJV all read “with observation” in the text after the Vulgate while the 1611 marginal note “with outward show” is after Beza (p. 87). Backus asserted that the KJV follows the Latin Vulgate and reads “within you” at Luke 17:21 and “inserts the Bezan reading ‘among you’ as marginal alternative” (p. 87). At Romans 1:28 in the 1611 edition, Backus maintained that the “Revisers suggest the Bois/Beza reading as a marginal alternative” (p. 114). Backus asserted that at Romans 5:12 the KJV “inserts the Bezan reading ‘in whom’ in the margin” (p. 159). At Romans 8:22, Backus maintained that the KJV “adopts the Bezan reading in the text and the Vulgate/Erasmus reading in the margin” (p. 118). Concerning 1 Corinthians 10:30, Backus observed: “The Vulgate/Erasmus alternative ‘or by thanksgiving’ as suggested by [KJV translator Andrew] Downes is inserted in the AV margin” (p. 131). As seen in some of the above examples (Matt. 4:12, Mark 1:34, Mark 14:72, Luke 7:30, Luke 8:18, Luke 17:20, Luke 17:21, Rom. 1:28, Rom. 5:12, Rom. 8:22, 1 Cor. 10:30, Heb. 5:2, Heb. 5:7, Heb. 6:1), Backus identified another ten or more 1611 NT marginal notes as being textual that Scrivener may not have noticed as being such and that he did not include in his count or list of thirty-seven. Thus, Scrivener’s count of textual notes in the 1611 is evidently incomplete and is not inflated.

John R. Kohlenberger III pointed out a textual variant in the marginal note in the 1611 edition at Deuteronomy 28:22. John Kohlenberger asserted: “This variant is caused by the change of a single vowel point in Hebrew (horch versus the Masoretic herch) and likely reflects the Vulgate et aestu” (Burke, Translation, p. 50). Kohlenberger noted: “An example of an alternative reading that is not clearly stated is found at Luke 2:38: ‘that looked for redemption in Hierusalem’; note: ‘Or, Israel.’

 

[Conan]

Bad link.

 

[Logos1560]

"4. We in the fourth place shall show that the so-called Byzantine majority texts
of both Hodges and Farstad, and Pierpont and Robinson, are fatally flawed, in that,
by their own confession,9 their editors relied primarily
upon the work of Baron Hermann von Soden and his text of 1913.

Herman Hoskier, an advocate of the traditional text,
cites in his 1914 review of von Soden’s text in the Journal of Theological Studies
indisputable proof that von Soden’s Greek text is,
in his words, ‘honeycombed with errors’.10 Similarly Frederick Wisse,
who is himself very sympathetic of von Soden’s aims
though frank about his inaccuracies, says that ‘…von Soden’s inaccuracies
cannot be tolerated for any purpose.

His apparatus is useless for a reconstruction of the text of the MSS he used’.11

The Byzantine texts based on an imperfect, incomplete collation of over 400 Greek NT manuscripts are not fatally flawed if the twenty or more varying Textus Receptus editions based on an imperfect, incomplete collation of less than 100 Greek manuscripts are not also fatally flawed. Is it likewise being suggested that the TR's underlying incomplete, imperfect collation with its imperfect apparatus is useless for a reconstruction of the Greek NT text?

Samuel Tregelles wrote: "Robert Stephens, ten years before, in editing the Latin Vulgate, had made pretty extensive use of MSS.; and in giving the work of Greek collation into the hands of his son Henry, then aged only eighteen, he might have had some thoughts of similarly applying criticism to the Greek text" (Account, p. 31). Scrivener asserted that “Robert Stephen professed to have collated the whole sixteen for his two previous editions,” but that “this part of his work is now known to be due to his son Henry [1528-1598], who in 1546 was only eighteen years old” (Introduction, II, p. 190). Edward Miller affirmed: “Robert Stephen did not collate his authorities himself, but employed the services of his son Henry” (Guide to the Textual Criticism, p. 10). J. Scott Porter also maintained that “the MSS. were collated, and their readings noted, by Henry Stephens, son of Robert, then a youth of eighteen” (Principles, p. 250). Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible contended that “the collations were made by his son Henry Stephens” (III, p. 2131). Irena Backus asserted that Robert Stephanus “used Henri’s collations as the sole source of Greek variants for his 1550 edition of the New Testament” (Reformed Roots, p. 3). Henry Baird quoted

Theodore Beza as writing in a preface to his NT about a copy of “our Stephens which had been most carefully collated by his son, Henry Stephens” (Theodore Beza, p. 236). KJV-only author Laurence Vance acknowledged that the text of Stephanus included the “collations of his son Henry” (Brief History, p. 13). Jan Krans pointed out that “in a 1565 addition to the preface, Beza informs us that the collations were actually Henri Stephanus’, who was probably asked to do them by his father” (Beyond What is Written, p. 212). Krans also referred to another source revealing that the collations were done by the son of Robert Stephanus, which is “Henri Stephanus’ own words in the preface to his 1587 New Testament” (p. 212, footnote 6).

Has anyone ever checked and confirmed the accuracy of these manuscript collations that underlie varying Textus Receptus editions? Scrivener suggested that “the degree of accuracy attained in this collation may be estimated from the single instance of the Complutensian, a book printed in very clear type” (Plain Introduction, II, p. 190). Scrivener then indicated that “forty-eight, or one in twelve [of Stephen’s citations of the Complutensian] are false” (p. 190, footnote 1). Samuel Tregelles maintained that “it may be said, that as the Complutensian text is often incorrectly cited in Stephen’s margin, we may conclude that the same thing is true of the MSS which were collated; for it would be remarkable if manuscripts were examined with greater accuracy than a printed book” (Account, p. 31). Smith’s Dictionary maintained that “while only 598 variants of the Complutensian are given, Mill calculates that 700 are omitted” (III, p. 2131). Marvin Vincent asserted: “Of the Complutensian readings many more were omitted than inserted, and the Complutensian text is often cited incorrectly” (History of the Textual Criticism, p. 57). In a note, John Eadie commented: “The margin of the New Testament of Robert Stephens, 1550, is not of great value. He did not print all the various readings which his son Henry had gathered, nor did he fully collate all the sixteen MSS” (English Bible, II, p. 214).

Samuel Newth maintained that the manuscripts used by Stephanus were “imperfectly collated” (Lectures, p. 86). Frederic Gardiner claimed that the collation in this edition “is neither complete nor accurate” (Principles, p. 5). Marvin Vincent suggested that “the collation, both of the Complutensian and of the manuscripts was partial and slovenly” (History of the Textual Criticism, p. 57). Marvin Vincent wrote: “The body of manuscript evidence amassed by the Stephens were imperfectly collated in the edition of 1550. Though the authorities stand in the margin, the text is perpetually at variance with the majority of them, and in 119 places, with all of them. No fixed principles regulated the occasional applications of the manuscript readings to the construction of the text” (pp. 63-64). Richard Porson (1759-1808) asserted that “Stephen’s margin is full of mistakes in the readings and numbers of the MSS” (Gentlemen’s Magazine, May, 1789, p. 386; Letters, p. 55). Richard Porson maintained that Stephens “has favored us with only a part of the various readings, (probably less than half) and has frequently set down a reading as from one manuscript which belonged to another” (Letters, pp. 88-89). Charles Hudson reported that the “various readings collated by his son” . . . “are known to be given very inaccurately” (Greek and English Concordance, p. xiv).

Is the textual apparatus in the 1550 Stephanus TR edition honeycombed with errors?

Do KJV-only advocates and TR-only advocates deal adequately with these pertinent facts that the collating of the few Greek NT manuscripts that are the basis for the TR editions was incomplete, imperfect, or slipshod, which could suggest the possibility that some of the TR textual criticism decisions may not have been soundly made?

 

[37818]

The NKJV as good as it is has a few issues.

KJV Luke 1:35, And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

NKJV Luke 1:35, And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

. . . born will . . . is missing . . . born of you will . . . and MT NU foot note omitting of you

 

[Alan Gross]

Other marginal notes that gave variant readings in the 1611 KJV

You make a monstrous assault against the one 1869 and first 1611 KJV
on the subject of marginal notes of various readings
that have come and gone many moons ago.

Those Specific Isolated arguments PALE
compared to the General Preponderance of evidence
which forcefully argue against the NKJV's "textual apparatus",
of Essentially INSTALLING A SECOND VERSION,

ALONG SIDE THE NKJV "BIBLE" TEXT, by it's use of "variant readings"
contained in "marginal footnotes", by the thousands, which
CALL THE "BIBLE" TEXT INTO QUESTION AT VIRTUALLY EVERY MOMENT.

from: https://www.tbsbibles.org/resource/...D229A90560F/An-Examination-of-NKJV-Part-1.pdf

"Yet we must also state firmly that we do not deem it a faithful translation.
Indeed, we cannot recommend it at all.

"We must to the contrary note its following grave defects:

(This "textual apparatus" mentioned are the inclusion of thousands
of marginal footnotes of variant readings, creating, in affect,
a dual-translation, from two very different underlying original language texts).

"In the New Testament, the NKJV presents a textual apparatus,
alongside its translation, with readings
from the Nestle-Aland critical Greek text,
the text from which the New International Version,
the New American Standard Bible, the Revised Standard Version
and the vast majority of modern versions are translated.

"The textual apparatus also includes variant readings
from the so-called Byzantine majority text
which is an edition of the Greek text edited by Zane Hodges
and Arthur Farstad
(Dr Farstad was also the editor of the New King James Version).

"The presentation of these variant readings would make it appear
that the Textus Receptus is not reliable, and that therefore, by implication,
the Authorised Version, which used the Textus Receptus in Greek
for its New Testament translation, is itself suspect."

"Instead of staying as close to the text of the Authorised Version as possible,
as the guidelines originally stated, the New King James translators
made many unnecessary translational changes and mostly for the worse,
as we shall demonstrate.

"Contrary to what the original purpose was stated to be,
the NKJV is a new translation, not a mere language update.

"Not only that, the translation changes impact key doctrines of the Scripture,
such as the eternal punishment of the lost in hell.

"The doctrinal impact of the changes made by the NKJV is heightened
when one considers the inclusion of the readings
of the Nestle-Aland/UBS text in the NKJV margin.

"These marginal readings make potential doctrinal impacts
upon key doctrines such as the incarnation of Christ
and His eternal Godhead, as we shall itemise."

"The executive editor of the Old Testament of the New King James Version
does not advocate the Greek Textus Receptus at all;

"he is an advocate of the Nestle-Aland critical Greek text,
by his own admission.

"Not only that, the principal editor overall of the New King James Version,
Arthur L. Farstad, was also co-principal editor, along with Zane Hodges,
of the Hodges-Farstad majority text, a Greek text
that makes nearly 1,900 changes to the Textus Receptus.4

"No wonder the editors of the New King James wish to present us
with their textual apparatus of alternate Greek readings;
they do not believe in the Textus Receptus, they advocate other Greek texts!"

"1. We shall show the critical text for what it is:
a recovery of the Alexandrian text
of the 4th century AD, which is an Egyptian revision
and c*******d of the Apostolic text.

Therefore, we will affirm that it is wrong for the New King James Version
to include text-critical notes in its margin from this very c*******d text, etc...

"The Alexandrian text was c*******d by the following things, among others:

"The Alexandrian text was c*******d by the following things, among others:

(1) it was c*******d by the superimposition
of Coptic (i.e., Egyptian) spellings, grammatical structures,
and word order upon the text;

(2) it was c*******d in many places by the re-editing
of the Apostolic Greek text to make it match the Coptic (Egyptian) text;

(3) it was c*******d by the critical work of the early Church Father Origen
and his followers, who often critically amended the text
according to their mystical/allegorical interpretations
of passages of Scripture; and finally,

(4) it was c*******d by heretics in Egypt
who emasculated the text in key places.

from: New King James Version - Textus Receptus

"..the problems of the NKJV are significant in the light of the claim
by its publishers and others that it is an accurate improvement
of the AV and thus should replace the AV.

"The NKJV version includes many doubt producing footnotes,
which favor Critical Text and Majority Text readings."

"... not all textual critics agree that the earliest manuscripts
are the most accurate. Alternative readings based on other texts
do appear as footnotes in the New King James Version,

"and unlike other translations (such as the New International Version),
the NKJV does not contain value comments
like "the best manuscripts add, etc."

"Instead, the footnotes simply state which manuscript sets
do not contain the passage (similar to the approach
previously taken by the New World Translation) of the Jehovah's Witnesses."

"The NKJV holds to a loose stance for the Textus Receptus
and Masoretic Text, but incorporates
other c*****t manuscripts in its footnotes
and follows c*****t definitions from other versions,
which in doing so, reveals their belief that the KJV
is in error in 1000’s of places."

from: V. 10. Are the Sinai and Vatican the Oldest and Best Manuscripts? | Bible Questions and Answers – Heritage Baptist Bible Church

“The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20.”

"The two manuscripts they are referring to are
the Sinaitic and the Vaticanus, two c*****t manuscripts
which disagree with each other in hundreds of places.

"Notice the New King James Version (NKJV),
published by the Thomas Nelson Publishers, regarding Mark 16:9-20.

The footnote concerning these verses supports
what we have been saying thus far.

The NKJV footnote:

“Vss. 9-20 are bracketed in NU as not in the original text.
They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus,
although nearly ALL OTHER Mss. (manuscripts) of Mark contain them.”

The “NU” stands for Nestle/Aland, United Bible Society.
In other words, they want you and me to believe
that the two c*"***t manuscripts, Aleph and B, are the original texts.

"We are to, supposedly, follow their blinded philosophy
and disregard the Majority Text composed of 5400 manuscripts."

"The Nestle/Aland Greek Text, with its many revisions,
took over from the Westcott and Hort era,
along with the United Bible Society (UBS).

"These used basically the same Sinaitic (Aleph)
and Vaticanus (B) manuscripts with its allies,
which amount to less than 1% of the 5400 Greek manuscripts
that make up the Majority Text."

 

[Alan Gross]

The KJV translators put the following marginal note in the 1611

The 1611 edition of the KJV had some textual marginal notes

And we can't leave out your boy:

"In his book, Defending the King James Bible, D.A. Waite explains:

"The diabolical nature of the NEW KING JAMES VERSION
shows itself in their printing all the various readings of the Greek text
in the footnotes. They print all sides and take their stand
in favor of none of them.

"By so doing, they confuse the readers."

Is it supposed to be like?:

"God's Word may mean this or it may mean that, he must decide." !!??

"Waite goes on to explain:

"But the NEW KING JAMES makes note of all the changes
so that the new Christian, the young Christian,
and all other Christians are supposed to be textual critics on their own,
and make up their own mind about the proper Greek text.

"On page 1235, in the back of the book,
the editors make that very statement.

They (actually) wrote:

'It was the editors' conviction that the use of footnotes
would encourage further inquiry by readers.

"They also recognized that it was easier for the average reader
TO DELETE [subtract, or take away from] something
he or she felt was not properly a part of the text
than to INSERT a word or phrase which had been left out by the revisers.'"

"So they say the editors have no opinion, and no guess
as to what the real text of the Word of God is (for sure (???)

"You take your pick and choose for yourself.

"To have a smorgasbord of textual variance down in the footnotes,
as the NEW KING JAMES has, is a terrible travesty
on the young Christian trying to find out what the Bible says.

"It certainly puts doubts in the mind whenever there's a difference.

"Which is right? Is it this reading or that one?

"No matter which you pick, you have a question mark and a doubt;
and the Devil is delighted!"

"The bottom line is this: we need to study the historical evidence,
decide which text is exactly God's Word, and stick with it.

"Any Bible version with alternate readings
will make the reader have to decide what God really meant.

"How can you trust Bible translators
who can't make up their mind what God really said?"

 

[Logos1560]

You make a monstrous assault against the one 1869 and first 1611 KJV
on the subject of marginal notes of various readings
that have come and gone many moons ago.

Those Specific Isolated arguments PALE
compared to the General Preponderance of evidence
which forcefully argue against the NKJV's "textual apparatus",
of Essentially INSTALLING A SECOND VERSION,

Your accusations are bogus. The NKJV does not essentially install a second version as you falsely allege. You continue to bear false witness against the NKJV translators. There are even editions of the NKJV that have been printed without the textual notes. I have a copy of one.

Some of these marginal notes in the 1611 edition of the KJV are the same-type textual marginal notes or footnotes that KJV-only advocates claim to be harmful to the faith. The presence of one such textual note in the 1611 KJV or in any other editions of the KJV would condemn the KJV-only view for its inconsistency, hypocrisy, or unjust divers measures when it strongly blasts the NKJV and other translations for the same-type notes.

The makers of the KJV disagree with your incorrect opinions concerning marginal notes. In the 1611 preface, this is stated: “doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident; so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption.”

The 1611 preface also noted that “diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.”

According to the large number of marginal notes in the 1611 edition, its makers must have found many places where they considered the text not to be so clear in its meaning. The makers of the KJV gave many more word-for-word, literal renderings in their marginal notes, and they also offered many acceptable, alternative renderings. In some marginal notes, they provided examples of where they gave no English word/rendering for an original-language word of Scripture in their underlying texts.

These marginal notes clearly contradict any suggestion that all their translation decisions should be considered certain and unquestionable. The marginal notes could also raise doubt concerning some of their textual criticism decisions. The 1611 preface noted: “They that are wise, had rather have their judgment at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.”

 

[Logos1560]

"Any Bible version with alternate readings
will make the reader have to decide what God really meant.

"How can you trust Bible translators
who can't make up their mind what God really said?"

You fail to apply your assertion and question consistently and justly including to the KJV and to its makers.

Are you saying that the makers of the KJV cannot be trusted when they could not make up their mind what God really said?

The 1611 edition had thousands of acceptable alternative renderings and literal renderings of original-language words.

 

[Alan Gross]

MT NU foot note

Yeah. The Footnotes draw out issues galore.

Here they are: The NKJV FOOTNOTES.

"The NKJV’s 774 footnotes cast doubt on which verses are inspired.

"The New King James Version casts doubt on the authenticity
of 873 verses in the New Testament.

"While the NKJV claims to be translated from the Textus Receptus
the 'NU' denotes the Nestles/United Bible Society's Greek text,
which is basically the same as Westcott and Hort readings.

`M' denotes the Hodges-Farstad-Nelson Majority Greek text.

"According to the New King James Version preface:

"Where significant variations occur in the New Testament Greek Manuscripts, textual notes are classified as follows:

NU-Text These variations from the traditional text generally represent
the Alexandrian or Egyptian type of text
[the oldest, but sometimes questioned text].

"They are found in the Critical Text published in the Twenty-sixth edition
of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (N)
and in the United Bible Society's third edition (U),
hence the acronym "NU-text."

"M-Text This symbol indicates points of variation in the Majority Text
from the traditional text [a consensus of most Greek manuscripts].

"It should be noted that M stands for whatever reading is printed
in the published Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text,
whether supported by overwhelming, strong,
or only a divided majority textual tradition."

 

[Logos1560]

"The NKJV’s 774 footnotes cast doubt on which verses are inspired.

Your presumptive accusation is misleading and not true.

Providing the textual readings of the Critical Text is not the same thing as casting doubt.

In the 1611 preface, this is stated: “doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident; so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption.”

 

[37818]

"The NKJV’s 774 footnotes cast doubt on which verses are inspired.

No. Not the purpose. Rather demonstrate most of the KJV readings are the superior readings.

 

[Logos1560]

The Footnotes draw out issues galore.

You seem to display a fear of the presenting of all the facts--the truth.

God does not give believers a spirit of fear of the truth as you seem to advocate.

The Scriptures do not teach that presenting facts harms or undermines sound faith in God. According to the Scriptures, God does not give believers a spirit of fear or the spirit of bondage to fear (2 Tim. 1:7, Rom. 8:15). God gives a sound mind (2 Tim. 1:7) so that believers who accept and believe sound Bible doctrine should not be harmed by truth. Believers are not led by the Spirit of truth to fear truth (Rom. 8:14-15).

 

[Conan]

The NKJV as good as it is has a few issues.

KJV Luke 1:35, And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

NKJV Luke 1:35, And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

. . . born will . . . is missing . . . born of you will . . . and MT NU foot note omitting of you

It's a difference of the Textus Receptus. The NKJV is faithful to the Textus Receptus, the KJV follows the Latin Bible.

Luke 1:35. Omit "of thee" after "born." S E G Lm T Tr A W WH NA HF versus B Lt, AV

Stephens and Elzevir Textus receptus does not have the words "of thee". Beza's Textus Receptus has the words.
Collation of Received text readings

Also most English Reformation Bibles do not have the extra words.

Interlinear Bible: Luke 1:35 - Textus Receptus Bibles

Matthew's Bible 1537
And the aungell aunswered and sayd vnto her: The holye ghoste shall come vnto the, and the power of the hyest shall ouer shadowe the. Therfore also that holye thynge whiche shall be borne shalbe called the sonne of God.


Tyndale Bible 1534
And the angell answered and sayd vnto her: The holy goost shall come apon the and the power of the hyest shall over shaddowe the. Therfore also that holy thinge which shalbe borne shalbe called the sonne of god


The Great Bible 1539
And the angell answered, & sayde vnto her. The holy goost shall come vpon the, and the power of the hyest shall ouer shaddowe the. Therfore also that holy thynge which shalbe borne, shalbe called the sonne of God

Bishops Bible 1568
And the Angel aunswered, & saide vnto her: The holy ghost shall come vpon thee, & the power of the hyest shall ouershadowe thee. Therefore also that holy thyng whiche shalbe borne, shalbe called the sonne of God.

 

[Conan]

Textus Receptus (Beza 1598)
και αποκριθεις ο αγγελος ειπεν αυτη πνευμα αγιον επελευσεται επι σε και δυναμις υψιστου επισκιασει σοι διο και το γεννωμενον εκ σου αγιον κληθησεται υιος θεου

Textus Receptus (Stephanus 1550)
και αποκριθεις ο αγγελος ειπεν αυτη πνευμα αγιον επελευσεται επι σε και δυναμις υψιστου επισκιασει σοι διο και το γεννωμενον αγιον κληθησεται υιος θεου

Interlinear Bible: Luke 1:35 - Textus Receptus Bibles

Textus Receptus (Scrivener 1894)
και αποκριθεις ο αγγελος ειπεν αυτη πνευμα αγιον επελευσεται επι σε και δυναμις υψιστου επισκιασει σοι διο και το γεννωμενον εκ σου αγιον κληθησεται υιος θεου

Textus Receptus (Elzevir 1624)
και αποκριθεις ο αγγελος ειπεν αυτη πνευμα αγιον επελευσεται επι σε και δυναμις υψιστου επισκιασει σοι διο και το γεννωμενον αγιον κληθησεται υιος θεου

 

[37818]

It's a difference of the Textus Receptus. The NKJV is faithful to the Textus Receptus, the KJV follows the Latin Bible.

Luke 1:35. Omit "of thee" after "born." S E G Lm T Tr A W WH NA HF versus B Lt, AV

Stephens and Elzevir Textus receptus does not have the words "of thee". Beza's Textus Receptus has the words.
Collation of Received text readings

Also most English Reformation Bibles do not have the extra words.

Interlinear Bible: Luke 1:35 - Textus Receptus Bibles

Matthew's Bible 1537
And the aungell aunswered and sayd vnto her: The holye ghoste shall come vnto the, and the power of the hyest shall ouer shadowe the. Therfore also that holye thynge whiche shall be borne shalbe called the sonne of God.


Tyndale Bible 1534
And the angell answered and sayd vnto her: The holy goost shall come apon the and the power of the hyest shall over shaddowe the. Therfore also that holy thinge which shalbe borne shalbe called the sonne of god


The Great Bible 1539
And the angell answered, & sayde vnto her. The holy goost shall come vpon the, and the power of the hyest shall ouer shaddowe the. Therfore also that holy thynge which shalbe borne, shalbe called the sonne of God

Bishops Bible 1568
And the Angel aunswered, & saide vnto her: The holy ghost shall come vpon thee, & the power of the hyest shall ouershadowe thee. Therefore also that holy thyng whiche shalbe borne, shalbe called the sonne of God.

Two issues. The on going KJV text and the identity actual New Testament reading. In Luke 1:35 they are not the same. Or why bother with the M NU footnotes.

 

[Alan Gross]

No. Not the purpose. Rather demonstrate most of the KJV readings are the superior readings.

• NKJV Changes from the KJV
  • 7.1 Genesis 5:2
  • 7.2 Genesis 10:11
  • 7.3 Genesis 22:17
  • 7.4 2 Kings 23:29
  • 7.5 1 Chronicles 25:3
  • 7.6 2 Chronicles 17:4
  • 7.7 Isaiah 9:3
  • 7.8 Psalm 7:11
  • 7.9 Proverbs 11:16
  • 7.10 Proverbs 19:18
  • 7.11 Proverbs 25:23
  • 7.12 Proverbs 29:7
  • 7.13 Micah 2:6
  • 7.14 Micah 2:12
  • 7.15 Micah 7:19
  • 7.16 Nahum 2:2
  • 7.17 Haggai 2:7
  • 7.18 Zechariah 9:17
  • 7.19 Matthew 1:1
  • 7.20 Matthew 7:14
  • 7.21 Matthew 11:14
  • 7.22 Matthew 16:18
  • 7.23 Matthew 20:20
  • 7.24 Mark 1:9
  • 7.25 Luke 16:23
  • 7.26 John 20:19-21
  • 7.27 Acts 3:13
  • 7.28 Acts 3:26
  • 7.29 Acts 4:27
  • 7.30 Acts 4:30
  • 7.31 Acts 12:4
  • 7.32 1 Corinthians 1:18
  • 7.33 2 Corinthians 2:17
  • 7.34 Galatians 2:20
  • 7.35 1 Thessalonians 5:22
  • 7.36 Hebrews 2:16
  • 7.37 Hebrews 3:16
  • 7.38 Hebrews 10:14
  • 7.39 2 John 1:7
  • 7.40 Jude 1:3
  • 7.41 Jude 1:19
  • 7.42 Revelation 19:8
  • 7.43 Hell or Hades?
• 8 Departures from the Textus Receptus
  • 8.1 Matthew 5:37
  • 8.2 Matthew 22:10
  • 8.3 Matthew 24:13
  • 8.4 Luke 1:35
  • 8.5 John 10:6
  • 8.6 Galatians 2:20
  • 8.7 Titus 2:4
  • 8.8 1 John 3:16
  • 8.9 Jude 1:3
• 9 Statements changed or turned into questions
  • 9.1 Matthew 26:45
  • 9.2 John 5:39
  • 9.3 Hebrews 3:16

 

[37818]

NKJV

You throw Hebrew with the Greek. And you confuse translation issues with textual issues. These are different issues.