New Book on the Doctrine of Scripture

[Logos1560]

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:

You throw out accusations that you do not prove to be true. You misrepresent and bear false witness against the NKJV translators.

Dr. James D. Price, executive editor for the NKJV's Old Testament, was translating the Hebrew Masoretic OT Text instead of the New Testament.

None of the Church of England makers of the KJV named any one of the varying printed Greek Textus Receptus editions in their day as being their one perfect standard that they followed 100%. The KJV translators were not Textus Receptus-only advocates as they also made use of multiple varying sources including non-Textus Receptus sources. The KJV translators practiced textual criticism, picking and choosing from multiple, textually-varying Textus Receptus editions and some non-TR sources. The KJV translators even borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament translated from an edition of Jerome's Latin Vulgate, a non-TR source. One of the KJV translators even wrote a book defending Jerome's Latin Vulgate.

The footnotes of the NKJV may be for the same purpose as the marginal notes of the KJV.

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]

KJV defender Edward F. Hills (1912-1981) wrote: “Even before the coming of Christ God had brought into being the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament translation which was to serve the Church as a temporary substitute until such a time as the ancient Hebrew Bible could be restored to her” (KJV Defended, p. 94; Text, p. 170). Edward F. Hills wrote: “In regard to Bible versions we follow the example of Christ’s Apostles. We adopt the same attitude toward the King James Version that they maintained toward the Septuagint” (p. 229; Text, p. 380; Believing Bible Study, p. 81). Edward F. Hills wrote: “The Apostles recognized the Septuagint as the providentially approved translation of the Old Testament into Greek. They understood that this was the version that God desired the gentile Church of their day to use as its Old Testament Scripture” (p. 230; Text, p. 380; Believing Bible Study, p. 82). Edward F. Hills wrote: “Just as they [the Apostles] recognized the Septuagint as the providentially appointed translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek, so we recognize the King James Version and other great historic translation of the holy Scriptures as providentially approved” (Ibid.; Text, pp. 380-381).

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

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.

• "The powerful Scriptures showing that Jesus is the ‘Son’ are switched to ‘servant’ in the NKJV in Acts 3:13; "The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath Glorified His Son Jesus; Whom ye delivered up, and denied Him in the presence of Pilate, when He was determined to let Him go"
• and in 26; "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."
• Again, the Doctrinal implications are obvious.
• His Sonship in Acts 3:13 is regarding God's Glorified Son and Acts 3:26 relates to the Incarnation when God Overshadowed Mary, making Jesus both God and man. A servant could be anyone."
  
  
• From: NKJV Affects Doctrine | Articles | kjbapsotolics.com

...

Why is this difference important in Acts 4:27 and 30 but unimportant in Matthew 12:18?

What's so important about editing out His Name, "His Son Jesus", for ANY REASON? That's sacrilegious if not blaspheme.

Someone needs to tell somebody this is God's Word. Not ours.

Here's one for you. Where did anyone ever get the idea that we are supposed to be allowed to chose what 'version' of the bible we like?

Has it ever occurred to anyone that God may be Consulted on that, for Him to be the One Who does the Choosing of our Bible version we use. Ever called on His Name and fasted a few days on your knees asking God about it?

I believe the problem with you and the diehard KJV-only crowd are the same, where you both A.) as individuals are always seeing yourselves as being superiors to any 'version' or manuscript you come across and B.) decide what your fancy is toward any given translation and enjoy calling all the shots, true or not, with regard to their content, as long as everyone understands that what God says is second, as far as you're concerned, to what you think.

Within the realm of Bible perspicuity Matthew 12:18; "Behold My Servant, Whom I have Chosen; My Beloved, in Whom My Soul is Well Pleased: I Will Put My Spirit upon Him, and He shall shew Judgment to the Gentiles", is a Fulfillment of the Prophecy in Isaiah;

Isaiah 42:1;
“Here is My Servant, Whom I Uphold, My Chosen One, in Whom My soul delights. I Will Put My Spirit on Him, and He Will Bring Justice to the Nations."

In the context of both parallel scriptures, the "Servant" is Exalted as being as being Identified as "My Servant", God says, Who is not just any servant, but His Beloved, His Chosen One in Whom God's Soul is Pleased with Delights and Who it is that God goes onto say, I Will Put My Spirit on Him, and He Will Bring Justice to the Gentile Nations.

(As a side note, by way of a Divinely Interpreted Bible Definition, notice how those two verses equate the words "the Gentiles" with the words, "the Nations", as the Bible also does in Romans 11:12 "Now if the fall of them (the Jews) be the riches of the World, and the diminishing of them (the Jews) the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their (the Jews') fulness?"
When the Bible uses the word 'World', it is often referring to the Gentiles).

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).

I'm not buying it. The extremely urgent necessity (?) came from other influences, including his own biases, to dispose of "His Son Jesus", and then only substitute, "Servant".

—Acts 3.26
"In the Revised Version of 1881 and in many modern versions this is rendered “His servant” or “His Servant”, and the name “Jesus” is omitted.

"The change from “Son” to “servant” does not arise from any variations in the Greek manuscripts, but from differences of opinion regarding the meaning of the Greek, TON PAIDA AUTOU.

"The omission of “Jesus” does arise from a corresponding variant in the Greek manuscripts, so the grounds for these two significant changes are quite different.

"The Greek PAIS occurs in the singular or plural twenty-four times in the New Testament, and in the Authorized Version it is rendered “child” in Matthew 17.18; Luke 2.43; 9.42; Acts 4.27; 4.30.

"It is rendered “children” in Matt. 2.16; 21.15;
“servant” or “servants”
in Matt. 8.6, 13; 12.18; 14.2; Luke 1.54; 1.69; 7.7; 15.26; Acts 4.25;
“menservants” in Luke 12.45;
“maiden” in Luke 8.51;
“maid” in Luke 8.54;
“young man” in Acts 20.12;
and “son” in John 4.51; Acts 3.13; 3.26.

"The Greek HUIOS occurs more than three hundred and fifty times and is rendered in the English translations as “son” or “child”, “sons” or “children”, and in Matthew 21.5 “foal”.

"It is true to say that PAIS in Acts 3.26 may be quite correctly rendered son, servant or child, and it would be wrong to assume that the Authorized Version was at fault in rendering it “Son” in this verse.

"The words are all appropriate to the Son of God, and there are prophetic Scriptures in the Old Testament in which the Son is spoken of as the Servant of the LORD.

"There are, however, good reasons for retaining “Son” in Acts 3.26, and there are passages in which it is very clear that HUIOS (son) is synonymous with PAIS.

"In John 4.46 we read of “a certain nobleman, whose son (HUIOS) was sick at Capernaum”.

"In verse 47 the nobleman besought Jesus that He would come down and heal his son (HUIOS).

"In verse 49 the nobleman said, “Sir, come down ere my child (PAIDION) die”, using a diminutive form of PAIS to refer to his son.

"In verse 50 Jesus says of the same child, “Thy son (HUIOS) liveth”.

"In verse 51 the bond-servants (DOULOI) of the nobleman met him, and told him, saying, “Thy son (PAIS) liveth”.

"It is quite clear that they were speaking of his son, whom they refer to as PAIS, which in this context cannot mean anything different from HUIOS, son. The person spoken of as PAIS was the son (HUIOS) of the nobleman.

"In Acts 3.26 the one spoken of as PAIS (TON PAID A AUTOU) is the Son of God, and here PAIS may be regarded as synonymous with HUIOS, and rendered Son or “child”, rather than as “servant”.

"Although the name of Jesus after “His Son” is not found in Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, and a few other ancient copies, it is found in Codex A, Codex P, cursives 1, 13,31 and many others."

From: Son or Servant? - Trinitarian Bible Society

 

[Logos1560]

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 Companion Bible [a KJV study Bible] has this note for "child" at Acts 4:27: "child=servant, Greek pais, as in v. 25" (p. 1585).

The 1657 English edition of The Dutch Annotations has the following note for "thy holy child Jesus" at Acts 4:27: "or servant, minister, See Acts 3:13, 26, see also Matthew 8:6 compared with Luke 7:2 and here verse 25."

Concerning Acts 3:13, A. T. Robertson noted: "This phrase occurs in Isaiah 42:1; 52:13 about the Messiah except the name 'Jesus' which Peter adds" (Word Pictures, III, p. 43). Concerning Acts 3:13 in his 1851 commentary as edited by Alvah Hovey in the American Baptist Publication Society's American Commentary on the N. T., Baptist Horatio Hackett (1808-1875) wrote: "pais, not son=huios, but servant=Heb. ebhedh, which was one of the prophetic appellations of the Messiah, especially in the second part of Isaiah. (See Matt. 12:18, as compared with Isa. 42:1). The term occurs again in this sense in v. 26; 4:27, 30" (pp. 59-60). Concerning Acts 4:27, John Gill noted: "Unless the word should rather be rendered servant, as it is in verse 25 and which is a character that belongs to Christ, and is often given him as Mediator, who, as such, is God's righteous servant" (Exposition, VIII, p. 176).


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). This first-hand statement from a NKJV translator gives the actual reason while others are merely speculating.