• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Which is better, the NKJV or the Niv 2011?

Status
Not open for further replies.

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
in textual criticism, you reject the actual sources for the very Greek "texts" that you rely on, the manuscripts,
Actually I don't. I suggest you read "The Case For Byzantine Priority" authored by my friend Dr. Maurice Robinson, Senior Research Professor of New Testament Greek at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, (Retired) a man I believe to be the best textual critic alive today. You can find that excellent treatise at Robinson, The case for Byzantine priority

What makes you think that the Greek texts that you use, are any better than the other evidence that I refer to?
Because the vast majority of the manuscript evidence points to the antiquity and historicity of the Byzantine textform, and God inspired and preserved His word, not the words of men.

Most of the Greek texts remove "θεός" in 1 Timothy 3:16,
On the contrary, the majority of the manuscript evidence supports the reading "θεός."
 

Saved-By-Grace

Well-Known Member
Actually I don't. I suggest you read "The Case For Byzantine Priority" authored by my friend Dr. Maurice Robinson, Senior Research Professor of New Testament Greek at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, (Retired) a man I believe to be the best textual critic alive today. You can find that excellent treatise at Robinson, The case for Byzantine priority

Because the vast majority of the manuscript evidence points to the antiquity and historicity of the Byzantine textform, and God inspired and preserved His word, not the words of men.

On the contrary, the majority of the manuscript evidence supports the reading "θεός."

the Byzantine textform is a collection of post 5th century Greek manuscripts, which cannot of themselves represent the best readings for every textual variant. It would be rather foolish to ignore or dismiss the older readings in older Mss, and those known to the ECF in their Greek New Testaments. Dr Robinson is indeed a fine scholar, but there are others, like Scrivener, Burgon, Kenyon, whose scholarship is no less, and findings very helpful, and who disagree with Robinson.

For θεός at 1 Tim 3:16, I was referring to the Greek "texts", like N-A, UBS, etc.
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
About 30 years ago I had the privilege in examining the original Codex Alexandrinus at the British library in London, and with the aid of a microscope, did see the original reading as θ̅Ο̅ , and not as the modern textual "authorities" claim to be OC.
Wouldn't that be ΘC using the lunate sigma (with the contraction line over it, of course)?
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
About 30 years ago I had the privilege in examining the original Codex Alexandrinus at the British library in London, and with the aid of a microscope, did see the original reading as θ̅Ο̅ , and not as the modern textual "authorities" claim to be OC.
Are you by the way KJVO then?
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Ah, you quote from BM, who, among other things, believed, Moses did not write the Pentateuch, Deuteronomy was not written until 700 years before Christ, the Old Testament is a mixture of “myth, legend, and history,” the record of the worldwide flood of Noah’s day is exaggerated, the book of Job is a folktale, the miracle accounts about Elijah and Elisha contain “legendary elements,” Isaiah was written by Isaiah plus two or three unknown men who wrote centuries later, the record of Jonah is a “legend,” Daniel does not contain supernatural prophecy, Paul did not write the Pastoral Epistles, Peter did not write 2 Peter, etc. All of these unbelieving lies can be found in the notes to the Reader’s Digest Condensed Bible, which were written by Metzger, and in the New Oxford Annotated Bible, of which Metzger is a co-editor!

Metzger, whom you quote says, "no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεός", which is not at all true.

Ignatius, who lived between 35-108 A.D., the time of most of the Apostles, wrote:

"εν σαρκι γενομενοϛ Θεοϛ" (To the Ephesians, 8:2), "God having come in the flesh", which is clearly a free quote from 1 Timothy 3:16.

There are others who quote this from the Greek NT

If you are interested in the real textual evidence for this verse, then I suggest looking at John Burgon's work, http://www.trinitystudies.org/Jesus/1tim3_16_burgon.pdf
Was Dr Metzger a recognized authority in textual criticism though?
Do you think Dr Daniel Wallace is either?
 

Saved-By-Grace

Well-Known Member
he seems to be stuck on the patron saint of textual criticism, John Burgeon.

his name is John Burgon. I am not stuck with anyone, but simply state that he, with Scrivener and Kenyon, were the foremost textual scholars probably ever in the Christian Church. Robinson, though good, is not in the same class as these, and certainly not Metzger or Wallace
 

Deacon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
About 30 years ago I had the privilege in examining the original Codex Alexandrinus at the British library in London, and with the aid of a microscope, did see the original reading as θ̅Ο̅ , and not as the modern textual "authorities" claim to be OC.
They have digitized the Codex Sinaiticus - 1 Timothy 3:16 is found at the bottom of the second column and continues at the top of the third. The ὃς and its corrector is observed on the second line of the third column [LINK].

A facsimile scan of Codex Alexandrinus, 1 Timothy 3:13 with commentary is here [LINK]

Rob
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
his name is John Burgon. I am not stuck with anyone, but simply state that he, with Scrivener and Kenyon, were the foremost textual scholars probably ever in the Christian Church. Robinson, though good, is not in the same class as these, and certainly not Metzger or Wallace
I would agree with you on those first 3, but the others would be all recognized as being textual critic experts!
 

Saved-By-Grace

Well-Known Member
I think that he was for many more than just him!
He was a recognized expert on textual affairs, but not for those areas that you mentioned!

very LIBERAL though, and some of his judgements on textual decisions are way off. Even the textual evidence given in the UBS NT, in places is incomplete and wrong!
 

Saved-By-Grace

Well-Known Member
I think that he was for many more than just him!
He was a recognized expert on textual affairs, but not for those areas that you mentioned!

Did you know that Metzger was the hacker of the Readers Digest Bible? The Bible warns about adding and taking away from God's Word.
 

TRKJVlover

New Member
Will from my username no surprise I would recommend the NKJV for sure. But I would follow whatever you think the Holy Spirit can guide you thru best.

I really don't agree with many newer versions, but got my mom and sister both NIVs for Christmas. Would rather they read the KJV or something from the TR. But if I got them a KJV Bible it would collect dust but they read the NIV reguraly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top