Does the NKJV Follow the TR Texts?

Is someone going to answer Bro Tony's question? We are waiting! (the saint icon looks sad)

 

What does this mean? Please translate? </font>[/QUOTE]Translation:
I had problems cutting and pasting.
I had problems posting the link
of where I found that stuff.
I stopped Baptist Board for awile
and tryed to figure out how to
do that stuff. I couldn't figure it out.
So i'll just summarize it.
First summary: The NKJV excluded the TR - 40%!!!!
Second summary: Where did the NKJV get its 40% non-TR words?
I do not understand how these concepts are
totally opposite.

 

What does this mean? Please translate? </font>[/QUOTE]The picture unlikely the link, for example, is what I struggled with this BB because it did not work with this BB.

 

I am not "worrying" about anything. I merely responded as to why some have a problem with the NKJV. It is a fact that many KJVO do not care for the footnotes in the NKJV that portray the Critical Text as being a viable alternative to the Received Text. We view the Critical Text as inferior to the Received Text.

I do not recall asking you to think differently about the footnotes contained in the NKJV. When I express an opinion, it is just that, my opinion. You are free to take it or leave it.

 

I have returned and cannot say that I am surprised that I have not received an answer. In this thread Dr Bob responded to a question asked him. Ed responded to the original question. I asked one question based on the statement of one KJVO and echoed by another and I can't get an answer. Why am I not surprised? Just answer the question it is simple.

Bro Tony

 

Please provide the evidence so that I can research this claim myself. I want to see where the NKJV excludes 40% of the TR. No spin please. List example and not the same old KJVO junk!

If you can not list these examples then it must be another false claim. </font>[/QUOTE]I have first-hand information. Ask Pastor Bob about that.

 

Still, without you posting proof of the -40%, your claim is questionable, askjo. Maybe you should try again.

AVL1984

 

Askjo is getting his information from another source; he is not making this claim up. I am checking into the matter and will respond when I have reached a conclusion.

 

What concerns me is that Brother Askjo has
expressed his 40% statement in two
conflicting ways already. This indicates
to me that Askjo's source is probably
unreliable and unclear (confused) about what
his stats mean. I'd sure lot rather think
Askjo's source is in error here than
Brother Askjo whom I've known here for a
couple of years.

 

A valid discussion going on here.

 

It has been 24 hours since I asked a simple question based on statements by KJVO, using the Scripture text they provided, in which they spoke of the "corrupt" nature of the NKJV. The question is on topic and yet it has not been answered while I have asked four times and I believe Marcia has asked three times for an answer. One can only conclude that the KJVO crowd have no legitamate answers for their bogus claims and slander against the Word of God. I will still be glad to have an answer on the topic they brought up, but somehow I doubt it will ever be given.

Bro Tony

 

Nope, Tony, you probably will never get a straight answer about anything that concrete.

Unless you count spin...which reminds me, I haven't seen Michelle eat up a page or three on this one yet.

Just as well, since the mods would have to shut it down for carreening off topic...

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Never mistake silence for ignorance. I have encountered a plethora of questions that I chose not to answer. Failure to answer a question in no way determines one's ability to answer should he/she choose to answer.

Your statement, "One can only conclude that the KJVO crowd have no legitamate answers for their bogus claims and slander against the Word of God" is not a foregone conclusion.

There may be KJVOs that actually do not know how to answer your question. Others, like me simply choose not to. The choice is still ours.

 

Pastor Bob,

If you have kept up with the thread you would know what I am talking about. I did not make the statement OT did, then Askjo then "amened" him. They brought it up, made a false and ignorant statement and then don't respond to a legitamate question concerning the topic and their statement. If you don't want to answer that is your business, as far as I know you were not part of the discussion. It is your choice. It really gets old for false statements to be made then refuse to deal with those statements. Especially when those statements are an attack on the Word of God. If they don't want to deal with their own statements, then they should keep their mouths shut. That way we can only assume their ignorance rather than them opening their mouths and providing proof.

Bro Tony

 

Bro Tony, I appreciate the civility in which you responded to my post. You are right in saying that I was not a part of the discussion. You opened the door for me to join when you said, "One can only conclude that the KJVO crowd have no legitamate answers ..." I still consider myself to be a KJVO although after much study I have dropped a number or two.

Here is my response to your initial question:

Mark 13:6 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. (KJV)
Mark 13:6 "For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am He,' and will deceive many. (NKJV)

Luke 21:8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them. (KJV)
Luke 21:8 And He said: "Take heed that you not be deceived. For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am He,' and, 'The time has drawn near.' Therefore do not go after them. (NKJV)

“Christ,” is added by eight MSS., Coptic, Armenian, Saxon, and four of the Itala in Mark’s gospel.

The Greek word ειμι is first person singular present indicative. The simple answer is that neither the NKJV nor the KJV “messed up.” Both translations are acceptable and accurate.

 

Thank you Pastor Bob,

I agree with your above statement completely. I did not nor would I say that either version messed up. That statement was made by Askjo. I agree also that it is acceptable for the KJO to place Christ in the verse (in italics) for clarity sake. But that is not what OT and Askjo stated, they stated that the NKJV is corrupted for "removing" Christ. My point was that in the TR the word "Christ" was not present.

Again, thank you for your response and your wonderful spirit. I really appreciate you and I pray God will bless your mininstry and your family.

Bro Tony

 

BTW Pastor Bob,

You seem to be a unique person in the KJVO camp. As far as I can remember in the few months that I have been on the BB you are the only KJVO person that has been willing to go back to the Greek text. I wonder if there are more on this board who are willing to do so? The majority who post seem to condemn any kind of study of the original languages and scholarship.

Bro Tony

 

IMO the significance of Mark 13:6 is that Jesus uses the words ego eime.

this is what got Him in trouble with the parisees in John 8:58-59 and eventually crucified.

John 8
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am (ego eime)
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

HankD

 

I have found a link to an article written by James Melton. He states the following regarding the NKJV:

I was unable to determine his sources for making this claim. I would assume that the changes he refers to are differences with KJV and not the Textus Receptus. Of course, this is pure conjecture on my part.

Be that as it may, Askjo was merely quoting a source just like many others do here on the BB.

 

--------------------------------------------------
The statement has been made that the NKJV does not follow the TR, but the KJV does. Scriptures were given by KJVO (OT) that NKJV was in correct in its rendering of Mark 13:6 & Luke 21:8. In looking at Greek TR I have stated that it does not use the word Christ in either verse. The KJV adds Christ. It has been said that the NKJV messed it up. I am still waiting for someone to deal with this.

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

Is someone going to answer Bro Tony's question? We are waiting! (the saint icon looks sad)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sure, plain and simple: it is the one that God Almighty put his stamp of approval on for generation of believers in the churches. Translation: Christ in italics is correct.

And also to you Hank, cherubims is also correct, as this is what God has put his stamp of approval on for generations of believers. I do not have a problem however with the rendering to cherubim, as it means the same thing.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle