Perfect Translation

[jbh28]

Hello franklinmonroe

You asked........


Of course.

So, you would then say the NKJV is "perfect"?

 

[stilllearning]

Hi jbh28

Like I have been saying all along, it all depends upon how “you” define perfect.

Although the NKJV, resembles the KJB, it has been influenced by Wescott & Hort’s [Bible attack snipped] text.

So I am going to stick with the KJB.

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Any NT quote from an OT source has been made through the inspiration of the Spirit of God, any difference in word choice is the primary decision of God and not the human author though the human author may have had a reason to use the different word. It was however a word choice because of the superintendancy of God and the added nuance or change due to the progressive nature of God's inspired written revelation.

Perhaps more hermeneutically consistent would be to see the Holy Spirit's work here (and many other such OT quotes in the NT) as exemplary and normative.

One would imagine that, had the shoe been on the other foot, the pro-literal advocates would be yelling, "Look, here's Holy Spirit confirmation that verbal inspiration demands literal translation!" So there's no need to reinterpret the work of the Spirit here. The notion of word-perfect translation is a linguistic myth, an artificial construct by certain misguided Christian literary (though not linguistic) experts, and quite untenable both theologically and practically. Ironically, the more translations are literal, the more likely they are to be anomalous--unnatural, awkward, and ultimately inaccurate being unfaithful to the meaning intended. Anything but "perfect" translations.

Simply put, if we let the chips fall where they may (as we should) when we read the NT, it's impossible to miss the pattern by the Divine Author and the inspired human NT authors as they translate the Word of God from the OT. It's the overall meaning that's communicated, not the word forms in the source language.

Nor does the NT dismiss their non-literal translation as a mere "paraphrase" or "perversion" but affirms it as "It is written," "Thus saith the LORD," inspired Scripture, no less.

And, further, all this makes a monkey out of the misnamed "Dean Burgon Society's" recent resolution in exclusive favour of the "Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text for the Old Testament"--something above that which is written, something the Holy Spirit evidently didn't resolve:

A Resolution by the Executive Committee
of the Dean Burgon Society
June, 2010​

Whereas, some individuals have charged that the Dean Burgon Society (a.k.a. DBS) wanted in the past, wants in the present, or intends in the future to change the Words of the 1769 Cambridge edition of the King James Bible (KJB) and publish another English Bible version, and

Whereas, a clause in section “A” of the Articles of Faith of the DBS concerning “The Bible,” which states “although there might be other renderings from the original languages which could also be acceptable to us today,” might be misunderstood or construed to imply an intention to change, add to, or subtract from the KJB, the Executive Committee of the DBS categorically denies this characterization. The clause is meant to reinforce the need for proper study of the Scripture by pastors, evangelists, missionaries, and teachers in order to present the truth to a wayward world by consulting the underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words when needed.

Therefore, Be It Resolved, that The Executive Committee of the DBS hereby states unequivocally that it has never in the past, nor will it ever in the future consider or even contemplate (1) to change, add to, or subtract from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words underlying the King James Bible or (2) to change, add to, or subtract from the most accurate and faithful English translation of the underlying Words, the King James Bible. This includes the italicized words.

God has chosen to use and honour the KJB for 399 years. The KJB has played an unequalled role in world evangelism. Thus, the DBS would not support any other organization that sought to change, add to, or subtract from the KJB. This has been the singular position of the DBS since the establishment of the society in 1978, thirty-two years ago.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Although the NKJV, resembles the KJB, it has been influenced by Wescott & Hort’s ... text.

And I ask again, could you show us where please?

You keep throwing this charge out, but you have yet to give one shred of evidence to support it.

I am going to stick with the KJB.

Good for you - an excellent choice.

 

[HankD]

Perhaps more hermeneutically consistent would be to see the Holy Spirit's work here (and many other such OT quotes in the NT) as exemplary and normative.

One would imagine that, had the shoe been on the other foot, the pro-literal advocates would be yelling, "Look, here's Holy Spirit confirmation that verbal inspiration demands literal translation!" So there's no need to reinterpret the work of the Spirit here. The notion of word-perfect translation is a linguistic myth, an artificial construct by certain misguided Christian literary (though not linguistic) experts, and quite untenable both theologically and practically. Ironically, the more translations are literal, the more likely they are to be anomalous--unnatural, awkward, and ultimately inaccurate being unfaithful to the meaning intended. Anything but "perfect" translations.

Simply put, if we let the chips fall where they may (as we should) when we read the NT, it's impossible to miss the pattern by the Divine Author and the inspired human NT authors as they translate the Word of God from the OT. It's the overall meaning that's communicated, not the word forms in the source language.

Nor does the NT dismiss their non-literal translation as a mere "paraphrase" or "perversion" but affirms it as "It is written," "Thus saith the LORD," inspired Scripture, no less.

And, further, all this makes a monkey out of the misnamed "Dean Burgon Society's" recent resolution in exclusive favour of the "Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text for the Old Testament"--something above that which is written, something the Holy Spirit evidently didn't resolve:

I tend to agree.

Back to the O/P with an example of what I meant by “progressive revelation”

KJV Luke 4
17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
…
21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.


LXE Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind;
2 to declare the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of recompence; to comfort all that mourn;


KJV Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;

This phrase recovering of sight to the blind in Luke 4:18 is not in the Isaiah 61 Traditional Text of the Masora (it appears in Isaiah 42) but is present in the LXX at that place. It is an added thought to the text at that place.

Was this actually in the text that Jesus read or was it added (or moved from Isaiah 42) by the inspiration of God via the human author Luke in fulfillment of (perhaps):

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared (exogeomai) him.

In any event the phrase is not found in the Traditional Hebrew Text of Isaiah 61 but in Isaiah 42.

Isaiah 42:7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.​

It is however present in the inspired text of the NT Greek and corresponds to the wording of the LXX of Isaiah 61 (which someone suggested might have been doctored to align with the NT).

Conclusion (maybe?) Until Christ (God come in the flesh) appeared we were in effect BLIND to the true nature of God (God is love) having only the OT revelation. The Spirit of God freely updating the text where He chooses.

Unless there is the unthinkable and the Masoretic text is corrupt.

Which I suppose would be a systemic scribal problem and therefore a human issue not involving the core doctrine of inspiration.

HankD

 

[jbh28]

Hi jbh28

Like I have been saying all along, it all depends upon how “you” define perfect.

Although the NKJV, resembles the KJB, it has been influenced by Wescott & Hort’s [Bible attack snipped] text.

So I am going to stick with the KJB.

Any evidence of this? Could you share any verses where this is true?

 

[HankD]

Any evidence of this? Could you share any verses where this is true?

Here is the issue:

The grammar, syntax and vocabluary of 17th century Jacobean-Elizabethan English of the AV is significantly different than 21st century Standard English.

When the MV's were first translated (From W&H type texts) much/most of this issue was cleared up at publication.

The NKJV followed the same pattern from the Traditional Texts.

The similarities in changes were because of that reason and not because of any "satanic influence" or to agree with Vaticanus or Alexandrinus (W&H favorites).

Here is an example:

KJV
1 Thessalonians 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.​

NIV
1 Thessalonians 4:15 According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.​

NKJV
1 Thessalonians 4:15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep.​

Another:​

KJV Matthew 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;​

NIV Matthew 26:27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.​

NKJV
Matthew 26:27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you".​

Here is a place where the W&H choice was taken by most MV's with a real difference over the Traditional Text:​

NIV 1 Timothy 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.​

KJV 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.​

You will see that the NKJV retained the Traditional Text reading:​

NKJV 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.​

HankD​

 

[jbh28]

Here is the issue:

The grammar, syntax and vocabluary of 17th century Jacobean-Elizabethan English of the AV is significantly different than 21st century Standard English.

When the MV's were first translated (From W&H type texts) much/most of this issue was cleared up at publication.

The NKJV followed the same pattern from the Traditional Texts.

The similarities in changes were because of that reason and not because of any "satanic influence" or to agree with Vaticanus or Alexandrinus (W&H favorites).

Here is an example:

KJV
1 Thessalonians 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.​

NIV
1 Thessalonians 4:15 According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.​

NKJV
1 Thessalonians 4:15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep.​

Another:​

KJV Matthew 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;​

NIV Matthew 26:27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.​

NKJV
Matthew 26:27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you".​

Here is a place where the W&H choice was taken by most MV's with a real difference over the Traditional Text:​

NIV 1 Timothy 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.​

KJV 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.​

You will see that the NKJV retained the Traditional Text reading:​

NKJV 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.​

HankD​

The NKJV kept the traditional text in all your examples. the first 2 are translational differences, not textual. Stilllearing saying that perfect is based on what text it is from, so that is why I was asking about the NKJV which uses the TR.

 

[Winman]

The NKJV kept the traditional text in all your examples. the first 2 are translational differences, not textual. Stilllearing saying that perfect is based on what text it is from, so that is why I was asking about the NKJV which uses the TR.

The NKJV is not solely based on the Received Text, it is a hybrid mix of Received Text and Critical Text.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The NKJV is not solely based on the Received Text, it is a hybrid mix of Received Text and Critical Text.

This is simply not true. If it is, where does it choose the Critical Text?

 

[HankD]

The NKJV is not solely based on the Received Text, it is a hybrid mix of Received Text and Critical Text.

Where is the critical text used in the NKJV?

HankD

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Where is the critical text used in the NKJV?

HankD

I have asked this question over and over and the only answer is always a translational difference, not a textual.

They can't show where because there isn't a place where the NKJV is less faithful to the TR body that the KJV is.

 

[Winman]

I have asked this question over and over and the only answer is always a translational difference, not a textual.

They can't show where because there isn't a place where the NKJV is less faithful to the TR body that the KJV is.

Here is an article that shows the many places the NKJV used the Critical Text and abandoned the Received Text.

http://www.eaec.org/bibleversions/nkjv_2.htm

And here are two examples of a textual change that you mentioned.

Isaiah 11:3-the entire phrase, "And shall make Him of quick understanding" in the KJV is eliminated in the NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV.

Isaiah 66:5-the wonderful phrase, "But He shall appear to your joy" in the KJV disappears without explanation from NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Here is an article that shows the many places the NKJV used the Critical Text and abandoned the Received Text.

http://www.eaec.org/bibleversions/nkjv_2.htm

And here are two examples of a textual change that you mentioned.

Old Testsment my friend. The CT is Greek New Testament.

And the rest of those 'changes' are translational choices, not textual choices.

 

[Winman]

Here is another article showing even more differences between the KJB and the NKJV:

The Preface to the New King James Version (NKJV) reads, "A special feature of the New King James Version is ITS CONFORMITY to the thought flow of the 1611 Bible. . . the new edition, while much clearer ARE SO CLOSE to the traditional. . ."

Among the first changes that greets the reader of the NKJV is the removal of the much maligned "thee, thou and ye". The Preface to the NKJV states, ". . .thee, thou, and ye are replaced by the simple you,. . .These pronouns are no longer part of our language." But "thee, thou and ye" were "NO LONGER part of the language" during 1611 either. (just read the intro to the 1611 King James, there are no "thee", "thou" and "ye"). In fact, Webster's Third New International Dictionary, says of ye: "used from the earliest of times to the late 13th century. . ." (p.2648) And yet the 1611 King James was published 400 years later in the 17th century!



So why are they there?

The Greek and Hebrew language contain a different word for the second person singular and the second person plural pronouns. Today we use the one-word "you" for both the singular and plural. But because the translators of the 1611 King James Bible desired an accurate, word-for-word translation of the Hebrew and Greek text - they could NOT use the one-word "you" throughout! If it begins with "t" (thou, thy, thine) it's SINGULAR, but if it begins with "y" (ye) it's PLURAL. Ads for the NKJV call it "the Accurate One", and yet the 1611 King James, by using "thee", "thou", "ye", is far more accurate!

By the way, if the "thee's" and "thou's" are ". . .no longer part of our language" - why aren't the NKJV translators rushing to make our hymnbooks "much clearer"? "How Great Thou Art" to "How Great You Are", or "Come Thou Fount" to "Come You Fount" Doesn't sound right, does it? Isn't it amazing that they wouldn't dare "correct" our hymns - and yet, without the slightest hesitation, they'll "correct" the word of God!

The NKJV claims to make the "old" KJV "much clearer" by "updating obsolete words" (New King James Version, 1982e. p. 1235)

How about that "obsolete word" - "hell". The NKJV removes the word "hell" 23 times! And how do they make it "much clearer"? By replacing "hell" with "Hades" and "Sheol"! Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines Hades: "the underground abode of the dead in Greek MYTHOLOGY". By making it "much clearer" - they turn your Bible into MYTHOLOGY! Not only that, Hades is not always a place of torment or terror! The Assyrian Hades is an abode of blessedness with silver skies called "Happy Fields". In the satanic New Age Movement, Hades is an intermediate state of purification!

Who in their right mind would think "Hades" or "Sheol" is "up-to-date" and "much clearer" than "hell"?

Matthew 16:18
KJV: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
NKJV: "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."
Luke 16:23
KJV: "And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom."
NKJV: "And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom."
Hell is removed in 2 Sam. 22:6, Job 11:8, 26:6, Psalm 16:10, 18:5, 86:13, 116:3, Isaiah 5:14, 14:15, 28:15,18, 57:9, Jonah 2:2, Matt. 11:23, 16:18, Luke 10:15, 16:23, Acts 2:27, 31, Rev. 1:18, 6:8, 20:13,14.

Then the NKJV decides that maybe "Hades" should be "grave"! So the NKJV makes 1 Corinthians 15:55 "much clearer" by changing "grave" to "Hades"! ". . . O Hades, where is your victory?" Clear as mud. . .

Another one of those "obsolete words" is "repent". They take it out 44 times! And how does the NKJV make it "much clearer"? In Matthew 21:32 they use "relent". Matthew 27:3 it's "remorseful" Or Romans 11:29 they change "repentance" to "irrevocable".

The term "new testament" is NOT in the NKJV! (see Matt. 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20, 1 Cor. 11:25, 2 Cor. 3:6, Heb. 9:15,) The NKJV replaces "new testament" with "new covenant" (ditto NIV, NRSV, RSV, NASV). An obvious assault at the written word!

The word "damned", "damnation" is NOT in the NKJV! They make it "much clearer" by replacing it with "condemn" (ditto NIV, RSV, NRSV, NASV). "Condemned" is NO WHERE NEAR AS SERIOUS as "damned"! Damned is eternal! One can be "condemned" and not "damned". Romans 14:22 says, ". . . Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth." Webster defines "condemned": to declare to be wrong, but the much more serious and eternal "damn": "to condemn to hell".

The word "devils" (the singular, person called the "devil" is) is NOT in the NKJV! Replaced with the "transliterated" Greek word "demon" (ditto NIV, RSV, NRSV, NASV). The Theosophical Dictionary describes demon as: ". . . it has a meaning identical with that of 'god', 'angel' or 'genius'". Even Vines Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words (p.157) defines "demon" as: "an inferior deity, WHETHER GOOD OR BAD". Webster defines "demon" as: "divinity, spirit, an attendant power or spirit", but "devil" as: "the personal supreme spirit of EVIL. . ."

In 2 Timothy 2:15, the NKJV (like the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV) remove that "obsolete" word - "study"! The only time you're told to "study" your Bible. AND THEY ZAP IT! Why don't they want you to "study" your Bible? Maybe they don't want you to look too close - you might find out what they've ACTUALLY done to your Bible! The "real" KJV is the only English Bible in the world that instructs you to "study" your Bible!

That "obsolete" word "virtue" is replaced with "power" in Mark 5:30, Luke 6:19, 8:46! How does anybody confuse "virtue" with "power"? Simple - by being "bosom-buddies" with the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV! That's what they did!

One of the most absurd changes ever made is changing the word "servant" to "slave"! The NKJV in Romans 6:22, reads: "But now having been set FREE from sin, and having become SLAVES OF GOD. . ." The NKJV, in 1 Corinthians 7:22, calls the Christian, "Christ's slave". Talk about a contradiction! John 8:36 says, "If the Son therefore shall make you FREE, YE SHALL BE FREE INDEED." But isn't a Christian supposed to serve? Yes, in love. Not as a slave! Galatians 5:13 explains it, perfectly: "For, brethren, ye have been called unto LIBERTY;(not slavery!) only use not LIBERTY for an occasion to the flesh, but BY LOVE SERVE one another."

In order to "harmonize" with the satanic New Age Movement (and of course the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV!), the NKJV changes "end of the WORLD" to "end of the AGE"! And in it's no longer the "WORLD to come" but "AGE to come". The New Age Movement teaches a series of ages (hence the name: New AGE). See Matthew 12:32, 13:39, 13:40, 13:49, 24:3, 28:20, Mark 10:30, Luke 13:30, 20:34,35, 1 Cor 1:21.

The New Age Movement and the occult are longing for one called the Maitreya. The Bible calls him the Anti-Christ. New Ager's refer to him as the "the Coming One" - AND SO DOES THE NKJV! In Luke 7:19, 20 (see also Matt 11:3) John told his disciples to ask Jesus: "Are You THE COMING ONE. . ." In the "The Great Invocation", a "prayer" highly reverenced among New Agers and chanted to "invoke" the Maitreya, says, "Let Light and Love and Power and Death, Fulfil the purpose of the Coming One."

And to REALLY show their sympathy with the satanic New Age Movement - BELIEVE IT OR NOT - in Acts 17:29 the New Age NKJV changes "Godhead" to "Divine Nature"! ( ditto NIV, NASV)

And if you think the NKJV just "innocently" updated the "obsolete words", removed the "thee's and thou's" - here's what the translators proudly admit: "IT IS CLEAR that this revision REQUIRED more than the dropping of "-eth" endings, removing, "thee's" and "thou's," and updating obsolete words." (The New King James Version, 1982e. p. 1235)

Continued in next post...

 

[Winman]

Continued from previous post:

AND THEY AIN'T JUST A KIDDIN'!


Here's a sampling of the required changes:


Genesis 2:18: The NKJV ought to make Hillary Clinton proud: "And the Lord God said, It is not good that man should be alone; I will make a helper COMPARABLE TO HIM"

Genesis 22:8: One of the greatest verses in the Bible proclaiming that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh: "God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering:" The NKJV adds that little word "for": "God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering" And destroys the wonderful promise! Where'd they get their little "for"? From the NASV!

Genesis 24:47: The "old" KJV reads: "I put the earring upon her face". But the NKJV has different plans for beautiful Rebekah: "I put the nose ring on her nose". Where did it get the ridiculous idea to "cannibalize" Rebekah? Just take a peek at the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV!

Ezra 8:36: The KJV reads, "And they delivered the king's commissions unto the king's lieutenants. . ." The "much clearer" NKJV reads, "And they delivered the king's orders to the king's satraps. . ." Who in the world thinks "satraps" is "much clearer" than lieutenants? The NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV - they do! They put in the same "much clearer" word!

Psalms 109:6: removes "Satan". (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV).

Matthew 7:14: change "narrow is the way" to "difficult is the way". There's nothing "difficult" about the salvation of Jesus Christ! Jesus says in Matt. 11:30, "For my yoke is EASY, and my burden is light." THE EXACT OPPOSITE! Boy, you talk about a contradiction!

Matthew 12:40: change "whale" to "fish" (ditto NIV) I don't guess it matters (what's the truth got to do with it?), the Greek word used in Matthew 12:40 is ketos. The scientific study of whales just happens to be - CETOLOGY - from the Greek ketos for whale and logos for study! The scientific name for whales just happens to be - CETACEANS - from the Greek ketos for whale!

Matthew 18:26 & Matthew 20:20: The NKJV removes "worshipped him" (robbing worship from Jesus) (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

Mark 13:6 & Luke 21:8: removes "Christ" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

John 1:3: change "All things were made BY him;" to "All things were made THROUGH Him" (NIV, NRSV, RSV)

John 4:24: change "God is a spirit" to the impersonal, New Age pantheistic,"God is spirit" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

John 14:2: (NKJV 1979 edition) change "mansions" to "dwelling places" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

John 14:16: change "comforter" to "helper"(refers to Holy Spirit) (NASV)

Acts 4:27, 30: change "holy child" to "holy servant" (refers to Jesus) (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

Acts 12:4: change "Easter" to "Passover" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

Acts 17:22: changes "superstitious" to "religious" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

Acts 24:14: change "heresy" to "sect" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

Romans 1:18: change "hold the truth" to "suppress the truth" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

Romans 1:25: change "changed the truth" to "exchanged the truth" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

Romans 5:8: change "commendeth" to "demonstrates" (NIV, NASV)

Romans 16:18: change "good words and fair speeches" to "smooth words and flattering speech" (NIV, NASV, NRSV)

1 Cor. 1:21: change "foolishness of preaching" to "foolishness of the message preached" (ditto NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV) There's nothing foolish about the gospel of Jesus Christ. Unless you're not saved! 1 Cor. 1:18 says: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish FOOLISHNESS. . ." I wonder where that leaves the translators of the NKJV, NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV?

1 Cor. 1:22: change "require" to "request" (NASV)

1 Cor. 6:9: removes "effeminate" (NIV, NRSV, RSV)

1 Cor. 9:27: change "castaway" to "disqualified" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

2 Cor. 2:10: change "person of Christ" to "presence of Christ" (NASV, NRSV, RSV)

2 Cor. 2:17: With all the "corruptions" in the NKJV, you'd expect 2 Cor. 2:17 to change. IT DOES! They change, "For we not as many which CORRUPT the word of God" to "For we are not, as so many, PEDDLING the word of God" (ditto NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

2 Cor. 5:17: change "new creature" to "new creation" (NIV, NRSV, RSV)

2 Cor. 10:5: change "imaginations" to "arguments". Considering New Age "imaging" and "visualization" is now entering the church, this verse in the "old" KJV just won't do. (NIV, RSV)

2 Cor. 11:6: change "rude in speech" to "untrained in speech" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

Gal. 2:20: omit "nevertheless I live" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

Phil. 2:6: (NKJV 1979e.) change "thought it not robbery to be equal with God" to "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped". (robs Jesus Christ of deity) (NIV, NASV, RSV)

Phil. 3:8: change "dung" to "rubbish" (NIV, NASV, NRSV)

1 Thess. 5:22 change "all appearance of evil" to "every form of evil" (NASV, RSV, NSRV)

1 Timothy 6:5: The NKJV changes "gain is godliness" to "godliness is a MEANS OF gain". There are NO Greek texts with "means of" in them! Where, oh where, did they come from? Care to take a wild guess? YOU GOT IT! The NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV!

1 Timothy 6:10: The NKJV changes "For the love of money is the root of all evil:" to "For the love of money is a root of all KINDS OF evil". The words "KINDS OF" are found in NO Greek text in the world! Where did they get them? Straight from the NIV, NASV, NRSV!

1 Tim. 6:20: change "science" to "knowledge" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

Titus 3:10: change "heretic" to "divisive man" (NIV)

Hebrews 4:8 & Acts 7:45: "Jesus" is changed to "Joshua". (NIV, NASV, RSV)

2 Pet. 2:1: change "damnable heresies" to "destructive heresies" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

1 John 3:16: remove "love of God"; (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

1 John 5:13: The NKJV reads: "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may CONTINUE TO believe in the name of the Son of God." They add "CONTINUE TO" without any Greek text whatsoever! Not even the [Bible attack deleted] NIV, NASV, NRSV and RSV go that far! A cruel, subtil (see Genesis 3:1) attack on the believer's eternal security!

Rev. 2:13: change "Satan's seat" to "Satan's throne" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

Rev. 6:14: "Heaven" is changed to "sky" in (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)


AND THAT DOESN'T SCRATCH THE SURFACE OF ALL THE CHANGES!

The NKJV removes the word "Lord" 66 times!

The NKJV removes the word God 51 times!

The NKJV removes the word "heaven" 50 times!

In just the New Testament alone the NKJV removes 2.289 words from the KJV!

The NKJV makes over 100,000 word changes!

And most will match the NIV, NASV, RSV, or RSV!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Here is an article that shows the many places the NKJV used the Critical Text and abandoned the Received Text.

http://www.eaec.org/bibleversions/nkjv_2.htm

And here are two examples of a textual change that you mentioned.

Here is Isaiah 66v5 in the KJV and the NKJV

5 Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed. (KJV)

5. Hear the word of the LORD, You who tremble at His word: "Your brethren who hated you, Who cast you out for My name's sake, said, 'Let the LORD be glorified, That we may see your joy.' But they shall be ashamed." (NKJV)

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Continued from previous post:

Why won't you show us where the NKJV deviated from the TR body? All you are doing is showing us translational differences.

All of your OT differences are meaningless here, we are talking about differences in the Greek text, not Hebrew.

 

[Winman]

Why won't you show us where the NKJV deviated from the TR body? All you are doing is showing us translational differences.

All of your OT differences are meaningless here, we are talking about differences in the Greek text, not Hebrew.

There are several examples shown in the article I posted such as 1 Timothy 6:5 and 6:10, where a phrase not shown in any Greek text is included in the NKJV, which is also shown in many of the MVs.

It is obvious that you don't want to accept that the NKJV is heavily influenced by the Critical text. So it really doesn't matter what I show you.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

There are several examples shown in the article I posted such as 1 Timothy 6:5 and 6:10, where a phrase not shown in any Greek text is included in the NKJV, which is also shown in many of the MVs.

It is obvious that you don't want to accept that the NKJV is heavily influenced by the Critical text. So it really doesn't matter what I show you.

Why would I want to accept something that is not true?

Your statement was the the NKJV is a hybrid of the two text bodies. All I asked was for you to prove it with one instance where the NKJV chose the critical texts over the traditional.

You responded with a bunch of OT quotes, one which I pointed out above was a total lie, and translational differences. I take it that you know Greek well enough to be able to prove your assertions?

You could settle the matter by showing us where the NKJV chooses the critical text over the traditional where the KJV did not do the same.