Which is better, the NKJV or the Niv 2011?

Found your claim hard to believe... so I checked
To be precise Metzger states:

"In the East the passage is absent from the oldest form of the Syriac version (syrc, and the best manuscripts of syrp), as well as from the Sahidic and the sub-Achmimic versions and the older Bohairic manuscripts. Some Armenian manuscripts and the Old Georgian version omit it. In the West the passage is absent from the Gothic version and from several Old Latin manuscripts (ita, *, ). No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it."
Bruce Manning Metzger, United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 187–188.​

Rob

 

Well, that definitely does make a difference in the meaning! Not sure how I missed that. Thanks.

 

you make me laugh about Robinson! Have you read Scrivener's two volumes and Kenyon's handbook and on the Greek Bible? Show me Robinson's equivalent. Two more excellent scholars I could add, Charles Ellicott and Joseph Lightfoot, whose commentaries on some of Paul's letters, are still top of the league! Another of the KJV, is Lancelot Andrewes, brilliant scholar. The moderns including your friend, lag behind!

 

And yet in the 4th century, a scholar much better than Metzger, Jerome, had copies of both Greek and Latin manuscripts that contained this passage. This in itself shows the shallowness of Metzget as a textual critic.

 

I think you'll find that the NKJV cites the DSS considerably more than that in the centre-column references. A two-minute search of Isaiah in my NKJV revealed Isaiah 19:18; 23:2; 38:15 & 40:12.

 

Thanks, I've been looking further and found 32 citations of the DDS, noted but not used in the main text

Rob

 

All "texts" of the Holy Bible are just translations and therefore are not "infallible", which belongs to the original autographs only. Whether it is the TR, MT, UBS, NA, etc, etc, they all have the uses. It is just like the NIV, NKJV, KJV, NASB, while they agree in the greater majority of the text, there are differences, though in some cases, quite small. Even the good old KJV has its problems, with test and even incorrect rendering of the Greek text. The most important thing is, that all study of the Word must be with the aid of God the Holy Spirit, Who gives the best understanding to His Word.

 

Firstly, how can you say that the "texts" of the OT and NT are not just translations? They are and cannot be the originals. We do not have photocopies of the originals, but COPIES, that were transcribed by copyists of manuscripts. This does not mean that they are full of errors, or not trustworthy, but that they are not the originals that God-breathed.

Secondly, again, like the first point, only the originals are God-breathed, and by nature of this alone, are Infallible and Inerrant. Take the example that you mention from 1 John 5:7, where I believe that "translations" like the KJV/NKJV, etc, have the words that teach the Holy Trinity.. Now, if we look at "translations" like the NIV/ESV/NASB/NTL, etc, this passage reads different, because verse 7 has been removed. Which of these two readings is "infallible", and represents the original autograph? Which is true and which is error? They both cannot be true.

 

I don't think that you are getting what I am saying. So I will try to make it clearer. ALL manuscripts of the OT which are Hebrew and for the NT, Greek, are COPIES of the originals, which we don't even have ONE. Before the DSS the oldest Hebrew Mss are all A.D., 100's of years after the OT canon was closed. The earliest Hebrew Bible is the Aleppo Codex, a work of the Masoretes, and of the 10th century A.D. None of these copies can claim to be "inspired",as the copyists were NOT "infallible" as the OT writers of the original autographs were. These copies have "mistakes" in them, and therefore cannot be the direct Word of God. ONLY the original autographs of both Testaments writers were "infallible" as they were led by the Holy Spirit to write what He told them to. NO copyist can ever claim this for themselves. Do you understand what I am saying here? There are some thousands of variants between the manuscripts that Erasmus used, and the manuscripts that the UBS used. True that they are some very minor, but the fact remains that in these places they are DIFFERENT. Which then is the "inspired" text? Both cannot be, as they differ.

You say that 1 John 5:7-8 in the TR, "best represents the autographs"; but the "text" that omits them, will also argue for the same. Which then is the original? One can only be "inspired", while the other cannot.