New Book on the Doctrine of Scripture

[Alan Dale Gross]

However, the fact is that both the Bible League and the T.B.S. denigrate the NKJV, despite it being Textus Receptus. This is what annoys me. I tend to be a Majority Text supporter rather than T.R., but the NKJV suits me fine. If these people don't like the NKJV, they should produce a new translation that is better, but they don't.

And support for the KJV is steadily declining as its language becomes more and more strange to young people.

Just for kicks, I've heard what they have to say about the daunting predicament of formulating another English Version, as we can only imagine. They would be asking themselves to do justice to trying to emulate the accomplishments of the King James translators who were so knowledgeable in the nuances of any number of languages referenced, while also being Supernaturally faithful to their conviction that God's Word has been Preserved through a long line of select Manuscripts to compare, as well as, to the other comparable translations before the KJV and since.

So, that project is still on their back burner, to date. And yet God's Word has still been Preserved in a vocabulary level requiring only the slightest amount of additional education, worthy of it august and venerable attainments and historic stature.

And, it's God's Word, for God's Sake.

I mean, what Greater Gift has God ever Given to Mankind than the King James Version of the Holy Bible? Not many.

For example they would be heavily concerned in an endeavor of that nature to give utmost attention and respect to those original language Manuscripts, of which they know and say in their;

Statement of Doctrine of Holy Scripture:

"(5) The Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles received the preserved and standard Hebrew text of the Old Testament as Scripture (Luke 4:16-19, 21; 2 Timothy 3:16). This serves as our pattern for accepting the historically received text of the New Testament also as Scripture (1 Timothy 5:18 cf. Luke 10:7; 2 Peter 3:15-16).

"(6) These texts of Scripture1 reflect the qualities of God-breathed Scripture, including being authentic, holy, pure, true, infallible, trustworthy, excellent, self-authenticating, necessary, sufficient, perspicuous, self-interpreting, authoritative and inerrant (Psalm 19:7-9, Psalm 119). They are consequently to be received as the Word of God (Ezra 7:14; Nehemiah 8:8; Daniel 9:2; 2 Peter 1:19) and the correct reading at any point is to be sought within these texts.2"

(7) Translations from the original languages are likewise to be considered the written Word of God in so far as these translations are accurate as to the form and content of the Original. Acts 8:32f, 15:14-18, Romans 15:8-12."

And that would be their mission, if they accepted it, to approximate an equally stringent criteria of that which they hold for the Original Language Manuscripts, much less the complete, Christian Oriented, 'Version' we now have possessed for over four hundred years and is still going strong among those contending for the Faith (the Word of God in its entirety) "once delivered to the saints".

NOTE 1. The Trinitarian Bible Society maintains that the providentially preserved true and authentic text is to be found in the Masoretic Hebrew and the Greek Received Texts. In so doing, it follows the historic, orthodox Protestant position of acknowledging as Holy Scripture the Hebrew and Greek texts consistently accessible to and preserved among the people of God in all ages. These texts had remained in common use in different parts of the world for more than fifteen centuries and they faithfully represent the texts used in New Testament times.

NOTE 2. Errors, omissions, and additions in particular manuscripts do not impinge upon the qualities of Scripture, including inerrancy, because the errors are, in fact, no part of inerrant Scripture.

And support for the KJV is steadily declining...

Never underestimate the negative capabilities of a roaring lion going about seeking whom he may desire, who enlists the most weak minded among us, to get them to Marshall their spitballs against that Battleship Juggernaut carrying God's Written Revelation Intact. They are innumerable these days, as the evidence of God's Judgment that has fallen on the increasingly paganized West, called 'The Great Modern Day Christian Apostasy'.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

However, the fact is that both the Bible League and the T.B.S. denigrate the NKJV, despite it being Textus Receptus. This is what annoys me. I tend to be a Majority Text supporter rather than T.R., but the NKJV suits me fine.

"The Constitution of the Trinitarian Bible Society specifies the textual families to be employed in the translations it circulates. The Masoretic Hebrew1 and the Greek Received2 Texts are the texts that the Constitution of the Trinitarian Bible Society acknowledges to have been preserved by the special providence of God within Judaism and Christianity. Therefore these texts are definitive and the final point of reference in all the Society’s work.

"NOTE 1. The Society accepts as the best edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text the one prepared in 1524-25 by Jacob ben Chayyim and known, after David Bomberg the publisher, as the Bomberg text. This text underlies the Old Testament in the Authorized Version."

NOTE 2. The Greek Received Text is the name given to a group of printed texts, the first of which was published by Desiderius Erasmus in 1516.

from:

Statement of Doctrine of Holy Scripture - Trinitarian Bible Society

www.tbsbibles.org

That the NKJV is faithfully based on the Textus Receptus has not been substantiated and is part of the reason for its disapproval among many.

The reality they lied in their advertising about that and paid every Tom, Dick, and Harry to lie about it, is almost as bad as the name 'New King James', when they are not a 'revision' of the King James Version any more than 'The Revised Version' is a 'revision' of the King James Version.

They are two spurious pseudo-revisions that are not what they purport to be, but the worse thing may be the publication of their liner notes which are entirely devoted as a priority, to the RCC Original Language Manuscripts, among some of the other 1% of the worst Manuscripts known to Mankind, none of which were what they were all purported to be, ether.

Why are they there? Its a Bridge Document attempting to bridge the gap between Christian influenced Bibles and those influenced by various groups who wanted it to say what they want it to say and to not say what they, as men and women, didn't want it to say.

 

[Conan]

"The Constitution of the Trinitarian Bible Society specifies the textual families to be employed in the translations it circulates. The Masoretic Hebrew1 and the Greek Received2 Texts are the texts that the Constitution of the Trinitarian Bible Society acknowledges to have been preserved by the special providence of God within Judaism and Christianity. Therefore these texts are definitive and the final point of reference in all the Society’s work.

"NOTE 1. The Society accepts as the best edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text the one prepared in 1524-25 by Jacob ben Chayyim and known, after David Bomberg the publisher, as the Bomberg text. This text underlies the Old Testament in the Authorized Version."

NOTE 2. The Greek Received Text is the name given to a group of printed texts, the first of which was published by Desiderius Erasmus in 1516.

from:

Statement of Doctrine of Holy Scripture - Trinitarian Bible Society

www.tbsbibles.org

That the NKJV is faithfully based on the Textus Receptus has not been substantiated and is part of the reason for its disapproval among many.

The reality they lied in their advertising about that and paid every Tom, Dick, and Harry to lie about it, is almost as bad as the name 'New King James', when they are not a 'revision' of the King James Version any more than 'The Revised Version' is a 'revision' of the King James Version.

They are two spurious pseudo-revisions that are not what they purport to be, but the worse thing may be the publication of their liner notes which are entirely devoted as a priority, to the RCC Original Language Manuscripts, among some of the other 1% of the worst Manuscripts known to Mankind, none of which were what they were all purported to be, ether.

Why are they there? Its a Bridge Document attempting to bridge the gap between Christian influenced Bibles and those influenced by various groups who wanted it to say what they want it to say and to not say what they, as men and women, didn't want it to say.

The NKJV is a revision of the KJV. And it is beyond dispute that the NKJV used the Textus Receptus Version of the Greek Text. The Original KJV used multiple editions of the Textus Receptus as well as other editions.
Proof?

Collation of Received text readings

 

[Logos1560]

That the NKJV is faithfully based on the Textus Receptus has not been substantiated and is part of the reason for its disapproval among many.

It has been substantiated that the NKJV is as faithfully based on the Textus Receptus as the pre-1611 English Bibles are and as the 1611 KJV is.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Well, the Tyndale 1526 New Testament will be being re-published any time now (if it hasn't appeared already!) as we approach 500th anniversary of its being smuggled into England in March of that year.
Perhaps we can all use that. I prefer Tyndale to any the the translators of the KJV.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

It's interesting to read the link.

Yes sir. Good to know. I like this guys testimony...

New Thread: I like this guy's Testimony where GOD TOOK HIM from RCC to the KJV.

I have no problem with a person who makes a case for the Bible version they prefer.

But, then when someone knows the KJV is head and shoulders, from the ankles up, vastly superior in every way to most all efforts to make up something of a partial 'version' since 1888, or so, how do you handle that?

That is perfectly allowed by you and acceptable?

Many are from non-Baptist traditions. It would be more accurate to consider them TR-Only IMO.

Yeah, 'KJVO' is a catch-all to denigrate anyone who knows what a plethora of other truncated versions are and are not, to simply tar and feather them, as rat finks, for not selling out to the Worldwide 'Ecumenical Movement' that is moving more and more toward Catholicism, Paganism, and the Occult, every day.

One can be a KJVP, but no way should be used based upon textual criticism and biblical references concerning what inspiration really means

Could you say that again with a little more clarity?

"but no way should be used based upon textual criticism and biblical references"(?)

"concerning what inspiration really means"(?)

Graham Chewter wrote: “This claim of perfection is held by the ‘King James Only’ movement which arose during the 1970s and was spearheaded by the late Peter Ruckman” (Hooper, It Is Written, p. 86).

So, you would like to declare the 'King James Only' designation to be defined as someone who believes Peter Ruckman's factitious and ersatz quackery?

Murdo Macleod wrote: “Once a translation is viewed as superior to the text it translated, an important line is crossed. Furthermore, it places great power in the hands of the person who has apparently been enlightened, above all others, to the point where he, and it appears he alone, is qualified to make such a momentous decision” (Hooper, It Is Written, p. 58).

Nice quote, perfectly true, of course. It's a shame the initial premise for beginning the project of treating the bible manuscripts and its translation like it is any other man-made book, through to its publication and defenses, actually crossed that exact important line, instead of it just being some ill-advised figment of a KJVO proponent.

Matthew Vogan wrote: "The Authorised Version stands alone as the translation in the English language that follows the providentially preserved text in its entirety" (Hooper, It is Written, p. 171). This statement by Matthew Vogan could be considered KJV-only, and Vogan's statement is not true.

You could, and do, consider anyone 'KJVO' you don't like, for any reason.

And you define "providentially preserved text" as whatever you like to think, to make it not true and don't consider what he may actually mean by using those words, right?

This statement by Douglas Somerset would conflict with Matthew Vogan's claim that the KJV "follows the providentially preserved text in its entirety."

Which to you "providentially preserved text" means what?

I know that some of the essayists in the book would approve of non-KJV TR-based translations.

Sure.

Mark ward was for years a staunch KJVO, but not supports various translations, and he has literally beg the Trinitarian society to use their scholars and resources to redo the Kjv for modern times, but they refuse, so shows that KJVO really do not want to upgrade at all Kjv, as see it in some fashion "inspired"

God's Words are "Life", you know, which is how we know it wasn't God Who Led by His Holy Spirit the pruning away of Divinely Inspired 'Life' from His Complete Revelation to Mankind.

Where is the Direction from God that a redo of the KJV is required for modern times and to do so, why would He have it butchered, by not Inspiring the use of all of the Manuscripts available, for the sake of honestly?

The 'New' King James isn't a redo of the KJV after all then, according to you? I know the NKJV is not what they came up with. But where did you come up with them saying the KJV is inspired? Do they say that?

Could it be possible the Trinitarian Bible Society knows something that you don't, which is why they avoid certain ideas like to "now supports various (specific) translations" like the plague

Good for Mark Ward. There is much to admire about the TBS, and I would support it financially if only it was not so tightly tied to the KJV.

There are myriad reasons for that and for clarification, this is what they believe and hold tight to. And, of course, I believe the case could be made that they are led of God to do so, considering they also hold to the Doctrine of Preservation, while their contemporaries, who are in conflict with the Society’s principles, do not, and instead believe the 'bible' needed to be reconstructed, because the King James Version was based on a {'c'-word that finds protection on this Forum} Manuscripts (which has been proven to be one of the biggest blunders in the History of Literature).

"At the Meeting of the General Committee held on 25th, February 2008 a Resolution was passed to the effect:

"That in whatever capacity they write or speak, all Committee Members or Branch or Auxiliary Personnel, or Deputation Speakers and Regional Representatives, or whoever else may at any time officially represent the Society, should at all times when reading, preaching, writing or teaching (in the English language), do so exclusively from the Authorized Version (except by inference when exposing the errors of other versions).

"This does not exclude making legitimate reference to other Reformation-era translations pre-dating the Authorized Version or to English translations or continental editions of the same caliber or provenance.

"The restrictions apply to versions which are in conflict with the Society’s principles whether or not they have been critically reviewed by the Society."

I respect their efforts to get the bible out to all people, but just wish they were not so dogmatic KJVO

Looks like I'm repeating here what they say they believe, since I can't find any warrant in calling them Ruckman-KJVOs, from it.

"At the Meeting of the General Committee held on 25th. February 2008 a Resolution was passed to the effect: That in whatever capacity they write or speak, all Committee Members or Branch or Auxiliary Personnel, or Deputation Speakers and Regional Representatives, or whoever else may at any time officially represent the Society, should at all times when reading, preaching, writing or teaching (in the English language), do so exclusively from the Authorized Version (except by inference when exposing the errors of other versions).

"This does not exclude making legitimate reference to other Reformation-era translations pre-dating the Authorized Version or to English translations or continental editions of the same caliber or provenance.

"The restrictions apply to versions which are in conflict with the Society’s principles whether or not they have been critically reviewed by the Society."

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

The NKJV is a revision of the KJV. And it is beyond dispute that the NKJV used the Textus Receptus Version of the Greek Text.

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

"Question: I know the New King James is said to be a "revision of the King James." But were the Greek and Hebrew texts for the New King James the same as they were for the King James?

"Answer: The NKJV is not a revision of the King James Bible. It is a subtle p********n of the King James Bible. Though years of extensive research have shown that the Greek and Hebrew texts used for the main NKJV text were similar to those used for the KJV, there is a subtle and deadly poison injected into the NKJV: it changes the meaning of God's words and it lifts up other texts that disagree with the King James.

"A History of Preservation"

"There is a big difference between God's preserved words and man's p*******d words. And keep in mind that two things had to be preserved through the centuries: the accurate text of God's words, and the correct translation of those words.

"Old Testament"

"God preserved the words of the Old Testament by the Levitical priests, who faithfully copied them through the centuries. The best manuscript, used by the King James Bible, was the Ben Chayyim, also called the "Bomberg Text." This faithful Rabbinic Old Testament, used for the King James Bible, was rejected by the NKJV committee in favor of a Vatican-published text. But it still takes a careful eye (and a parallel Bible) to spot the differences.

"New Testament"

"God preserved the words of the New Testament by His faithful Christian disciples, from Antioch of Syria (Acts 11:26) to the Vaudois people of the French Alps about AD 120. From the 150s on they passed this Old Latin Bible (called "Common Bible" or "Vulgate") throughout Europe and the British Isles.

"The Vaudois people were regarded by the Protestants and Baptists as "pre-Reformers," passing down the gospel message till the Reformation of the 1500s. Their Bibles and others translated from them, were so accurate they were included in translating the King James Bible.

"The NKJV committee unwisely used none of these Bibles when deciding the meaning of God's words and how to translate them into English.

"The Preserved vs. the P*****ted "Vulgate"

"Please remember: the Vaudois' Old Latin Vulgate is not the same as the later Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate. The Vaudois' Vulgate is God's preserved words of God in Old Latin which brought the gospel to all Europe. The Roman Catholic Vulgate is completely different. It wrongly mixed God's words with the p*****ted Alexandrian Greek Old Testament, Apocrypha and New Testament. Modern "scholars" falsely declare there's only one Latin Vulgate. But there are two: the preserved (Vaudois) and the p*****ted (Roman Catholic).

"A Mixture of P********n"

"The New King James Version is not a true King James Bible. It mixes some true King James accuracy with a lot of Alexandrian and "new version" errors. We know this because the NKJV tells us which ancient texts they used when they made up their Bible. Don't be fooled by the clever names and symbols. Here is what they say they really used:

• "The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, or BHS. This is not the preserved Hebrew Old Testament. This one is approved by the Vatican (Roman Catholic religion) and printed jointly by the Vatican and Protestant Bible societies. In 1937 the "scholars" rejected the preserved Ben Chayyim it for an "older" (but not more accurate) text: the Leningrad Ms B 19a (also called the "Ben Ashertext"). The BHS states:
  
  "...it is a welcome sign of the times that it was published jointly in 1971 by the Wurttemburg Bible Society, Stuttgart, and the Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome...." --Prolegomena, p. XII
  
  
• "The Septuagint, or LXX. As you have seen1, the so-called "Septuagint" is a fable. It was really written after Jesus was born, not before. There are many Septuagints, since each Alexandrian Old Testament is different from every other. Know what they are? Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus - the same exact codices (big books) where the modern p*****ted New Testaments come from!
  
  
• "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 Dead Sea Scrolls, or DSS. It is clear through Scripture that God preserved His words through the tribe of Levi (Deuteronomy 17:18, 31:9-13, 25-26, Nehemiah 8 and Malachi 2:7). The Qumran community that produced the DSS are never said to be Levites. But though God says "the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at His Mouth" (Malachi 2:7), the NKJV committee instead consulted the DSS as well.
  
  
• "The Majority Text, or MT. With a name like Majority Text it should be a compilation of the majority of Greek New Testament manuscripts. But it is not. The "Majority Text" is actually a hand-picked set of manuscripts grouped together by "pro-Alexandrian" liberal Hermann von Soden2. Less than 8% of the over 5,000 Greek manuscripts were compared to each other by von Soden's team of collators! But the NKJV people give the MT great prominence, writing this inaccurate information in the footnotes.
  
  "So people think that the King James is wrong, since it disagrees with "the Majority Text." Who cares? The "Majority Text" is not the majority of texts! The "Majority Text" is a big fake. Don't believe it. And don't trust any Bible that does.

"If It Looks Like a Duck and Talks Like a Duck…"

"There is another side to the New King James that reveals its ugly alliances.

"In most places where the NKJV disagrees with the King James Bible, it agrees with the translations of modern Alexandrian perversions, whether Protestant's like the NIV, NAS, RSV, ASV, etc., or Roman Catholic like the New American Bible.

(Alan's Note: Just exactly how did this happen? It couldn't, IF the NKJV New Testament was based exclusively on "the Textus Receptus Version of the Greek Text").

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.

"The King James Bible is God's preserved words in English. The NKJV is just man's most subtle p*********n of God's words. Don't be deceived. Insist on the King James Bible, not "New" King James, "Modern" King James, King James "2" or "21" or "Millennium,."

"Even thought it is very similar to a King James Bible, it is not a King James Bible. Insist on the one you can stake your faith on, the genuine King James Bible. God will bless you."

1 "See "What is the Septuagint?"

2 "Von Soden never claimed the texts collated by his team were a "majority" of texts. The book Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text by Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad (1982) used mostly von Soden's work and suddenly called it by a new term: "Majority Text." (Note: NKJV publisher Thomas Nelson also published their book.)"

The Original KJV used multiple editions of the Textus Receptus as well as other editions.
Proof?
Collation of Received text readings

Glory, for 'Collation', apart from the notion where, "The decisions of the later critical editors are indicated for each item", which are, of course, irrelevant to the translation of the original King James Version and/or to anyone familiar with their sources.

Where are WH and these various 'critical text' folks these days, btw?

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

It has been substantiated that the NKJV is as faithfully based on the Textus Receptus as the pre-1611 English Bibles are and as the 1611 KJV is.

Here is what they say they really used:

In the post #27, above, or at this link:

New Book on the Doctrine of Scripture

However, the fact is that both the Bible League and the T.B.S. denigrate the NKJV, despite it being Textus Receptus. This is what annoys me. I tend to be a Majority Text supporter rather than T.R., but the NKJV suits me fine. If these people don't like the NKJV, they should produce a new...

www.baptistboard.com

 

[Logos1560]

• "The Septuagint, or LXX. As you have seen1, the so-called "Septuagint" is a fable. It was really written after Jesus was born, not before. There are many Septuagints, since each Alexandrian Old Testament is different from every other. Know what they are? Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus - the same exact codices (big books) where the modern p*****ted New Testaments come from!
  
  
• "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 also consulted the Greek Septuagint and Jerome's Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate. Erasmus added some readings to his edited Greek text from an edition of the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate.

KJV defender Edward F. Hills acknowledged that “sometimes also the influence of the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate is discernible in the King James Old Testament” (KJV Defended, p. 223; Text, p. 370). Edward F. Hills asserted: “In Jeremiah 3:9, the King James margin reads fame (qol) along with the Hebrew kethibh, but the King James text reads lightness (qal) in agreement with the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate (Ibid.).

Douglas Woodward wrote: “It should be noted that by being eclectic, the King James Bible’s Old Testament does not constitute a single-source received text as some of its champions have misleadingly conveyed it. Its scholarly genealogy flows from many different sources rather than originating only from the Ben Chayyim/Bomberg Bible of 1525” (Septuagint and the Defense of the Christian Bible, p. 37). Douglas Woodward claimed: “The KJV scholars did use the Septuagint and Vulgate to supplement its foundational layer, i. e., the Masoretic Text” (p. 36).

 

[Logos1560]

• "The Septuagint, or LXX. As you have seen1, the so-called "Septuagint" is a fable. It was really written after Jesus was born, not before. There are many Septuagints, since each Alexandrian Old Testament is different from every other. Know what they are? Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus - the same exact codices (big books) where the modern p*****ted New Testaments come from!

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

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).

Edmon Gallagher wrote: "Earlier authors cite the Greek Pentateuch and sometimes other books, authors such as Demetrius the Chronographer in the late third century BCE, Artapanus in the first half of the second century BCE, Eupolemus in the mid-second century BCE, and Aristeas the Exegete perhaps in the second century BCE" (pp. 38-39).

Timothy Michael Law wrote: "The Septuagint versions of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings were translated no later than the first half of the second century BCE, confirmed by their use already in the second half of the second century by the Jewish Hellenistic historian Eupolemus" (WHEN GOD SPOKE GREEK, p. 49).

Ernst Wurthwein wrote: "The prologue to the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach (Ecclesiasticus, ca 116 BC) refers to a Greek version of the Law and also of 'the Prophets and the other books'" (Text of the Old Testament, p. 53).

Emanuel Tov wrote: "Since the Prophets and several of the books of the Hagiographa were known in their Greek version to the grandson of Ben Sira at the end of the second century BCE, we may infer that most of the books of the Prophets and Hagiographa were translated in the beginning of that century or somewhat earlier" (Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, p. 137).

The Old Testament of the Old Latin Bible from around A. D. 150 on the KJV-only view's pure stream of Bibles is translated from the Greek Septuagint so that that form of the Old Greek Septuagint had to have been made years before the Old Latin Bible's OT was made from it. The KJV translators acknowledged that the Old Testament of the Old Latin Bibles was translated from the Greek Septuagint. How could the Old Latin Bible's Old Testament be translated from an Old Greek Old Testament that had not yet been made according to David Daniels?

S. Douglas Woodward asked: "What was the motivation for creating three new versions of the Septuagint in the second century if the Old Septuagint did not exist? How can [David] Daniels and [Samuel] Gipp suppose the LXX resulted from Origen's Hexapla, which was not created until the middle of the third century A. D.?" (The Septuagint and the Defense of the Christian Bible, p. 231).

 

[Conan]

The New King James Version is a revision of the KJV Alan. Never believe anything David Daniels says. He is a false witness and does not know what he is talking about. Now there is a Fine scholar named David Daniels that writes about William Tyndale, and has produced a modern spelling edition of Tyndales 1534 revised New Testament. He is far more trust worthy than the David Daniels that you quoted.

 

[John of Japan]

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



"In most places where the NKJV disagrees with the King James Bible, it agrees with the translations of modern Alexandrian perversions, whether Protestant's like the NIV, NAS, RSV, ASV, etc., or Roman Catholic like the New American Bible.

(Alan's Note: Just exactly how did this happen? It couldn't, IF the NKJV New Testament was based exclusively on "the Textus Receptus Version of the Greek Text").

​

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.

The

The truth is, every single one of these examples is a valid rendering from the TR. I checked. I do disagree with the 1 Cor. 1:18 rendering, but it is completely allowable from the Greek, since the original is a present passive participle, meaning it can be translated with either imperfective or aoristic aspect; the NKJV translators chose imperfective aspect, but I would have gone with aoristic.

One problem with some KJVO folk, such as this David Daniels, is that they forget that the KJV was translated in 1611, and not all of it communicates directly with the 21st century. This is not saying the KJV is wrong in these passages, just that it is 1611 English, and must be understood that way.

 

[John of Japan]

That the NKJV is faithfully based on the Textus Receptus has not been substantiated and is part of the reason for its disapproval among many.

Actually, many have substantiated it. I myself can substantiate it. I have done a base translation of the entire Scrivener TR Greek NT into Japanese, and in the process compared the NKJV, the KJV, and the TR. I can thus substantiate that the NKJV is "faithfully based on the Textus Receptus."

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.

 

[John of Japan]

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

• "The Majority Text, or MT. With a name like Majority Text it should be a compilation of the majority of Greek New Testament manuscripts. But it is not. The "Majority Text" is actually a hand-picked set of manuscripts grouped together by "pro-Alexandrian" liberal Hermann von Soden2. Less than 8% of the over 5,000 Greek manuscripts were compared to each other by von Soden's team of collators! But the NKJV people give the MT great prominence, writing this inaccurate information in the footnotes.
  
  "So people think that the King James is wrong, since it disagrees with "the Majority Text." Who cares? The "Majority Text" is not the majority of texts! The "Majority Text" is a big fake. Don't believe it. And don't trust any Bible that does.

This is ignorant. I have for years translated a verse of my personal devotions from the Hodges/Farstad Greek NT and/or the Byzantine Textform Greek NT. Both of these have a lot of footnotes (the "apparatus") referencing many various mss.

Again, Daniels shows his ignorance by saying "The 'Majority Text' is not the majority of texts." Well of course it is not. It is from the majority of manuscripts (mss), not the majority of texts. This is a basic error, showing Daniels' ignorance of the subject he is pontificating on.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

I have to add that in spite of it all, the KJV is still an awesome translation, and I read it every day!

 

[Tea]

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.

Sadly, I’ve heard Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that the Granville Sharp Rule was invented to support Trinitarianism.

Anyone can find a reason to reject modern Greek scholarship if they really want to.

 

[Reformed]

But, then when someone knows the KJV is head and shoulders, from the ankles up, vastly superior in every way to most all efforts to make up something of a partial 'version' since 1888, or so, how do you handle that?

That is perfectly allowed by you and acceptable?

I stop at preference. I can provide you a well reasoned argument as to why the Critical Text is a more accurate source in which to base modern translations like the NASB or ESV, while at the same time affirming that TR translations like the KJV and NKJV are reliable and are no less the Word of God. However, I am not going to entertain an argument that states my NAS translation is inferior - or worse yet - not the Word of God. I'm of the opinion that the majority of KJVO advocates have no real scholarly reason for holding to their position. Those that hold to the KJV being divinely inspired don't realize they are using the same faulty logic papists make about relics. Honestly, it's much easier to just pivot around these people than to engage with them.

 

[John of Japan]

Sadly, I’ve heard Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that the Granville Sharp Rule was invented to support Trinitarianism.

Anyone can find a reason to reject modern Greek scholarship if they really want to.

The JWs seem to admire the Greek but can't learn it correctly. I had some interaction along that line with the translator of the Japanese JW version. They translated pisteuo (πιστεύω, believe) as 信仰を働かせる, shinko wo hatarakaseru ("make your faith work").