New Book on the Doctrine of Scripture

[Alan Dale Gross]

There are many Septuagints, since each Alexandrian Old Testament is different from every other.

• According to a little Google AI;
• The statement is correct that there is no single, uniform "Septuagint" text; rather, the term refers to a diverse corpus of ancient Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible that varied by location, time, and the specific Hebrew manuscripts used as source texts.
  
• Major Codices: The most complete surviving manuscripts of the Septuagint, such as the 4th-century Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, and the 5th-century Codex Alexandrinus, contain some differing readings and contents.

Know what they are? Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus - the same exact codices (big books) where the modern p*****ted New Testaments come from!

"In the study of Septuagint manuscripts, pride of place has traditionally been given to a few copies* that are relatively old, relatively complete and quite beautifully written.

"The most famous are the trio known as Codex Vaticanus (top photo), Codex Sinaiticus (bottom photo) and Codex Alexandrinus (middle photo).

"The first two date to the fourth century and the third to about a century later.

"They appear to have a common Egyptian origin. They also share several other characteristics: Each is a codex, or leaf book, a form made popular (if not invented) by Christians; each is written on vellum, specially prepared lamb skin; the scribe of each used an uncial script (a modification of the all-capital letter formations used primarily in inscriptions); finally, each was subjected to numerous alterations and corrections through erasures, interlinear markings and marginal notations." = Perfectly abnormal and perfectly unhealthy.

From;

Major Septuagint Manuscripts —​

Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus​

By Leonard J. Greenspoon

*by the unlearned.

The earlier manuscript portions of the Greek Septuagint could not have come from the later Codex Vaticanus or Codex alexandrinis.

So, you're talking about the earliest verses the later.

What about that? No one's talking about the earliest verses the latest.

Edmon Gallagher wrote: "Our earliest manuscripts of the Septuagint usually contain only one biblical book, at least in their preserved form. The earliest manuscripts date to the second century BCE" (Translation of the Seventy, p. 40).

One Bible book. So, much for the earliest that no one is talking about.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

My old Hebrew professor, Dr. James Price, is now 100 years old. He can substantiate the accuracy of the OT compared to the Masoretic text, since he was an important editor of the NJKV. Hebrew scholars will tell you that Dr. Price knew what he was doing. His PhD in Hebrew was from Dropsie U., a Jewish university.

With all due respect to your aged teacher and mentor, we are forced to our understanding by his and others own words:

"The NKJV translators disliked the Textus Receptus":

"Dr. James D. Price was the executive editor of the Old Testament of the New King James Version. Price was formerly Chairman and Professor of the Department of Old Testament, Temple Baptist Theological Seminary, Chattanooga, Tennessee. Price has been retired since 2005.

[edit] 'Not a TR Advocate'

"In 1996 David Cloud corresponded via email
with the executive editor of the Old Testament - Dr James Price.

Cloud stated: "..he admitted to me that he is not committed to the Received Text and that he supports the modern critical text in general:

‘I am not a TR advocate. I happen to believe that God has preserved the autographic text in the whole body of evidence that He has preserved, not merely through the textual decisions of a committee of fallible men based on a handful of late manuscripts.

"The modern critical texts like NA26/27 (Nestle-Aland) and UBS (United Bible Societies) provide a list of the variations that have entered the manuscript traditions, and they provide the evidence that supports the different variants. In the apparatus they have left nothing out, the evidence is there. The apparatus indicates where possible additions, omissions, and alterations have occurred… I am not at war with the conservative modern versions [such as the New International Version and the New American Standard Version]’. (James Price, e-mail to David Cloud, April 30, 1996)."

"The above demonstrates how the executive editor of the Old Testament of the New King James Version does not advocate the Greek Textus Receptus; but rather that he is an advocate of the Nestle-Aland critical Greek text.

"The overall principal editor of the New King James Version, Arthur L. Farstad, was also coprincipal editor, along with Zane Hodges, of the Hodges-Farstad majority text, a Greek text that makes nearly 1,900 changes to the Textus Receptus.

"This fact could lead us to answer why the editors of the New King James desired to show us with their textual apparatus of alternate Greek readings in the footnotes, because they do not believe in the Textus Receptus, but approve alternate readings and other Greek texts!

[edit] Arthur L. Farstad;

Dr Farstad stated in his preface to the New King James:
"Today, scholars agree that the science of New Testament textual criticism is in a state of flux. Very few scholars still favor the Textus Receptus as such, and then often for its historical prestige as the text of Luther, Calvin, Tyndale, and the King James Version.

"For about a century most have followed a Critical Text (so called because it is edited according to specific principles of textual criticism) which depends heavily upon the Alexandrian type of text. More recently many have abandoned this Critical Text (which is quite similar to the one edited by Westcott and Hort) for one that is more eclectic.

"Finally, a small but growing number of scholars prefer the majority text, which is close to the traditional text except in the Revelation." Dr. Arthur Farstad, (Chairman of the NKJV Executive Review Committee)[1]

"Thus, we see that Dr Farstad deprecates the Textus Receptus. New Testament textual criticism is in a state of flux, he tells us; the old is no longer good, he implies.

"Very few scholars still favor that old-fashioned Textus Receptus, which was once universally recognized by the Church as the providentially preserved and pure text of all ages, and which once held universal sway as the Byzantine text for 1,400 years, the last nearly five hundred years as the printed Textus Receptus.

"But no, we must now set aside that old-fashioned text; we must turn instead to the Greek texts favored by the REAL scholars: either to the critical text, which is favored by most, or to the new so called Byzantine majority text which is favored by an increasing minority of scholars.

"Thus, the editors of the NKJV* will now do us a great favor by setting forth to us these better readings in the margin, these better readings which they have given in English in the margin, these better readings which overthrow and undermine the authority of the translation from the Textus Receptus we see in the main body of the text.[2]

"Apparently, according to these "NEW" King James men, the Textus Receptus is no longer to be regarded as the providentially preserved Greek text because it was compiled by a ‘committee of fallible men’ using ‘a few late manuscripts’, as Dr Price has told us.

"If, as we are told by Dr Farstad (who was co-editor of the Hodges-Farstad majority Greek text which is at major variance with the Textus Receptus in over 1,000 places), that scholars today hold for the most part to either the critical text or the majority text and therefore those texts are better than the Textus Receptus, then one of those texts and a translation made from one of those texts should be what we read.

"Therefore, it follows that the NKJV's main contributors consider that the Textus Receptus, and its faithful translation, the Authorized Version, should be set aside for the “new” Greek.

See their page here:
http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/New_King_James_Version

*They do not know what they are doing.

"
Marion H. Reynolds Jr. of the Fundamental Evangelistic Association said:

“The duplicity of the NKJV scholars is also a matter for concern.

"Although each scholar was asked to subscribe to a statement confirming his belief in the plenary, divine, verbal inspiration of the original autographs (none of which exist today), the question of whether or not they also believed in the divine preservation of the divinely inspired originals was not an issue as it should have been.

"Dr. Arthur Farstad, chairman of the NKJV Executive Review Committee which had the responsibility of final text approval, stated that this committee was about equally divided as to which was the better Greek New Testament text-the Textus Receptus or the Westcott-Hort.

"Apparently none of them believed that either text was the Divinely preserved Word of God. Yet, all of them participated in a project to "protect and preserve the purity and accuracy" of the original KJV based on the TR.

"Is not this duplicity of the worst kind, coming from supposedly evangelical scholars?”

 

[Logos1560]

"From "Answers To Your Bible Version Questions" © 2001 by David W. Daniels

• "The Latin Vulgate. This is not the preserved Vaudois Christian, Old Latin Vulgate. The NKJV "scholars" consulted the p*****ted, Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate.

The KJV translators consulted the same Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate. The KJV translators had Hebrew-Latin lexicons and Greek-Latin lexicons that often had renderings from the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate as their definitions of original-language words of Scripture.

There were not complete printed copies of the Vaudois Old Latin Vulgate available to the KJV translators, and no known complete manuscript copies of it available to them. The claimed Vaudois Old Latin Vulgate had its Old Testament that was translated from the old Greek Septuagint, not from the Hebrew Masoretic Text. KJV defender Edward F. Hills acknowledged that “the earlier Latin version of the Old Testament was a translation of the Septuagint” (KJV Defended, p. 95; Text, p. 174). In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators asserted that the [Old] Latin translations “were not out of the Hebrew fountain (we speak of the Latin Translations of the Old Testament) but out of the Greek stream.” Reformer Francis Turretin affirmed that “the Latin version in use before the time of Jerome” was made from the Greek Septuagint (Institutes, I, p. 127).

KJV-only author David Daniels admitted: “The King James translators clearly used an Alexandrian text like the Vaticanus and Alexandrinus to make the Apocrypha” (Is the World’s Oldest Bible a Fake, p. 232). Jeffrey Alan Miller maintained that this 1587 Rome Septuagint was the first “edition to be based upon the manuscript known as Codex Vaticanus” (Feingold, Labourers, p. 230). In this same book, Nicholas Hardy maintained that this 1587 Sixtine Septuagint printed in Rome was “the principal edition which he [KJV translator John Bois] used to study the Greek version of the Old Testament and to translate and revise the King James Apocrypha” (p. 279). Jeffrey Miller referred to “the copy of the Rome Septuagint that [John] Bois evidently used in his work as a translator” (p. 236). Nicholas Hardy noted: “Bois’s copy of this book [the 1587 Septuagint] contains thousands of marginal notes and interlinear annotations in Bois’s neat, distinctive hand” (p. 279). Nicholas Hardy also pointed out that “the royal librarian, Patrick Young” identified “Bois as the author of the annotations” (p. 280).

Thomas Armitage wrote that “he [Peter Waldo] employed Stephen of Ansa and Bernard Ydross to translate the Gospels from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome into the Romance dialect for the common people, as well as the most inspiring passages from the Christian Fathers” (History of the Baptists, I, p. 295). Andrea Ferrari wrote that “Waldo of Lyons paid some clergy to translate parts of the Bible from the Vulgate” (Diodati’s Doctrine, pp. 71-72). Paul Tice confirmed that Waldo “enlisted two clerics to translate various parts of the Bible, including the four Gospels, into the native Provencal language” (History of the Waldenses, p. vi). H. J. Warner maintained that the base for this translation was “for the most part the Vulgate of Jerome” (Albigensian, II, p. 222). Warner noted that Stephen de Ansa, a [Roman Catholic] priest, translated some books of the Bible into the Romance tongue while another priest Bernard Udros wrote his translating down for Peter Waldo (p. 221).

 

[Logos1560]

It should be noted that by being eclectic the King James Bible’s Old Testament constitutes perfectly normal and perfectly healthy perspicacious translation philosophy and practice.

According to a consistent, just application of the same exact measures/standards, the NKJV's Old Testament also "constitutes perfectly normal and perfectly healthy perspicacious translation philosophy and practice."

 

[Logos1560]

“The duplicity of the NKJV scholars is also a matter for concern.

The seeming duplicity of KJV-only advocates who use different measures/standards for the process of the making of the KJV than for the process of the making of the NKJV would be a matter for concern.

 

[Deacon]

​

Verse	King James	NKJV	P*********s agreeing with NKJV
Acts 3:26	God, having raised up his Son	His Servant	NIV, NASV, ASV, RSV, Roman Catholic New American Bible (NAB), etc.
Acts 17:22	I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.	very religious	NIV, NASV, ASV, RSV, Catholic NAB, etc.
Romans 1:25	Who changed the truth of God into a lie	who exchanged the truth of God for the lie	NIV, NASV, ASV, RSV, Catholic NAB, etc.
1 Corinthians 1:18	For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.	who are being saved [This teaches the Roman Catholic lie that salvation is a process.]	NIV, NASV, NASU, RSV, Catholic NAB, etc.

Off topic....

WOW! I'm not really interested in the content rather,
HOW DID YOU MANAGE TO PUT COLUMNS AND LINES into the text?

Rob

 

[John of Japan]

With all due respect to your aged teacher and mentor, we are forced to our understanding by his and others own words:

"The NKJV translators disliked the Textus Receptus":

"Dr. James D. Price was the executive editor of the Old Testament of the New King James Version. Price was formerly Chairman and Professor of the Department of Old Testament, Temple Baptist Theological Seminary, Chattanooga, Tennessee. Price has been retired since 2005.

[edit] 'Not a TR Advocate'

"In 1996 David Cloud corresponded via email
with the executive editor of the Old Testament - Dr James Price.

Cloud stated: "..he admitted to me that he is not committed to the Received Text and that he supports the modern critical text in general:

‘I am not a TR advocate. I happen to believe that God has preserved the autographic text in the whole body of evidence that He has preserved, not merely through the textual decisions of a committee of fallible men based on a handful of late manuscripts.

"The modern critical texts like NA26/27 (Nestle-Aland) and UBS (United Bible Societies) provide a list of the variations that have entered the manuscript traditions, and they provide the evidence that supports the different variants. In the apparatus they have left nothing out, the evidence is there. The apparatus indicates where possible additions, omissions, and alterations have occurred… I am not at war with the conservative modern versions [such as the New International Version and the New American Standard Version]’. (James Price, e-mail to David Cloud, April 30, 1996)."

"The above demonstrates how the executive editor of the Old Testament of the New King James Version does not advocate the Greek Textus Receptus; but rather that he is an advocate of the Nestle-Aland critical Greek text.

"The overall principal editor of the New King James Version, Arthur L. Farstad, was also coprincipal editor, along with Zane Hodges, of the Hodges-Farstad majority text, a Greek text that makes nearly 1,900 changes to the Textus Receptus.

"This fact could lead us to answer why the editors of the New King James desired to show us with their textual apparatus of alternate Greek readings in the footnotes, because they do not believe in the Textus Receptus, but approve alternate readings and other Greek texts!

[edit] Arthur L. Farstad;

Dr Farstad stated in his preface to the New King James:
"Today, scholars agree that the science of New Testament textual criticism is in a state of flux. Very few scholars still favor the Textus Receptus as such, and then often for its historical prestige as the text of Luther, Calvin, Tyndale, and the King James Version.

"For about a century most have followed a Critical Text (so called because it is edited according to specific principles of textual criticism) which depends heavily upon the Alexandrian type of text. More recently many have abandoned this Critical Text (which is quite similar to the one edited by Westcott and Hort) for one that is more eclectic.

"Finally, a small but growing number of scholars prefer the majority text, which is close to the traditional text except in the Revelation." Dr. Arthur Farstad, (Chairman of the NKJV Executive Review Committee)[1]

"Thus, we see that Dr Farstad deprecates the Textus Receptus. New Testament textual criticism is in a state of flux, he tells us; the old is no longer good, he implies.

"Very few scholars still favor that old-fashioned Textus Receptus, which was once universally recognized by the Church as the providentially preserved and pure text of all ages, and which once held universal sway as the Byzantine text for 1,400 years, the last nearly five hundred years as the printed Textus Receptus.

"But no, we must now set aside that old-fashioned text; we must turn instead to the Greek texts favored by the REAL scholars: either to the critical text, which is favored by most, or to the new so called Byzantine majority text which is favored by an increasing minority of scholars.

"Thus, the editors of the NKJV* will now do us a great favor by setting forth to us these better readings in the margin, these better readings which they have given in English in the margin, these better readings which overthrow and undermine the authority of the translation from the Textus Receptus we see in the main body of the text.[2]

"Apparently, according to these "NEW" King James men, the Textus Receptus is no longer to be regarded as the providentially preserved Greek text because it was compiled by a ‘committee of fallible men’ using ‘a few late manuscripts’, as Dr Price has told us.

"If, as we are told by Dr Farstad (who was co-editor of the Hodges-Farstad majority Greek text which is at major variance with the Textus Receptus in over 1,000 places), that scholars today hold for the most part to either the critical text or the majority text and therefore those texts are better than the Textus Receptus, then one of those texts and a translation made from one of those texts should be what we read.

"Therefore, it follows that the NKJV's main contributors consider that the Textus Receptus, and its faithful translation, the Authorized Version, should be set aside for the “new” Greek.

See their page here:
http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/New_King_James_Version

*They do not know what they are doing.

"
Marion H. Reynolds Jr. of the Fundamental Evangelistic Association said:

“The duplicity of the NKJV scholars is also a matter for concern.

"Although each scholar was asked to subscribe to a statement confirming his belief in the plenary, divine, verbal inspiration of the original autographs (none of which exist today), the question of whether or not they also believed in the divine preservation of the divinely inspired originals was not an issue as it should have been.

"Dr. Arthur Farstad, chairman of the NKJV Executive Review Committee which had the responsibility of final text approval, stated that this committee was about equally divided as to which was the better Greek New Testament text-the Textus Receptus or the Westcott-Hort.

"Apparently none of them believed that either text was the Divinely preserved Word of God. Yet, all of them participated in a project to "protect and preserve the purity and accuracy" of the original KJV based on the TR.

"Is not this duplicity of the worst kind, coming from supposedly evangelical scholars?”

With your many, many words here, you are mixing up the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek TR. Dr. Price is a Hebrew scholar, not a Greek scholar. He does not claim to be a Greek scholar, and is not an expert on the Greek. He never taught it. I took Hebrew from him, not Greek. So all of this criticism of his belief about the TR is irrelevant.

 

[JesusFan]

With your many, many words here, you are mixing up the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek TR. Dr. Price is a Hebrew scholar, not a Greek scholar. He does not claim to be a Greek scholar, and is not an expert on the Greek. He never taught it. I took Hebrew from him, not Greek. So all of this criticism of his belief about the TR is irrelevant.

I have never be involved in any translation work, but based upon what I have learned about textual criticism and translation principles, I would suggest that far more important than actually which Greek NT was being used for translation would be the philosophy of translation, how dynamic and how formal, and how would one view the inerrancy and inspiration of the original texts themselves?

 

[John of Japan]

I have never be involved in any translation work, but based upon what I have learned about textual criticism and translation principles, I would suggest that far more important than actually which Greek NT was being used for translation would be the philosophy of translation, how dynamic and how formal, and how would one view the inerrancy and inspiration of the original texts themselves?

I mostly agree with you about this. However, you say that it the translation philosophy is "far more" important than the Greek text chosen. To me that is like saying the heart is far more important than the liver. But if you lose either one you are dead.

Considerations in choosing the NT Greek text:
1. What is the translator's view of textual criticism and its results? (How important is the issue to the translator? To me in my translation work it was very important.)
2. What is the constituency like? What Greek text would they be more comfortable with? (In large areas of the English speaking world, the KJV is common because it has been handed out free.)
3. What view do the other missionaries take? (Will using a critical text alienate friends?)

 

[JesusFan]

I mostly agree with you about this. However, you say that it the translation philosophy is "far more" important than the Greek text chosen. To me that is like saying the heart is far more important than the liver. But if you lose either one you are dead.

Considerations in choosing the NT Greek text:
1. What is the translator's view of textual criticism and its results? (How important is the issue to the translator? To me in my translation work it was very important.)
2. What is the constituency like? What Greek text would they be more comfortable with? (In large areas of the English speaking world, the KJV is common because it has been handed out free.)
3. What view do the other missionaries take? (Will using a critical text alienate friends?)

I like your considerations, as I was just addressing the issue that one must use a TR/MT/CT Greek text, as think good translations can and have been made each one of the texts

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Verse	King James	NKJV	P*********s agreeing with NKJV
Acts 3:26	God, having raised up his Son	His Servant	NIV, NASV, ASV, RSV, Roman Catholic New American Bible (NAB), etc.
Acts 17:22	I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.	very religious	NIV, NASV, ASV, RSV, Catholic NAB, etc.
Romans 1:25	Who changed the truth of God into a lie	who exchanged the truth of God for the lie	NIV, NASV, ASV, RSV, Catholic NAB, etc.
1 Corinthians 1:18	For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.	who are being saved [This teaches the Roman Catholic lie that salvation is a process.]	NIV, NASV, NASU, RSV, Catholic NAB, etc.

I have checked all these texts in my TBS Greek Testament and the UBS Critical Text, and there is no difference in these verses so fr as the underlying texts are concerned. The differences are translational. For example, pais, paida in Acts 3:26 can mean 'son' or 'servant.' According to 'Young's Analytical Concordance' the KJV translates pais as 'Child' 7 times, 'Son' three times , 'Servant' ten times, 'maid,' maiden,' manservant' and 'young man' once each.
In 1 Cor. 1:18, 'being saved' is undoubtedly the better translation because the verb is in the Present Tense, which in Greek denotes continuous action.
I don't have time now to cover the other two texts, but I will come back to them if anyone would like me to, though someone like @John of Japan might do a better job.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

I have checked all these texts in my TBS Greek Testament and the UBS Critical Text, and there is no difference in these verses so fr as the underlying texts are concerned.

So, for some reason, a school of translators make the decision to purposely denigrate "His Son Jesus" to then by some influence, they render His Name "Servant", instead? Who would ever have the nerve to do that? That's Biblically insane. Who or what was that influence? Are you sure that is what you want to do in God's Own Book?

I would be more concerned about the perspective of the Jehovah's Witnesses', on that same verse, because they wrote their own 'bible' translation, based on them believing that Jesus was Satan's brother(?), I believe, or not God, anyway.

"God, after raising up his Servant, sent him to you first to bless you by turning each one of you away from your wicked deeds." New World Translation.

Joined by the NKJV, NIV, NASV, ASV, RSV, Roman Catholic New, and American Bible (NAB), etc.

But exactly, why? Letterism? Nope. Sabotage.

The differences are translational. For example, pais, paida in Acts 3:26 can mean 'son' or 'servant.'

This may be possible grammatically, but impossible contextually.

"God, after raising up his Servant, sent him to you first to bless you by turning each one of you away from your wicked deeds," Acts 3:26.

"For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A Prophet shall the Lord your God Raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; Him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever He shall say unto you." Acts 3:22.

'A Prophet' is Who God Raised up in Acts 3:22
doesn't answer to "God, after Raising up His SERVANT"? in Acts 3:26 four verses on down, in direct context.

And that is Who is Prophesied that He would speak and people would listen, Him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever He shall say unto you."

'A Prophet' is Who God Raised up in Acts 3:22,
does appropriately answers to "God, after Raising up His SON"? in Acts 3:26 just four verses on down, in direct context. This Son is Who is Prophesied that He would speak and people would listen, "Him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever He shall say unto you." And also in Acts 3:22; God "sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

This has a description of the Lordship of our Savior Jesus Christ in context. This Jesus the Son of God, Who would be turning away every one of you from his iniquities",

and then to render this word 'servant' here is a very common type of repeated denigration of the Lordship of Jesus, at any given convenient moment, in for example The Readers Digest Bible, or one with an equally stringent criteria for editing without precedent, or warrant.

The King James says "Unto you first God, having Raised up His Son Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities", for Acts 3:26.

"His Son Jesus" looks like a more accurate translation than any of the others. The translators were simply giving a better, more salient and apropos expression to that word which is True, and this is the degree to which they wanted to Honor and Worship God by expanding this word to make it more expressive than it already was before, when it was only just saying, 'Son', and because they knew this was His Book.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Hello @Alan Dale Gross,
I don't have any reason to give as to why other translations give 'Servant' rather than 'Son' in Acts 3:26. Maybe someone else could give a reason.
The reason for my post was simply to show that there is no textual variant for the text. I get a bit impatient with people who constantly claim that the NKJV is not based on the T.R., because it is.
I would be very happy to see a revision of the NKJV that translated pais as 'Son' in Acts 3:26. However, as a preacher, although I am always happy to preach from the KJV when asked, it is sometimes a problem when I have to translate the text into modern English before I can expound it.

 

[Logos1560]

So, for some reason, a school of translators make the decision to purposely denigrate "His Son Jesus" to then by some influence, they render His Name "Servant", instead? Who would ever have the nerve to do that? That's Biblically insane. Who or what was that influence? Are you sure that is what you want to do in God's Own Book?

The NKJV was not denigrated purposedly the Lord Jesus Christ at Acts 3:26, Acts 4:27, or Acts 4:30 when they accurately translated the Greek word any more than the KJV was at Matthew 12:18.

This same Greek word found at Acts 4:27 and 30 was also used of Jesus at Matthew 12:18a where it was translated "servant" in the KJV. However, it was translated "child" in Wycliffe's, 1534 Tyndale's, Matthew's, Great, and Bishops' Bibles and as "son" in 1526 Tyndale's. Why is this difference important in Acts 4:27 and 30 but unimportant in Matthew 12:18?

The Greek word pais in these verses was used for both child or servant with the meaning determined by the context. Greek has a different word for "son"--huios. The KJV translated this word pais as "servant" 10 times, "child" 7 times, and "son" 3 times.

James D. Price explained that the real reason for this choice of rendering in the book of Acts in the NKJV is that the translators thought that in this context Peter was alluding to Isaiah 52:13, which identifies Christ as the Servant of the LORD (False Witness, p. 25).

 

[Ben1445]

It is always amusing when someone states that the British scholars of 1611 were far better at Greek than modern scholars. There was so much they didn't know. For just a few examples, they did not know the Granville Sharp Rule, because Sharp (1735–1813) wasn't alive then. They did not understand completely verbal aspect, since most of the research on that was done in the 20th century. There were many Greek words that had not been fully researched in 1611 (cf TDNT for some examples). Their understanding of textual criticism was basic, though they did understand it some. Etc.

A thought, not knowing a rule doesn’t mean that they couldn’t abide by it. That would be like saying that some people didn’t fall properly because they didn’t know about gravity before Isaac Newton.
It is possible to function on basic principles or complex principles without knowledge of the science behind them. Children can accurately use the science of parabolas when tossing a ball and not have any idea what they are doing.
I am not in any position to judge translation techniques but I suspect that the same may be true.
There is give and take with translation as with anything. They were hundreds of years closer to the original use of that language and probably had information that we haven’t rediscovered. I surmise. But without a complete record of their knowledge, we don’t really know what the translators knew. In the same way people used gravity before we termed it gravity.

Ultimately, we need to use what we have been given as accurately as possible. We also build on the work of others, just like the translators and just like the apostles.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

I get a bit impatient with people who constantly claim that the NKJV is not based on the T.R., because it is.

However, as a preacher, although I am always happy to preach from the KJV when asked, it is sometimes a problem when I have to translate the text into modern English before I can expound it.

I have never be involved in any translation work, but based upon what I have learned about textual criticism and translation principles, I would suggest that far more important than actually which Greek NT was being used for translation would be the philosophy of translation, how dynamic and how formal, and how would one view the inerrancy and inspiration of the original texts themselves?

It's all gravely important; The initial mission statement for the translation, the texts, the translators and their philosophy and the publishers and any of their criteria that impacts the final product.

Unfortunately, for Mankind the Doctrine of Inspiration was thrown out along with the Doctrine of Preservation, by some camps.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

I have never be involved in any translation work, but based upon what I have learned about textual criticism and translation principles, I would suggest that far more important than actually which Greek NT was being used for translation would be the philosophy of translation, how dynamic and how formal, and how would one view the inerrancy and inspiration of the original texts themselves?

It's all gravely important; The initial mission statement for the translation, the texts, the translators and their philosophy and the publishers and any of their criteria by a Review Committee that would impact and influence the final product.

Unfortunately, for Mankind the Doctrine of Inspiration was thrown out by some camps when they threw out the Doctrine of Preservation.

 

[JesusFan]

It's all gravely important; The initial mission statement for the translation, the texts, the translators and their philosophy and the publishers and any of their criteria by a Review Committee that would impact and influence the final product.

Unfortunately, for Mankind the Doctrine of Inspiration was thrown out by some camps when they threw out the Doctrine of Preservation.

God did preserve to us the entire word of His, in the Manuscripts, documents, lectionaries, even quotes from the Ecf

 

[Logos1560]

Unfortunately, for Mankind the Doctrine of Inspiration was thrown out along with the Doctrine of Preservation, by some camps.

The Bible doctrine of inspiration and the doctrine of preservation were not thrown out by the NKJV translators.

KJV-only advocates may hold and advocate a very inconsistent and unsound doctrine of inspiration and doctrine of preservation that they do not apply consistently and justly to before 1611 as they try to apply them inconsistently after 1611. KJV-only advocates often seem to be advocating restoration or a process of purification ending in 1611 instead of preservation.

Baptist pastor Glenn Conjurske, a defender of the KJV and a critic of modern versions, suggested that many KJV-only advocates “have never yet understood so much as the meaning of the word ‘preservation’” (Olde Paths, Jan., 1997, p. 14; Bible Version, p. 177). Glenn Conjurske asserted: “In its very nature preservation must be continuous, from beginning to end” (Ibid.). Glenn Conjurske added: “The ‘final form’ of anything which is preserved is just the same as it was the first day of its existence, and every day thereafter. This is the meaning of ‘preservation, and is certainly necessary to their doctrine of perfect preservation” (Ibid.; Bible Version, p. 177). Glenn Conjurske concluded: “The very meaning of ‘preservation’ necessitates that he [God] should keep it pure always, and not merely that he should restore it to purity after the passing of hundreds of years” (Bible Version, p. 63). Glenn Conjurske asserted: “We can have no restoration, no final form, no coming into being, of anything which has been preserved in perfection” (Bible Version, p. 178).

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

James D. Price explained that the real reason for this choice of rendering in the book of Acts in the NKJV is that the translators thought that in this context Peter was alluding to Isaiah 52:13, which identifies Christ as the Servant of the LORD

"The NKJV translators disliked the Textus Receptus":

"Dr. James D. Price was the executive editor of the Old Testament of the New King James Version. Price was formerly Chairman and Professor of the Department of Old Testament, Temple Baptist Theological Seminary, Chattanooga, Tennessee. Price has been retired since 2005.

[edit] 'Not a TR Advocate'

"In 1996 David Cloud corresponded via email
with the executive editor of the Old Testament - Dr James Price.

Cloud stated: "..he admitted to me that he is not committed to the Received Text and that he supports the modern critical text in general:

‘I am not a TR advocate. I happen to believe that God has preserved the autographic text in the whole body of evidence that He has preserved, not merely through the textual decisions of a committee of fallible men based on a handful of late manuscripts.

Apparently, he doesn't much to say about Jesus, God's Son, ether.

The above demonstrates how the executive editor of the Old Testament of the New King James Version does not advocate the Greek Textus Receptus; but rather that he is an advocate of the Nestle-Aland critical Greek text.

from New Book on the Doctrine of Scripture

So, they wrote their own version, but were careful to saturate it's very existence with their favorite translations in the footnotes, essentially producing a non-version, which defers to other versions with entirely different manuscripts, which the editors preferred.

"The New King James Version footnotes tempt the reader to severely question the King James Bible it was named after:

"...[T]he NKJV translators put in the footnotes of the study editions the c-----t Critical or Minority Text of Westcott and Hort (from which the c-----t Modern English Versions are derived).​

"It is identified as “NU.” The “N” stands for the Nestle-Aland text. The “U” stands for the United Bible Society text.​

"Both of these texts are dependent largely on the c-----t Vatican and Sinai manuscripts, virtually the same as the Westcott and Hort Greek text of 1881."
Quote source: http://www.biblefortoday.org/PDF/dkjb_appendix.pdf​

See also: "NKJV: Transitional Bridge to More C-----t Versions"

"NKJV Editors' Footnote Agenda: Bible is in State of Flux"

"New King James Version and the One World Church"

KJV-only advocates may hold and advocate a very inconsistent and unsound doctrine of inspiration and doctrine of preservation that they do not apply consistently and justly to before 1611 as they try to apply them inconsistently after 1611.

I could give a flip about what some KJV-only individual believes.

KJV-only advocates often seem to be advocating restoration or a process of purification ending in 1611 instead of preservation.

I don't care. Who would possibly care anything about what some KJV-only person believes, when everything about the beliefs is indefensible poppycock.

Baptist pastor Glenn Conjurske, a defender of the KJV and a critic of modern versions, suggested that many KJV-only advocates “have never yet understood so much as the meaning of the word ‘preservation’” (Olde Paths, Jan., 1997, p. 14; Bible Version, p. 177).

What makes up some KJV-only beliefs is irrelevant in the same way as anyone else who is wrong about something is irrelevant.