Perfect Translation

[Winman]

I will have to get back to you, time to go to work.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I will have to get back to you, time to go to work.

Have a good day at work. I look forward to your reply. I have been asking this question for years and can't seem to get an answer.

 

[jbh28]

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.

Hey Winman, I look forward too with C4K on some examples. I would accept it if you showed where the NKJV ever used the Critical text over the TR.

What I usually find are examples of translational differences. All the examples you gave earlier were translational differences, not textual.

 

[HankD]

Winman, we all appreciate the fact that you are adamant about your position but you don't back it up by giving us any critical apparatus differences between the TR and the CT because and in fact there are none between the KJV and NKJV because they are both based upon the Traditional Text as opposed to a text that is modeled after the W&H type texts which almost always choose either the Alexandrinus or the Vaticanus Manuscripts where there is a clear difference in the textual content.

Go back to my original answer to your challenge and please read it very carefully.

1 Timothy 3:16 is an example of a clear cut case of a textual difference between the W&H type text and the Traditional Text.

Maybe if I shout it you can hear it...

THE NKJV ALWAYS AGREES WITH THE TRADITIONAL TEXT vs THE CRITICAL TEXT.

Including 1 John 5:7 - Here it is from the NKJV

NKJV 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.​

This is one of the best litmus tests as to whether a Bible is using the Traditional Text, that it includes 1 John 5:7.​

HankD​

 

[jbh28]

There are a few places that I have found where there is a textual difference between the KJV and the NKJV.

Romans 7:6

Romans 7:6
1884 TR :αποθανοντος
NA/UBS/some TR/MT αποθανοντες

A Minor difference. However, from my research, this is also a variant in the TR. The NKJV does deviate from the 1884 TR on this verse using the majority reading of αποθανοντες.

Difference is "that being dead" (KJV) vs "having died."

Stephanos-1550 has αποθανοντες

http://bibledatabase.net/html/stephanos_1550/45_007.htm

So really, the NKJV doesn't deviate from the TR because this is a variant even with the TR. BOTH readings are in the TR.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The KJV itself is not a strict TR translation. It, like the NKJV, does on occasion choose a Majority Text rendering.

Neither choose a Critical Text rendering.

The charge that the NKJV is a TR/CT hybrid is simply false.

I will recant that statement when I am shown a place where the NKJV choose a CT rendering over a TR/MT rendering.

 

[HankD]

There are a few places that I have found where there is a textual difference between the KJV and the NKJV.

Romans 7:6

Romans 7:6
1884 TR :αποθανοντος
NA/UBS/some TR/MT αποθανοντες

A Minor difference. However, from my research, this is also a variant in the TR. The NKJV does deviate from the 1884 TR on this verse using the majority reading of αποθανοντες.

Difference is "that being dead" (KJV) vs "having died."

Stephanos-1550 has αποθανοντες

http://bibledatabase.net/html/stephanos_1550/45_007.htm

So really, the NKJV doesn't deviate from the TR because this is a variant even with the TR. BOTH readings are in the TR.

That is because the "Traditional Text" is a NT Text that is one of or a composite of the texts of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza or the Elzevirs (and most recently Scrivener) and yes they have several minor variants among them, some of which do effect the tense, number or gender of the verbs and nouns.

The KJV follows none of them exclusively but is a composite of these Traditional type Texts.

As opposed to the MVs which model themselves (to one degree or another) after the W&H text based on their (W&H) theory of oldest reading is best, shortest reading is best, most difficult reading is best derived amost exclusively from a small handful of ancient Alexandrian manuscripts, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus their favorites.

HankD

 

[stilllearning]

I would like to offer my sincere apologies to everyone here, for not responding in a more timely manner.

I have grown to depend upon my email notification, to let me know when someone makes a new post, to threads that I am watching, and somehow my email messed up.
--------------------------------------------------
To C4K and others, who have asked for proof that the NKJV has been influence by the critical texts, that will be hard to find.
Because of the nature of “influence” itself.

“influence” (A power affecting a person, thing, or course of events.)

In the late 1970's when the publisher is putting this new Bible together, it is hard to say what really guided(influenced), the changes he made in it.

I grabbed my NKJV, and started reading and was reminded, why I had left it for the KJB back in 1982.

My wife had giving me a NKJV for my birthday and I started using it, but while making a visit and needing help in quoting verse of Scripture, I found that the NKJV was just too different.

That was the end of my use of the NKJV.

Here are just some of the changes that I have found..........
“Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, [Ye] men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.” (Acts 17:22 AV)
“Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious;” (Acts 17:22 NKJV)

“Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” (Matthew 7:14 AV)
“"Because narrow [is] the gate and difficult [is] the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.” (Matthew 7:14 NKJV)

“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.” (Matthew 16:18 AV)
“"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.” (Matthew 16:18 NKJV)

“For the gifts and calling of God [are] without repentance.” (Romans 11:29 AV)
“For the gifts and the calling of God [are] irrevocable.” (Romans 11:29 NKJV)

“But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.” (Romans 6:22 AV)
“But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life.” (Romans 6:22 NKJV)

Now the question is, what “influenced” these changes.
It is hard to believe, that the publisher wasn’t influenced at all, by the critical text.
--------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------
Also, now that I think about this definition of the word influence........
“influence” (A power affecting a person, thing, or course of events.)

I started to think about the “power” of popular opinion.

I experience some of this “power”, here on the BB, and on 98% of every other Christian forum on the net.

What I am getting at, is the almost universal need, to satisfy today’s intellectual pomposity, when it comes to the critical text.

That is to say, if the publishers of the NKJV, had indeed ignored the critical texts, in light of all the pressure that I am sure was being exerted on them, how could they not have been "influenced" by it.

 

[jbh28]

To C4K and others, who have asked for proof that the NKJV has been influence by the critical texts, that will be hard to find.
Because of the nature of “influence” itself.

“influence” (A power affecting a person, thing, or course of events.)

It's hard to find because it is non-existent.

In the late 1970's when the publisher is putting this new Bible together, it is hard to say what really guided(influenced), the changes he made in it.

What do you mean by changes? He is make a new translation, there is nothing to change.

Here are just some of the changes[differences, fixed if for you] that I have found..........
“Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, [Ye] men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.” (Acts 17:22 AV)
“Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious;” (Acts 17:22 NKJV)

A translational difference. Has nothing to do with the critical text. All manuscripts have deisidaimonesteros in the Greek text. It is not a variant. Saying the very same thing

“Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” (Matthew 7:14 AV)
“"Because narrow [is] the gate and difficult [is] the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.” (Matthew 7:14 NKJV)

Translational difference, not textual

strait/narrow is from the Greek word stenos
narrow/difficult is from the Greek word thlibō

It is teaching the same thing. The only problem is when kjv only advocates take the passage out of context to show a problem. If you look, it is teaching the very same thing. This one always makes me laugh when I see it.

“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.” (Matthew 16:18 AV)
“"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.” (Matthew 16:18 NKJV)

hades is the greek word that the KJV translates as hell. The NKJV is showing a difference between "hades" and "Geenna"' which is the place of eternal torment.

This makes me laugh too when people poke fun at the word God used in the passage(the Greek word hades)

“For the gifts and calling of God [are] without repentance.” (Romans 11:29 AV)
“For the gifts and the calling of God [are] irrevocable.” (Romans 11:29 NKJV)

Again, teaching the exact same thing. Not a textual variant. There are no textual variants in Romans 11:29.

It is teaching that the gifts and calling of God are (without repentance|irrevocable) - same thing. This "repentance" isn't talking about without biblical repentance to salvation. Repentance can mean to change ones mind about anything. Typically now, we refer only to something negative, but in 1611, that wasn't so.

“But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.” (Romans 6:22 AV)
“But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life.” (Romans 6:22 NKJV)

No textual variant and the verses are teaching the same thing. - again
Servant and slave is a translation of the term douloō

Now the question is, what “influenced” these changes.
It is hard to believe, that the publisher wasn’t influenced at all, by the critical text.

How would the critical text "influence" the NKJV when NONE of the passages you showed had a textual variant but the SAME WORD as the TR?

--------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------
Also, now that I think about this definition of the word influence........
“influence” (A power affecting a person, thing, or course of events.)

I started to think about the “power” of popular opinion.

I experience some of this “power”, here on the BB, and on 98% of every other Christian forum on the net.

What I am getting at, is the almost universal need, to satisfy today’s intellectual pomposity, when it comes to the critical text.

That is to say, if the publishers of the NKJV, had indeed ignored the critical texts, in light of all the pressure that I am sure was being exerted on them, how could they not have been "influenced" by it.

If it is the same, how could it be an influence over the TR?

Note that ALL the examples have no variant reading and all were teaching the VERY SAME THING.

Have a nice day, hope this helps.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I
In the late 1970's when the publisher is putting this new Bible together, it is hard to say what really guided(influenced), the changes he made in it.


Now the question is, what “influenced” these changes.
It is hard to believe, that the publisher wasn’t influenced at all, by the critical text.


That is to say, if the publishers of the NKJV, had indeed ignored the critical texts, in light of all the pressure that I am sure was being exerted on them, how could they not have been "influenced" by it.

First of all this is not a 'new Bible.' It was a new translation of the Bible.

All of this is simply your opinion. That is obvious from these quotes. You don't have any facts to support your contention.

I

 

[Winman]

Ok, I will attempt to show that the NKJV was influenced by the Critical Text. I am at a little disadvantage, not knowing Greek, so I have to rely on those who do.

Chick publications says that the NKJV was NOT based on the same texts as the KJB. Whether this is absolutely true or not, I cannot prove. But here is an article on the matter.

A Mixture of Perversion

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

The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, or BHS. This is not the preserved Hebrew Old Testament. This one is approved by the Vatican (Roman Catholic institution) 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 Asher text"). 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 seen elsewhere, the so-called "Septuagint" is a fable. It is actually a post-Christian Greek Old Testament. But there are many Septuagints, since each Alexandrian Old Testament is different from every other. Know what they are? Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus. These are the same codices (big books) where the modern perverted New Testaments come from!


The Latin Vulgate. This is not the preserved Vaudois Christian, Old Latin Vulgate. The NKJV "scholars" consulted the perverted, 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 Soden. Less than 8% of the over 5,000 Greek manuscripts were compared to each other by von Soden!

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.

 

[Winman]

Here is another article that shows examples where the NKJV departed from the texts used in the KJB.

Matthew 18:35 ³if ye from your hearts forgive not everyone his brother THEIR trespasses². Majority and C have ³their trespasses², but the Sinaticus & Vaticanus omit, so not in the nasb or niv. However the nkjv says: ³HIS trespasses². ³his² is not found in any manuscript. ³Their² trespasses is found in other Bibles which are based on the Textus Receptus of the KJB, as Tyndale, Geneva and Young¹s translation.

Matthew 22:10 ³THE WEDDING was furnished with guests². The ³wedding² is Œo gamos, and is found in the majority, D, B(2) Tyndale and Geneva, but Sinaticus says Œo numphon, the ³wedding hall² (or bridechamber- KJB). The nkjv follows the nasb/niv with ³wedding hall².

Matthew 24:40 ³THE one shall be taken, and the other left², there is a definite article before ³the one² which is in the majority and TR but is omitted in N (Sinaticus) and B (Vaticanus) and the njkv also omits it.

Matthew 26:45 is a statement in the majority, even in the original Wescott/Hort text, the ASV, Revised Version, Tyndale, Geneva and Douay. But the UBS (United Bible Society) has changed this to a question, and now the nkjv follows the nasb/niv in making it a question. The KJB reads: ³Sleep on now and take your rest² while the nkjv has: ³Are you still sleeping and resting?².

Mark 9:25 presents an oddity that defies explanation. All the texts describe the spirt that piano helped a father¹s son from his youth as ³Thou DUMB and DEAF spirit, I charge thee come out of him.² ³to alalon kai kophon² Even the RV, ASV, RSV and Nrsv besides Tyndale, Geneva read as does the KJB, ³dumb and deaf² spirit. But the nkjv, niv and nas have reversed these two words and say: ³you DEAF and DUMB spirit². This is not even following their own UBS texts.

Luke 1:35 ³that holy thing which shall be born OF THEE (ek sou) shall be called the Son of God.² ³Of thee² is found in the TR of th KJB, C, Theta, f1, many cursives, the Old Latin, Lamsa¹s 1933 translation from the Syriac Peshitta, the Geneva Bible and the Italian Diodati, which precedes the KJB. It is so quoted by many church fathers, as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Origen, Agustine and others. Yet the nkjv, niv and nas omit these two little words from their translations.

Luke 5:7 ³they beckoned unto their partners WHICH (tois) were in the other ship. Tois (which) is found in the majority, A.C. and TR, but is omitted in N & B, and the nkjv also omits this word as do the nasb/niv.

Luke 6:4 ³It is not lawful to eat but for the priests ALONE (monous). ³ALONE² is found in all texts, and is in the nasb too, but the nkjv unites with the niv in omitting this word. The nkjv reads: ³it is not lawful for any but the priests.²

Luke 6:9 ³Is it lawful on the Sabbath DAYS to do good or to do evil?². Here the majority, A and TR have ³days² plural, but N & B have the singular. The nkjv follows nasb/niv and says: ³on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil?²

Luke 12:49 is a question in the Textus Receptus of the KJB, and also a question in the R.V, and ASV, Tyndale, Geneva and even the Douay. However, the UBS has once again changed and the nasb, niv and nkjv unite in making it an exclamation. The KJB says:² I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?² But the nkjv says: ³and how I wish it were already kindled!²

John 10:6 ³This parable spake Jesus UNTO THEM², autois - to them, is in all texts and even in the nasb, but the nkjv unites with the niv in omitting it and says: ³Jesus used this illustration².

John 18:20 ³I always taught in THE SYNAGOGUE². The TR has en TE sunagogee, singular, but the other texts omit the definite article, and the nkjv says ³I always taught in synagogueS², along with the nasb/niv.

John 18:24. Here the nkjv, niv, nas create a contradiction, not because of the text but by the way they have translated it. The KJB, as well as the Spanish, Diodati, Webster¹s, 21st Century KJB and Geneva Bible, have correctly translated the phrase as: ³ Now Annas HAD SENT him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.² The fact that Annas had already sent Jesus to Caiaphas can be seen from verses 13 and 19 of this same chapter, as well as from Mat.26:57, Mark 14:55 and Luke 22:54. The nkjv,nas and niv blunder here in saying: ³THEN Annas SENT Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.²

Acts 10:7 ³And when the angel which spake UNTO CORNELIUS (tw kornelio) was departed, HE called two of his household servants...² This is the reading of the majority and TR, but N & B omit ³unto Cornelius² and have ³to him² (auto). The nkjv follows N & B and makes up its own text by saying: ³when the angel who spoke TO HIM had departed, CORNELIUS called two of his household servants². Here the nkjv tries to combine all of the divergent texts into one, and ends up creating a whole new reading not found in any single manuscript.

Acts 15:23 ³And they wrote letters by them AFTER THIS MANNER² After this manner is found in the majority, C,D,TR, Tyndale and Geneva, and even the Revised Version, but the nkjv unites with the nasb/niv, N & B and omits these words.

Acts 17:14 ³the brethren sent away Paul to go AS IS WERE (ws) to the sea.² is the reading of the majority and TR, Tyndale and Geneva. But the N & B have ³TO the sea² (ews). And the nkjv unites with the nasb/niv in reading so, thus departing from the KJB text.

Acts 18:6 ³And when they opposed THEMSELVES (autwn) and blasphemed...² That is, they put themselves in the way, to block the preaching of Paul. All the texts here are the same and even the ASV reads as does the KJB, but the nasb omits ³themselves², the nkjv says ³they opposed HIM² which in not in any text, and the niv says ³the blips opposed PAUL², again, neither blips nor Paul is in any text.

Acts 19:9 ³disputing daily in the school OF ONE (tinos) Tyrannus. This little word, tinos, is found in the majority and TR. but not in N or B. The nkjv unites with the nasb/niv and omits it.

Acts 19:39 ³but if ye enquire any thing CONCERNING OTHER MATTERS, (peri Œeteron) it shall be determined in a lowful assembly.² This is the reading of the majority, A,D and even Sinaticus and the Geneva Bible as well as the ASV, but it is not found in B. The nkjv omits this phrase and says: ³But if you have any other inquiry to make, it shall be determined in the lawful assembly.²

Acts 21:23 ³We have four men which have a vow ON THEM² On them is Eph Œeauton. This is found in all texts, and in the ASV, but the nkjv unites with the niv and nasb to omit them. The nkjv reads ³We have four men who have taken a vow.²

Acts 25:17 ³When they were come HITHER...² (enthade) This is in all texts, even in the nasb and niv, but the nkjv alone has omitted it. The nkjv says: ³When they had come together..²

Acts 27:14 ³But not long after there arose AGAINST IT (kat¹ autns) a tempestuous wind.² All texts read ³against it², referring to the island of Crete. But the nkjv omits this phrase and says: ³ a tempestuous head wind arose², the nasb paraphrases as ³from the land² and the niv as ³swept down from the island².

This article continued in next post.

 

[Winman]

Article continued from previous post.

Romans 7:6 ³But now we are delivered from the law, THAT BEING DEAD, wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.² This refers to the contextual analogy of the husband having died, and the wife can be married to another. The law died and was put to death by Christ who blotted out the ³handwriting of ordinances that was against us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.² Col.2:14. Here the TR of the KJB reads ³apothanontOS² masculine singular. The law died. This is the reading of Green¹s interlinear,the 21st Century KJB, Websters Bible of 1833, the Geneva Bible, the Modern Greek translation, Youngs translation, the Diodati, which preceded the KJB, and the Latin of Calvin. So it is a very ancient reading. The other Greek texts have a different reading. They say ³we died² apothanontES, which is masculine plural. The truth that we died is also taught in other passages, but not in this one. The nkjv joins the nasb and niv in saying: ³ We have been delivered from the law, HAVING DIED to what we were held by...²

I Corinthians 6:4 is a statement or a command in the KJB, the Majority, the TR. Tyndale, Geneva and even the Douay. But the Wescott/Hort text has this verse as a question, and the nkjv follows the nasb and Westcott Hort. The KJB says: ³If then ye have judgements of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.² In other words, the Christians were already guilty of judging others in their own congregation, as the context shows, so, he says, set the lowliest of the saints to judge these matters. Paul is using irony. But the nkjv and nas say:²do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge?² While the niv has ³appoint as judges even men of little account in the church!². An exclamation in the niv. Well, they say variety is the spice of life.

II Cor. 3:14 ³for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; WHICH vail is done away in Christ.² The reading ³which² (literally that which- 2 words- Œo ti) is found in the TR of Green, Berry, and Trinitarian Bible Society. It is the reading of Tyndale, Geneva, Darby, Young, Spanish, the Revised Version and even Douay. But the other Greek texts and Westcott & Hort have produced the reading found in he nkjv, nas & niv. The nkjv says: ³the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, BECAUSE the veil is taken away in Christ.² This is a little change from Œo ti (2 words) to Œoti (one word) and the nkjv follows the Westcott and Hort text here and not the TR.

II Corinthians 4:14 ³Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jrsus shall raise up us also BY (dia) Jesus, and shall present us with you.² The word ³by² is in the majority, and N correction, but B says sun or ³with² instead of ³by². The nkjv reads ³will also raise us up WITH Jesus, and will present us with you.² Is Jesus going to be raised up again? Or is Jesus the person by whom we shall be raised? Here the nkjv clearly does not follow the TR reading.

Philippians 2:9 ³God also hath highly exalted him, and given him A name which is above every name². There is no definite article here in the majority or TR, but the Wescott-Hort text adds it. Bibles that read as the KJB with ³a name² are Geneva,Tyndale, Young, Darby etc., while those that follow N & B and the nkjv have ³given him THE name². I mention this only to point out that the nkjv does not always follow the Greek text of the KJB, but frequently follows the Wescott Hort text.

While here in Phillipians, notice that the nkjv is not the same from year to year. In just the first 10 chapters of Matthew, the changes from the 1979 nkjv, to the 1982 nkjv would fill up an entire page. In Phil.2:6 the 1979 nkjv said Christ ³did not consider equality with God something to be grasped² but in 1982 they changed it back to ³did not consider it robbery to be equal with God.² In Galations 4:24 the 1979 nkjv said ³which things are an allegory² while the 1982 says ³which things are symbolic², and in blips 12:13 the 1979 said ³so that what is lame not be turned from the way, but rather be healed² but the 1982 edition says: ³so that what is lame may not be dislocated, but rather be healed². The 1982 Nkjv has this word in italics, as though it is not in the text. But it is in the Greek and the KJB is correct and the nkjv is worse than it was before in 1979.

blips 3:16 ³For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.² The Textus Receptus of the KJB is clearly a statement here. With the KJB are Tyndale, Geneva, Webster¹s Bible, the 21st Century KJB, the Italian Diodati, the Spanish of 1602 and 1909, the Third Millenium Bible, Youngs translation and even the Catholic Douay of 1950. However, the nkjv follows the W/H text and reads as do the nasb and niv. The nkjv says:² For who, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, was it not all who came out of Egypt, led by Moses?² This is very wrong. Not all who came out of Egypt rebelled. Caleb and Joshua did not rebel, but believed God and entered the promised land. This is the whole point of the passage. We are exhorted to believe God and enter into His rest, just as Caleb and Joshua did. The nkjv not only does not follow the Greek text of the KJB here, but creates a contradiction as well.

blips 13:6. ³So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, AND I will not fear what man shall do unto me.² Here the little word ³and² kai is in the TR. majority, A and P46. But N & B omit the word ³and² and so does the nkjv. Also in the TR, and Tyndale, Geneva, Spanish and even Douay, this verse is a statement of fact. However Westcott-Hort have made it a question and so it stands in the nkjv, niv and nasb. The nkjv says: ³The Lord is my helper; I will not fear. What can man do to me?² Do you see the differences?

II Peter 2:15 ³Balaam the son on BOSOR². Bosor is the reading of the majority, P72, N correction,A, and C. It is the reading of Tyndale, Geneva, Darby, Young, Spanish and Douay. However, Vaticanus reads Beor instead of Bosor and the nkjv reads as the niv and nasb with ³Balaam the son of BEOR.²

II John 7 ³for many deceivers ARE ENTERED into the world² Here, the majority, other uncials, and the TR of the KJB read EISnlthon - ³entered², while N, B and A read EXnlthon, ³went out². One word means to enter into, and the other means to go out. The nkjv again departs from the KJB text and follows Wescott and Hort with its ³many deceivers have GONE OUT into the world.². Remember, the devil is in the details.

Jude 3 ³I gave all diligence to write unto you of THE common faith². The TR and majority have THE common faith, but N & B say OUR common faith, and so does the nkjv, agreeing with the niv, nasb.

Jude 19 ³These be they who separate THEMSELVES, sensual, having not the Spirit.² The TR, and C read apodiorizontes ŒEAUTOUS. The Wescott Hort text does not have ³themselves². Separate themselves is found in Geneva, Latin Vulgate, Darby, Young, 21st Cent. KJB, Webster¹s Bible and Douay. The nkjv says: ²These are sensual persons, WHO CAUSE DIVISIONS, not having the Spirit² , thus reading as the nasb. The niv says ³these are men who divide YOU². The ³you² is not found in any text, and the whole meaning is changed. In the KJB they separate themselves from the others as a special class with superior knowledge, while the niv says they divide you, the Christians. Not the same meaning.

Revelation 6:11 ³And white ROBES WERE given unto every one of them². Here the TR reads plural ³white robes were given². Both the noun and verb are plural. The W/H text reads singular ³ A WHITE ROBE WAS given². The nkjv again joins the nasb/niv and reads: ³ And a white robe was given to each of them.²

Rev. 16:16 ³And HE gathered them together into a place called in the blip tongue Armageddon.² All texts here read ³he² referring to God. The nkjv reads: ³ And THEY gathered them together to the place...² The niv and nasb are also in error here, because even their Greek texts read suvngogen singular, not suvngogon plural. Tyndale, Douay, World English Bible, Webster¹s, Green, Berry, Spanish and Darby agree with the KJB.

Rev. 16:21 ³and the plague THEREOF (Œautns) was exceeding great.² The word ³thereof² or its, is in all texts, including the nasb, but the njkv has joined the niv in omitting this word. The nkjv says: ³that plague was exceeding great.²

Rev. 18:9 ³shall bewail HER, and lament for her.² Here the first ³her² is Œautnv. It is in the TR, and many other mss. But the njkv again has omitted it by following Sinaticus and the nasb/niv. It says ³will weep and lament for her.²

Revelation 19:2 ³and hath avenged the blood of his servants AT HER HAND². Here, ³at her hand² is ek tns xeipos Œautns. Four words in Greek. They are found in all texts, and though they are in Tyndale, Geneva,the RV, the ASV, World English Bible, Webster¹s, Spanish and Douay, the nasb and niv have shortened it and changed the meaning by saying ³has avenged the blood of his bond servants ON HER², and the nkjv has ³the blood of His servants shed BY HER² (omits hand).

Article continued in next post.

 

[Winman]

Article continued from previous post.

I have personally gone through the book of Revelation, comparing every word between the KJB and the nkjv. The nas and niv follow a very different text in Revelation, and hundreds words are missing from their texts. However, though the nkjv claims to follow the same text as the KJB in Revelation, I found that the nkjv adds some words like ³some² in 2:17; ³sick² in 2:22; ³there² in 4:3; ³more² in 9:12; ³their² in 20:4 and ³as² in 21:16.

The nkjv also omits some 91 words. Eighty of these words are the little word ³and² or kai in Greek. That¹s eighty times omitted when in the Greek text that underlies the KJB just in one book! For example in 18:12,13 the word ³and² is omitted 8 times in just two verses.

The nkjv also omits ³the same² houtos in 3:5; ³nor² (mnte) twice in 7:1,3; ³called² (legetai) in 8:11; ³for her² Œautnv in both 16:21 and 16:18 ³so² (Œuto), as in ³so great²; the word ³for² (gar) in 21:25 ³FOR there shall be no night there.², and the verb ³shall be² (estai) in 22:12. The KJB has ³to give every man according as his work SHALL BE². The ³shall be² is in the majority and TR, but the nkjv merely says: ³to give every one according to his work.²

I will keep adding to this list as I study more of the nkjv, but in light of Rev.22:18,19 where we are told not to add to nor take away from the words of this book or God will take away his part out of the book of life, I would not recommend the nkjv to anyone. Stick to the King James Bible, and you will not go wrong.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Sigh- same old hash- rewarmed, but it still stinks. Simply setting up the KJV as the standard and claiming that anything that deviates from the standard is not "the Bible" is not a legitimate reason to reject the NKJV or any other MV.

 

[Winman]

Sigh- same old hash- rewarmed, but it still stinks. Simply setting up the KJV as the standard and claiming that anything that deviates from the standard is not "the Bible" is not a legitimate reason to reject the NKJV or any other MV.

What does that have to do with C4K's question? Nothing. Instead of saying something of substance or value that could contribute to the thread, you simply bash those who believe in the KJB.

 

[Mexdeaf]

What does that have to do with C4K's question? Nothing. Instead of saying something of substance or value that could contribute to the thread, you simply bash those who believe in the KJB.

No bashing. Simply stating a fact.

 

[HankD]

Winman it seems to me that you aren't aware of some important facts.

I say that because in the litany of examples you have given the differences you mention are variances within the family of Traditional Texts.

In most cases it appears to me that these so called CT choices are not CT vs TR choices but choices among this family of Traditional Texts.

First there is no singular Greek text (such as the Stephanus text) that represents the underlying Greek text of the AV. But a composite of Byzantine type texts and yes, even a few verses which are from the Vulgate.

I gave you a list of these NT Koine scribes from which the AV English text was developed. Alexandrian type texts were not used.

A man named Scrivener (Late 1800's) took the Stephanus text as his base and then where the AV English seemed to deviate from that text he determined from which Greek text (from the list above or the Vulgate) that the AV translators chose and developed his text.

Scriveners text represents the best guess as to which of the Tradition Texts that the AV translators chose from because they left no Greek text behind and their archtype original English manuscript has been lost, burned in a fire at the Cambridge Library.

For example you listed Roman 7:6 (I simply can't take the time to go through every one).

Romans 7:6 ³But now we are delivered from the law, THAT BEING DEAD, wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.² ... Here the TR of the KJB reads ³apothanontOS² masculine singular. The law died. This is the reading of Green¹s interlinear,the 21st Century KJB, Websters Bible of 1833, the Geneva Bible, the Modern Greek translation, Youngs translation, the Diodati, which preceded the KJB, and the Latin of Calvin. So it is a very ancient reading. The other Greek texts have a different reading. They say ³we died² apothanontES, ...

First, there is no AV TR as such, one has to determine which Traditional Manuscript the AV committee used.

apothanontOS is the Scrivener choice and frankly I can't see why he chose it because both the Byzantine Majority AND Stephanus have apothanontES. Both are considered a Traditional Text type.

I dont have Beza or Elziver but this is enough to prove the point.

These are variants among the families of the Traditional Texts and even John Burgon disagreed with some of the choices the AV translators made and said so in writing - that the AV needed to be revised to reflect the better readings among the Traditional Text readings.

A committee was chosen and the revision took place.

Burgon was appalled when the revision committee introduced the Wescott and Hort theories and their resultant text which favored a small but ancient handful of Alexandrian manuscripts.

Scrivener then went on to actually develop the Greek text Burgon desired.

In addition, for 200 plus years the Church of England continuously revised the text to reflect what they thought were better choices from among the Traditional Text family as more scholarship proved it so.

Please allow the NKJV the same lattitude.

THERE ARE NO CLEARLY ALEXANDRIAN READINGS IN THE NKJV.

You have deceived by scholarship that does not tell you that the choices for the readings of the NKJV are taken from among the family of the Traditional Texts.

Another point of dishonest scholarship is that the choice between the Traditional Text families will often agree with an Alexandrian manuscript and are therefore attributed to the same.

Wescott and Hort were not even born when Stephanus developed his text (1500's), so if the Stephanus word choice agrees with the Sinaiticus it was because he found and chose the different word from within the Traditional Text family.

How do we know this? The Sinaiticus was not discovered until 1859.
Wescott and Hort developed their Greek text giving highest weight to readings from Sinaiticus (Aleph), Alexandrinus, Vaticanus and a few other Alexandrian texts in 1881 where they clearly differered from the family of Traditional Texts. Thereby making this allegation impossible.

Even now some of the MV's have departed from many of the W&H choices for the Traditional readings.

I hope this helps clear up this matter for you.

Repeat:
THERE ARE NO CLEARLY ALEXANDRIAN READINGS IN THE NKJV.

HankD

 

[Winman]

Thank you Hank, for that helpful information. I will be the first to admit that I am not a scholar on this subject, nor do I aspire to be. I believe the scriptures to be preserved by faith, not scholarship.

But the point is, the NJKV is not faithful to the same texts as the KJB. It often uses the same text as the MVs.

Now, what is funny to me is that usually you have folks here arguing that the MVs and the KJB are the same. They are the same scriptures, just said in a different way.

But for this argument I have been asked to prove that the NKJV has some text taken from the Critical Text, proving once and for all that they are very different and not the same.

Most of us are not Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew scholars. We depend on those who are to faithfully translate the originals into English. I think it is easy to see that the NKJV departed from the English translation of the KJB to agree with the MVs in many places.

Now, this is just my opinion, but I see this as a very subtle deception. It is an intentional corruption (in the view of KJB supporters) to introduce the errors (in the view of KJB supporters) of the Alexandrian texts into the scriptures.

You of course have the right to disagree.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Repeat:
THERE ARE NO CLEARLY ALEXANDRIAN READINGS IN THE NKJV.

HankD

Bingo - despite the copy and paste from a source which is not known for its intellectual honesty, there are still no readings from the CT in the KNJV.