Does the NKJV Follow the TR Texts?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Dr. Bob, Aug 25, 2004.

  1. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    The NKJV is often attacked by the only-sect because [they say] it does NOT follow the TR like the AV1611 did.

    I wonder if there is proof of this and the NKJV is really following the USB texts.

    I have a 1555 Stephanos (very close to the eclectic blend of texts Erasmus used) so can check any text quickly.

    Thank you.
     
  2. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr. Bob I'm not a scholar by any means but I just purchased a NKJV and they bang the Alexandrian line of mss in the preface. So from that I know they definetly used a byzantine text although I don't know if it was a TR. I may very well be wrong it just seems that way from my understanding.

    1cross+3nails=4given
     
  3. Old Timer

    Old Timer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 perverted 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!

    And Thomas Nelson Publishers have the audacity to claim in an ad for the NKJV (Moody Monthly, June 1982, back cover), "NOTHING HAS BEEN CHANGED except to make the original meaning clearer."
     
  4. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    Uh that proved nothing above OT please get off this topic we are discussing the mss the NKJV used. Don't turn this into a KJVO forum.
     
  5. Old Timer

    Old Timer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you would have read the post you would see the answer.
    The NKJV and the real KJV are not the same.
    That would be called "proof."
     
  6. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    Old Timer,
    What about showing me in the TR where the KJV is correct and the NKJV is wrong. I want to see what the TR has to say.

    Please list which TR and prove your statements using the TR.

    Thank you.
     
  7. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    The KJV1611 is different from the KJV1769 which
    you probably use. Is the KJV1611 no good?
    I have a comic book that says it is no good.
    The KJV1873 is different from the KJV1769
    which you probably use. Is it no good?
    Some KJVO say it is alright, some say it is
    bad.

    I have a TMB = Third Millennium Bible
    that was translated recently using
    the KJV1769 as a basis. Some KJVO say it is
    no good, some say it is alright if you don't
    have a KJV1769 handy. What do you say?

    I have a 21KJ (21st Century King James Version)
    which was recently translated from the KJV
    Some KJVO say it is
    no good, some say it is alright if you don't
    have a KJV1769 handy. What do you say?

    BTW Old Timer, I've been a Christian for 52 years
    and have seen personally the history of the
    New King James Version. The BAPTIST (and kindred
    major denominations) translators of the nKJV
    were aware of the KJVO suggested "it would be
    alright to translate the Textus Receptus (TR)
    again. It amases me that a Baptist (partial)
    group's translation (the nKV) is rejected
    in favor of a Anglican translation (KJV1769).

    BTW, it is really considered a troll to
    have large amounts of stuff dumped in from
    other boards. It is also a requirement to
    be on subject. the stuff we have already
    read from Riplinger, Ruckman, et al -- that
    stuff is a waste of the Owner's storage space.

    Also, it would help if you explained what
    you think your numbers mean.
    Consider this sentence:

    Old Timer cuts and pastes Old Timer approved
    stats.

    Is that sentence going to be hurt if
    we take out one of the "Old Timer"s and
    put in "he"?
    Is that sentence going to be hurt if
    we take out the second "Old Timer"?

    I still contend:

    1.Each English Translation is the inspired
    word of God (translated to our language)
    preserved for us for this time (I note
    we live in the 21st century and not
    the 17th century).

    2. More doctrinal variants come from
    variant understandings of the KJV than
    from differences between versions.

    [​IMG]
     
  8. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    The NKJV New Testament is translated from the same Greek text as the KJV New Testament. Many KJVOs do not like to admit this fact but it is fact no less.

    The problem that I and other KJVOs have with this version is the influence of the critical text in the footnotes. The implication is that the critical text is a viable alternative to the TR. Of course, this is a point that we will not concede.
     
  9. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    This type presentation seems a
    bit deceitful. Please do the following:

    1. Quote the KJV1769 whole verse
    2. Quote the nKJV whole verse
    3. Mention the variance as you did

    BTW, I disagree with several things beside
    the presentation.

    A. The "for" clarifies the sentence.
    What special attraction does a dubious
    meaning have for you? Is the lamb God
    provided for Abraham's needs the same
    lamb God provided our needs? Is the lamb
    God provided for Abraham's needs a
    metaphor for the lamb God provided for
    our needs? The "for" makes it much clearer.

    B. Is the "for" in the Greek specified?

    C. the nKJV is NOT translated from the
    NASV. Both might be translated from the same
    source (which we are discussing in this
    particular topic).

    [​IMG]
     
  10. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    My favorite version is the NKJV, and reading the preface proves they used the Traditional Text (as Ransom reminded me at one time).
    I don't feel at all bothered by the footnotes, especially since I prefer the Traditional Text, this just shows me what the others say and I consider the Critical text inferior. Sorry Dr Bob! :D
     
  11. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    BTW, Old Timer, comparing tranlations works both ways. I can pick and chose certain verses that I want and demonstrate the "inferiority" of the KJV vs the NKJV.
    H.A.N.D.
     
  12. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,169
    Likes Received:
    323
    Not much can be added to that which has already been said.

    Most of the examples cited are upgrades to the 1611 period English or a more accurate compliance with the Received Text.

    I will admit that the NKJV has been said to follow the Ben Asher over the ben Chayyim Masoretic Text in several places. I am looking into this.

    The litmus test for a NT translation and its text type is 1 John 5:7 which my NKJV has without explanation or footnotes.

    Anyone can play the infantile game (complete with tantrum SHOUTING) of isolated translational weaknesses, for instance I could say :

    The King James translators CORRUPTED the Word of God and were ARIANS denying the personality of the Holy Spirit in

    KJV Romans 8:16
    The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

    The New King James is FULLY Trinitarian and does NOT CORRUPT THE PURE WORDS OF GOD!

    Romans 8:16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God.

    These are THE PURE words of God!
    You can accept the NKJV or REMAIN AN ARIAN!


    I do intend one day to complete a list of Scriptures of inquiry to the NKJV translation committee.

    They deserve a couple hundred years of revisions like the KJV translators.


    HankD
     
  13. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,169
    Likes Received:
    323
    The KJV1769 and the real AV1611 are not the same.
    That would be called "proof."

    "Things that are different are not the same".

    HankD
     
  14. Old Timer

    Old Timer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr Bob said; The NKJV is often attacked by the only-sect because [they say] it does NOT follow the TR like the AV1611 did.

    Anyone can see that the two version do not follow
    "like" translating.

    There is nothing deceitful about the post. Everything in it demonstrates that the two are not the same.

    You can try to discredit the post but the fact is the two are not "like" and that is what the thread is about.

    By the way...It's a rib tickler for a guy my age to see folks try to sweep away the truth so someone else will not find it.

    Thanks for the chuckle.
     
  15. Old Timer

    Old Timer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    0
    More proof they are not "like"

    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!

    Ed if the board has space to waste with your pic they can afford space for truth.
    Don't cha think?
     
  16. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,169
    Likes Received:
    323
    When all else fails redefine and/or switch the term "the same" in midstream.

    BTW Oldtimer you didn't address my observation that

    The KJV1769 and the real AV1611 are different (in several hundred places).

    "Things that are different are not the same".

    HankD
     
  17. Old Timer

    Old Timer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    0
    Stick with the thread Hank. If you want to start a new one fine but don't muddy this one.
     
  18. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,169
    Likes Received:
    323
    What does this prove? A difference in translation into the receptor language (21st century English vs. 17th century English).

    But since you are giving us a Hebrew lesson:

    KJV Genesis 3:24
    So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

    KJV Genesis 3:24
    So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.

    The KJV translators forgot that the “im” ending is the Hebrew plural form.
    The NKJV is far more accurate.

    HankD
     
  19. Old Timer

    Old Timer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK so they are not "like" and you agree with me.
    Check your pm. If you want truth it's there. If you want to argue I can't hep ya.
     
  20. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor_Bob said:

    The problem that I and other KJVOs have with this version is the influence of the critical text in the footnotes.

    But . . . but . . . the footnotes aren't inspired! They're just man's opinions! Why would they have any influence?

    (Paging Ed Edwards . . .)
     

Share This Page

Loading...