Is the NKJV a good version of the bible?

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Matthew 15:5 Textus Receptus Greek Text

υμεις δε λεγετε ος αν ειπη τω πατρι η τη μητρι δωρον ο εαν εξ εμου ωφεληθης και ου μη τιμηση τον πατερα αυτου η την μητερα αυτου

Matthew 15:5 NKJV

But you say, "Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God"

Please show me where "God" in the TR agreeing with the NKJV is.

One word is not quite 40% Askjo. You said that 40% of the NJKV is not TR. Here you gave us one word.

 

[PrimePower7]

Cassidy,
I don't know you, but you are treading on some strange ground. Even his detractors don't charge him as such.

 

[BruceB]

Parson Bob, I used the NKJV from the time it was first published until about 3 years ago (when I needed a large print edition to replace my original). It is a fine text, you will gain much from reading and studying and meditating from the NKJV. I am currently using the NIV as my main primary Bible, and last year I used the HCSB. I have read so much here and in other places about different translations (much of it is pure bull) that I decided to see for myself. I am using a different translation each year to read through and be my primary Bible that year. I have already used the HCSB and the NLT, this year is the NIV, next year will be either the NASB or the ESV. So far I have not read one single thing that changed my theological positions or caused me to question the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Use any respected translation and you will discover the same. Bruce

 

[Ransom]

PrimePower7 said:

Things that are different are not the same.

Are you capable of thinking for yourself, or can you only rehash someone else's tired old slogans?

I was speaking of your denial that the NIV does not leave out verses or change meanings. Read the rest of my post!

I see. So when you say, "Ransom denies the NIV," you really mean, "Ransom denies my particular theories about the text of the NIV."

Thank you. I will remember this the next time a KJV-onlyist claims I "hate" the KJV or "don't believe the Bible." What it really means is, "Ransom does not believe our particular theories about the transmission of the Biblical text and the translation of the English Bible."

And that would, indeed, be quite accurate. Just because a KJV-onlyist says that the NIV "omits" this or "denies" that, does not make it so. His presuppositional commitment to the "inerrancy" of the KJV in and of itself compels him to argue in circles.

Finally, when Phillip asked:

First of all, will you concede that the NKJV is a translation of the Textus Receptus? (At least one of them.)

you answered,

I don't know.

And therein lies the problem. You don't know, but nonetheless you have awfully strong opinions on the subject. May I suggest that instead of displaying the fact that you don't know, you take a back seat for a while and learn something? Thank you. Bye.

 

[Faith alone]

I like it a lot. I have the John Macarthur study Bible NKJV.

It's not my main Bible, but I think the Nelson NKJV Study Bible, with Earl Radmacher as editor, is the best study Bible out there.

It is unfortunate that they based it on the textus receptus in the NT when there were many other majority text manuscripts available at the time though... they even included 1 John 5:7, 8.

Now regarding the claim that the NIV (and nearly all other modern translations, since they are based on the Alexandrian Greek text) "leaves out verses" that is based on an assumption that the textus receptus, which was compiled from only 7 Greek texts, is the valid Greek textual basis out there.

We should compare it with the majority text that Hodges-Farstad developed and the one that Robinson-Pierpont developed as well as the UBS text based on the Alexandrian text. IMO all of them are far superior to the TR. So whether you prefer what is called the majority text (MT) or the critical text (CT) there is a better way to go.

I think we would have to look at each of those "missing" texts one by one and draw our conclusions.

FWIW,

FA

 

[TCassidy]

Cassidy,

I don't know you, but you are treading on some strange ground. Even his detractors don't charge him as such.

What in the world are you talking about? Who have I "charged" with something?

 

[PrimePower7]

PrimePower7 said:

Things that are different are not the same.

Are you capable of thinking for yourself, or can you only rehash someone else's tired old slogans?

I was speaking of your denial that the NIV does not leave out verses or change meanings. Read the rest of my post!

I see. So when you say, "Ransom denies the NIV," you really mean, "Ransom denies my particular theories about the text of the NIV."

Thank you. I will remember this the next time a KJV-onlyist claims I "hate" the KJV or "don't believe the Bible." What it really means is, "Ransom does not believe our particular theories about the transmission of the Biblical text and the translation of the English Bible."

And that would, indeed, be quite accurate. Just because a KJV-onlyist says that the NIV "omits" this or "denies" that, does not make it so. His presuppositional commitment to the "inerrancy" of the KJV in and of itself compels him to argue in circles.

Finally, when Phillip asked:

First of all, will you concede that the NKJV is a translation of the Textus Receptus? (At least one of them.)

you answered,

I don't know.

And therein lies the problem. You don't know, but nonetheless you have awfully strong opinions on the subject. May I suggest that instead of displaying the fact that you don't know, you take a back seat for a while and learn something? Thank you. Bye.

Wrong Ransom. I already explained what I meant when I said you "denied the NIV". YOu are ranting and not thinking. I told you I meant that you denied that it changed meanings and took out verses. You did deny that.

Secondly, there is no problem ("therein lies the problem") with saying "I don't know". I thought it was pretty genuine of me to admit that. Remember something, just as you don't feel like you have to impress me, I don't feel any obligation to get heated over you. Trust me, I come here for intellectually stimulation and spiritual fellowship. It's not because I am bored. If you knew where I was at, and what I was doing so that you could sit where you are at and tell ME to "take a back seat", you would be ashamed of yourself--or maybe you wouldn't. Sounds to me like you enjoy being the instructor while those like me admit "we don't know" about something. It really makes me wonder if you are submissive to a pastor in your local church.

As for our exchange on this thread, it is over. You can consider me ignoring you.

Maybe we'll see each other on another thread. Until then, "God judge betwixt me and thee", both now and in "that day".

OUT

 

[PrimePower7]

What in the world are you talking about? Who have I "charged" with something?

I am talking about you're "Strouse is wrong" comment. My goodness, Cassidy. You really need me to guide you on this? In other words, you are claiming that Dr. Thomas Strouse is misinformed and I doubt very clearly that you have any clue about his integrity or work ethic when it comes to study.

You too can consider my ignoring you on the remainder of this thread on the grounds of your hostility. Again, I don't need YOUR approval either. God judge between you and I also both in this life and the life to come.

OUT

 

[El_Guero]

Verse 4 and verse 6 wrap around verse 5. The antecedent subject is God and continues to be implied in verse 5.

Matthew 15:5 Textus Receptus Greek Text

υμεις δε λεγετε ος αν ειπη τω πατρι η τη μητρι δωρον ο εαν εξ εμου ωφεληθης και ου μη τιμηση τον πατερα αυτου η την μητερα αυτου

Matthew 15:5 NKJV

But you say, "Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God"

Please show me where "God" in the TR agreeing with the NKJV is.

 

[Askjo]

One word is not quite 40% Askjo. You said that 40% of the NJKV is not TR. Here you gave us one word.

No, you are mistaken. One word is one of 2000 words in the NKJV. This one word is one of 800 (40%) non-TR words of total 2,000 words in the NKJV.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Calm down folks.

There has been no hostility shown until the last couple of posts. (The last two posts where fine - I meant the two posts before that)

Lets try to keep this thread on track, at least till page five.

 

[El_Guero]

Jo

Have I got a deeeeeAAAAAALLLLLL FOR YOU!!!

Don't you think it only fair that we use your math?

We will use your math to make me a SMALL (very small) profit.

I think that is a GREAT deal.

 

[Faith alone]

Calm down folks.

There has been no hostility shown until the last couple of posts.

Lets try to keep this thread on track, at least till page five.

I agree. Let's be considerate and respectful of one another.

One word is not quite 40% Askjo. You said that 40% of the NKJV is not TR. Here you gave us one word.

No, you are mistaken. One word is one of 2000 words in the NKJV. This one word is one of 800 (40%) non-TR words of total 2,000 words in the NKJV.

I'm afraid I don't follow your logic either, Askjo. There are certainly many more than just 2000 words in the NKJV or KJV for that matter. But you are talking TR, which is Greek, not English - so we cannot compare English (KJV vs. NKJV) - we must compare the translation of the Greek (textus receptus in this case) into the NKJV.

And translation is not simply "translating" a word in Greek into a word in English. The idea is to accurately communciate the correct meaning and idomatic force that the Holy Spirit intended in the original writings. We are concerned with phrases, sentences, context, etc..

So can you be specific about which verses do not faithfully translate the TR? Because as I see it the NKJJV is a faithful translation of the TR into English.

BTW, does anyone want to look at some specific verses in which the NIV supposedly "removed" text?

Thx,

FA

 

[robycop3]

No, you are mistaken. One word is one of 2000 words in the NKJV. This one word is one of 800 (40%) non-TR words of total 2,000 words in the NKJV.

Again, what does it matter a dab of Shinola if it's not 100% TR or not? Even Dean Burgon said, long before the NKJV was even thought of, that the TR could stand a thorough revision. Besides that, who made the TR pre-eminent over the manuscripts from which it was made?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

No, you are mistaken. One word is one of 2000 words in the NKJV. This one word is one of 800 (40%) non-TR words of total 2,000 words in the NKJV.

Sorry, I am missing your logic askjo - are you saying that there are only 2000 words in the TR or in English? Then are you saying that there are 800 words in the NKJV that are not in the TR at all?

Could you give us more than one example please? O contend that your 40% non-TR words is something you read along the way someplace and did not research yourself.

 

[TCassidy]

I am talking about you're "Strouse is wrong" comment.

I said "Strouse is wrong" because he is! The NKJV is based on exactly the same Greek text as the KJV. If Strouse says, as you claimed, that the NKJV is based on the Majority Text then he is wrong. I don't know how else to say it. Wrong is wrong.

My goodness, Cassidy. You really need me to guide you on this? In other words, you are claiming that Dr. Thomas Strouse is misinformed and I doubt very clearly that you have any clue about his integrity or work ethic when it comes to study.

Actually, I do. And I have not impugned his integrity or work ethic. I simply said he was wrong if he, as you claimed, says the NKJV is based on the Majority Text.

You too can consider my ignoring you on the remainder of this thread on the grounds of your hostility.

You can ignore anyone you want to, I really don't care. As for "hostility" well, the only hostility I have seen on this thread is yours!

Again, I don't need YOUR approval either.

I didn't say or suggest you did.

God judge between you and I also both in this life and the life to come.

What in the world are you talking about? Why would God have to judge between us? The issues is the Greek text which underlies the NKJV and what Tom Strouse identifies that text as being.

 

[Faith alone]

Again, what does it matter a dab of Shinola if it's not 100% TR or not? Even Dean Burgon said, long before the NKJV was even thought of, that the TR could stand a thorough revision. Besides that, who made the TR pre-eminent over the manuscripts from which it was made?

(emphasis added)
Precisely. The idea was to try to come up with a MS which represented, as best he could tell, what the original MSS originally said. The manuscripts Erasmus used were all of the majority text type (Byzantine family) - which is in general a more recent family of MSS (manuscripts). Befre the 12 century or so the Alexandrian texts are in the majority. (IOW the Alexandrian texts are in the majority of the older and hence more reliable texts.)

And Erasmus only had 6 MSS for his 1st version of the TR. He was given a MS (34 - which can be found today in Trinity College, Dublin - it dates to the 16th century - it appears to have been manufactured for him) which contained the famous Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7, 8) and which was his 7th MS. which he used for the 3rd release of the TR.

But 7 MSS does not represent a very good concensus of MSS for the majority text, and can hardly be called a "majority." We have over 5300 Greek NT MSS today. BTW, not one of Erasmus' MSS was complete - though almost. None of them contained the last few verses of Revelation 22. But Erasmus was an excellent translator, and he had copies of the Latin Vulgate which were complete. So he back-translated those verses back into Greek. He did a pretty good job of guessing too. Except for one major blunder - in vs. 19 where the KJV now says that someone may have his share removed from the "book of life" rather than the "tree of life."

The NKJV, which was based on the TR as was the KJV, erroneaously says...

Revelation 22:19 (NKJV) and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away F135 his part from the Book F136 of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

It does have a footntoe, fortunately...
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]F135: M-Text reads may God take away. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]F136: NU-Text and M-Text read tree of life.
Notice that in his back-translating that Erasmus translated the text as "[/FONT]God shall take away" instead of "may God take away..." The note says that the MT (majority text) reads differently - IOW, no actual Greek text says it as Erasmus guessed the original text said. That is only found in Erasmus manufactured text.

Footnote #136 says that it should be "book of life" rather than "tree of life." Again, no MSS say "tree of life" - not one. That was generated by Erasmus in an attempt to reproduce the lost portion.

Erasmus did this because he was in a race to produce the first Greek MS of the NT for printing. So he did a slipshod job in a few places because of the urgency.

BTW, in his 3rd version of the TR Erasmus included a note saying that the text was not likely original.

FA

 

[TCassidy]

The manuscripts Erasmus used were all of the majority text type (Byzantine family) - which is in general a more recent family of MSS (manuscripts).

That is not entirely true. Erasmus had, in his possession, 1, 2, 2ap, 4ap and 1r. Manuscript 1 is well known to be a representative of the Cesarean textform.

Befre the 12 century or so the Alexandrian texts are in the majority. (IOW the Alexandrian texts are in the majority of the older and hence more reliable texts.)

Well, 600 years before the 12th century! The Alexandrian textform was eclipsed by the Byzantine textform by 600 AD.

And Erasmus only had 6 MSS for his 1st version of the TR. He was given a MS (34 - which can be found today in Trinity College, Dublin - it dates to the 16th century - it appears to have been manufactured for him) which contained the famous Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7, 8) and which was his 7th MS.

Uh, MS34 is a 10th century Byzantine Codex. You must be thinking of MS61, a 16th century Codex containing all the NT all of which is Byzantine except Revelation which follows the Alexandrian readings except for the comma.

But 7 MSS does not represent a very good concensus of MSS for the majority text, and can hardly be called a "majority." We have over 5300 Greek NT MSS today.

I think you may have missed the point. The MSS available to Erasmus were representative of the Byzantine textform as a whole and thus his TR represents a critical, slightly eclectic, example of the Byzantine textform.

 

[robycop3]

BTW, Faith Alone (and Askjo) we recently completed a thread about a TR booboo at Revelation 17:8. Rather than kick a dead horse, lemme suggest ya read that now-closed thread.

 

[Trotter]

Originally posted by Askjo:
One word is one of 2000 words in the NKJV. This one word is one of 800 (40%) non-TR words of total 2,000 words in the NKJV

There you go, Askjo... quoting more of the KJVO rhetoric.

The KJV is not the measuring stick. If it were, then every bible in existance (including every edition of the KJV save the one you set as the standard) would have different words in places, and thus (according to your logic) would be changing the word of God.

The NKJV is translated from the TR, according to its preface (thankfully, it contains footnotes to show where different manuscripts vary). But it is a NEW translation, not just another edition of the KJV... altough the translators leaned on the KJV to make it.