Perfect Translation

I was born at night, but not last night. That statement by Hank is only true because of the word "clearly". And you know that.

Now, take the word "clearly" out of that statement.

THERE ARE NO ALEXANDRIAN READINGS IN THE NKJV.

Is this now a truthful statement?

 

...yes....

 

Yes because of the circumstance I outlined and you that it know it is.

e.g.
John 1:1

KJV John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.​

Both the Traditional Reading and the Alexandrian reading have exactly the same wording but that doesn't make the verse an Alexandrian reading.

However 1 Timothy 3:16 CT vs the Traditional readings have different wordings and the NKJV chooses the traditional reading.

"Clearly" was added to the sentence for the benefit of those who have been misled by less than honest scholarship seeing that they (less than honest scholars) will not publicly distinguish between happenstance and a real difference.

John 1:1 is happenstance, 1 Timothy 3:16 is a real difference.

Yes it is the same statement.
THERE ARE NO ALEXANDRIAN READINGS IN THE NKJV.

HankD

 

That may be what they are trying to do, but that is not how I take it. I already knew that the Received Text and Critical Text are in about 85% agreement. And I believe that most people who believe in the KJB know this.

The question is, are there readings in the NKJV that are strictly from an Alexandrian source that do not belong whatsoever to the Received Text?

Now, that is a serious question, I do not know the answer to that.

 

But that is contrary to your claim in the comment that led to this discussion. that the NKJV used a hybrid of the TR and CT. Do you now admit that you don't know that to be true?

 

No, I still believe that the NKJV used some Alexandrian sources. I am not talking about scripture that is common to both the RT and CT.

I was just giving in to the fact that I am not a Greek or Hebrew scholar and must rely upon those who know these languages, and also have all the sources to make a comparison, and depending on a truthful answer.

You see, I have already presented evidence, but I am dependent upon those sources to be truthful and reliable.

So now I am asking those in the know if these articles I presented are accurate and truthful.

For example:

If I understand this properly, the author is saying that the NJKV used the word "Eo numphon" which is only found in an Alexandrian text (the Sinaiticus).

Whether you believe the author to be an honest person generally or not is not the issue. Is the author correct here?

 

This is a totally different issue and is at least partially true.

For instance the old English word "prevent" in the 21st century (but not the 17th) is confusing in the KJV and can lead to erroneous doctrine.

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.​

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.​

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.​

Most MV's including the NKJV use precede instead of prevent. It is just a one-word better choice for any translator to make.

However the word "departed" which you used to describe their work is a very subjective term. It has the nuance of sinsister design in the realm of theological debate as to scriptural truth.

Because I am aware of his scriptural principle:

Matthew 12

36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.​

I am not convinced of that kind of "departure" at all, perhaps the day may come where it is a possibility in my thinking but for now I honestly do not see it.

We need to be very very careful about accusations, take another look at Matthew 12:36-37.

"By their fruits" we must judge. If you are convinced then you are somewhat safe in what your words are implying.

I think we would be safe in condemning the New World Translation but not the NKJV or the NIV either for that matter.

However, there are several things I have seen in the NKJV that I am not overjoyed about but am willing to give them time to revise things as did the AV committee starting in 1613 onward to 1769 (and even after that with paragraph changes). I need to find out how to send suggestions to the revision committee.

It is, at the moment, the one widely accepted English translation based on the traditional texts written in the standard English of the 21st century.

HankD

 

Hank, thank you for that very sincere and honest answer. I see you do not agree with me, but I see that you consider and understand my point of view.

And you are absolutely correct that we have to be careful about accusing others.

However, when I read that the NKJV omits the word "Lord" 66 times, the word "God" 51 times, and 2,289 words in the New Testament alone, that is not making the authors of the NKJV look very good in my eyes. After all, God gives a very stern warning in Revelations about adding or diminishing from his Word.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

It is difficult to believe that the authors of the NKJV did not violate God's command here.

What do you think?

 

NKJV Matthew 22:10 So those servants went out into the highways and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good. And the wedding hall was filled with guests.​

The NKJV puts hall in italics in the tradition of the AV to show that it is not in the original language text.​

Why? because the word "gamos" has an ambiguous meaning as an entity in and of itself as "marriage" as a human social concept or the place or act of celebration thereof in koine.​

Strong's​

1062 ga,moj

gamos {gam'-os} ​

Meaning: ​

1) a wedding or marriage festival, a wedding banquet, a wedding feast 2) marriage, matrimony ​

This is a tool called a functional equivalence to clear up any misunderstanding or ambivalence of word meanings.​

Look at it this way, the Alexandrian scribe changed the text to clear up the ambiguity while the NKJV added a word in italics just as the AV translators had done in other places.​

Technically speaking then yes, in this instance there is kind of agreement.​

But IMO it is justified and coincidental, however yes, maybe not completely unbiased as translators of any ilk do compare translations of like language as did the AV translators and they even borrowed terminolgy from Roman Catholic translations (Douay-Rheims).​

Agreement and similarity do not prove colaboration or conspiracy (at worst) but rather it most likely proves the use of similar tools and methods of translation.​

But pray tell even at that, how does this English rendering of "wedding" to "wedding hall" prove a sinister departure from the word of God when in actuality is its a tool used by both the AV and the NKJV to bring clarity to the English text?​

HankD​

 

One thing to note is that the NKJV put "hall" in italics, noting it wasn't part of their Greek text. This is about the only place one could make a case for an Alexandrian reading in the NKJV, but not quite. Wedding hall is just more specific as to what was decorated.

You quoted Chick publications saying this...

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!

Did they by any chance give any cases where a Majority Text reading wasn't the majority? I've heard this claim too(along with the 1200 times the NKJV goes away from the TR) but never any evidence to support it.

Let me help you out with a few of the ones you quoted

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. ​

The KJV reads."...forgive not every one his brother their trespasses." The two Greek words there can be either "his" or "their" and "his" is better grammar. Has nothing to do with the critical text and it's not ignoring the TR. Just a translational difference.

 

The issue here has nothing to do with texts winman. You have chosen to set up one translation as a standard and accused anyone who changes that standard of 'adding to or taking away from the word of God'

Honest question, why were the KJV translators not guilty of the same things when they changed the wording of previous translations?

 

Did that source list any to look at. Many statements like these can be misleading. They are comparing the KJV to the NKJV. How many times did the KJV put "God forbid" but "God" isn't in the text? You can't charge the NKJV for removing the name of God.

 

It doesn't prove a sinister departure, but it certainly brings the question up doesn't it?

1 Thess 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

Now, the authors of the NKJV primarily wrote this new translation for people who supported the KJB? Isn't that generally so?

I mean, people who believe the MVs are superior to the KJB aren't really going to go for a newer version of the KJB are they?

So then, why if the words "wedding" and "wedding hall" mean basically the same thing and cause no confusion, why would they render it as the MVs do? After all, you know us KJB folks, we think the MVs are a lie from the devil himself. :tongue3:

And this is just one of dozens of examples where the NKJV departed from the English translation of the KJV to render verses as the MVs do.

Why would they do that?

 

This is a very harsh and unjustified statement.

(First of all I contend that this is a total misapplication of scripture, but that is off topic)

To use the same wording as another MV is an appearance of evil? Do you really mean that? How is 'wedding hall' more evil than 'wedding?'

 

Well, I agree that we should neither add not take away from the word of God.

However it is impossible to do that when a translation is being made because there are no two langauges which agree word for word.

There are nuances and difference even between langauges where there is a great similarity (i.e. Spanish and Portuguese).

But here is an example from the AV in which words were added to the Original language.

Are you familiar with the phrase attributed to Paul "God forbid" whch someone has already mentioned?

This phrase is ironically responsible for many of the ommissions of the word "God" in the NKJV

Why ironically?

It is used many times (about 30) in the AV.

It is used 10 times in the KJV in the Book of Romans :Here is one:

Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.​

Howvever, these words do not exist in any manuscript CT or TR.

The NKJV and NIV both translate this in a more accurate way :

NKJ Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.​

NIV Romans 3:31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.​

This term "God forbid" was and still is a common expression in English but it is not found in the original language mss.​

Did the AV translators break God's rule by inserting the word "God" into the English text where it did not exist in the original language text? ​

I don't think so because their motive was (probably) to add that bit of emotion that Paul was putting into the text in a way that the 17th century English reader would fully comprehend.​

However, the NIV and NKJV are actually being more faithful to the original texts than the KJV and ironically explains the "omissions" of the word "God" in these cases because the word just doesn't exist.​

HankD ​

 

Like I said, wasn't the NKJV written primarily with folks who trust the KJB in mind?

Someone who believes the MVs are superior, and believes the Alexandrian texts more faithful to the original autographs is not going to go for simply a modernized version of what they believe an inferior text are they?

Perhaps a few would buy it as a study help.

And for a person like myself who believes in perfect preservation it is very offensive. It is not simply modernizing the language, that might be acceptable. In some instances the very meaning of a verse is changed.

Leaving out over 2,000 words in the New Testament alone is very serious for a person who believes in perfect preservation, and that we are not to add or subtract from God's Word.

You see, in Revelations 22:18-19 there is an implied promise. No person could possibly know if they were adding or subtracting from God's Word unless God's perfect Word exists and can be identified.

Do you understand that? Unless you can positively know which version is perfect and inerrant, it would be impossible to know if you are adding or subtracting from it.

 

Aye and there is the rub. You have picked one version as your source of authority. You have no Biblical basis for that decision. It is based on faith in your own human reasoning.

Please, no one begrudges you the right the pick that translation, however there were excellent translations before it and after it which others may choose as well. God will teach and instruct each of us who rely on His word.

I am totally at peace with God about my choices.

You still have not proven that the CT, apart from any other textual support, was used in the NKJV.

To be honest it really is not about the text at all is it? It is all about one specific English translation that some have chosen to elevate above all others.

 

This is a key example of why we cannot use any one translation as a standard. If anyone added to the word of God here it was the KJV team who added 'God' to this passage. Will they receive the promise of judgement in Revelation?

 

Bingo. Good job at pointing out the flawed reasoning...

• count the total # of words in the KJV versus MV's.
• compare the two.
• if there is any discrepency in the number of words (forget if no doctrines are different, or if the meaning is the same)...then the MV's are guilty of "adding to, or taking away from, God's Word." (Based, I suppose, on the opinion of the KJVO'er doing the comparision).

 

So then, show us from God's Word why the KJV is the perfect translation, and all others are not.

After all...since as you say, the perfect word can be identified...how 'bout showing us from Scripture where and why it must be the KJV.