How many families of manuscripts

The KJV followed the short reading at Acts 4:25 since it does not have the phrase "through the Holy Spirit" that is found in some manuscripts in all four text types.

James D. Price maintained: "some witnesses have the phrase 'through the Holy Spirit,' and some omit it. In this example, all the witnesses in the Alexandrian, Western, and Caesarean text-types contain the phrase, including the early witnesses of the Antiochan text; while the Byzantine text together with the Textus Receptus and most of the late manuscripts omit the phrase. Because the Greek church father, Athanasius (A. D. 373) witnessed both readings, the omission likely took place in th east sometime in his generation" (KING JAMES ONLYISM, p. 193). Price asserted: "In the example of Acts 4:25 above, the phrase 'though the Holy Spirit' is supported by the most ancient witnesses and by all four ancient independent text-types, satisfying all the requirements of external evidence" (p. 195). Price suggested: "in the example of Acts 4:25 above, the omission of the phrase 'through the Holy Spirit' was probably the result of a scribal accident early in the history of the Antiochan tradition since there seems to be no apparent reason for an intentional omission" (p. 195).

 

If "it was all over the place" prior to 1611, you and other KJV-only advocates should be able to identify and name some manuscripts, printed original language texts, or translations in which God had as faithfully preserved the Scriptures as you claim in 1611.

 

Personally, I see the use and promotion by an individual of a certain family of manuscripts or a collation of such as a matter of choice with a mixture of fact and faith behind that choice as a good and proper thing.

But to use a "catch phrase" such as "TR", "Traditional Text" or "Critical Text" as a shibboleth to question the faith and motives of the brethren as improper.

After all, we ALL want to have the Word of God in it's purest form possible (humanly speaking, as we humans have introduced the errors into the text).

We are one in this desire.

HankD

 

Ok, Dr. Price worked for the NKJV. I checked the NKJV thru the Internet and read Acts 4:25 on the NKJV. Why did the NKJV NOT have "through the Holy Spirit" in its text? I found it on its footnotes.

 

The reason is simple. It had been decided and agreed that the NKJV would follow the same underlying texts as the KJV. By the way, Dr. Price was executive editor for the NKJV's Old Testament and translated or worked on the O. T.

 

Why diid the NKJV not follow the Greek text saying, "through the Holy Spirit? The NKJV's footnotes said, "NU-Text reads who through the Holy Spirit, by the mouth of our father, Your servant David." Why did these NKJV translators not put this phrase in the NKJV TEXT if they favored this phrase? Remember that Dr. Price is not a TR advocate.

 

By the way, the Great Bible (one of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision) had the words "in the holy ghost" at Acts 4:25.

 

Well, why did the NKJV translators not select the phrase from the Great Bible and put it in the NKJV text?

 

Most likely, for the same reasons the AV translators didn't, either.

 

If the translators of any Bible version select a particular Greek text to follow, and if a word or phrase isn't in the Greek text they have selected, then why would they add something to the text??? It wouldn't make a bit of sense to add something not found in the text. The translators of a good, mostly-literal Bible version like the NKJV seek to remain as close to the underlying Greek text as possible - they don't add words or phrases just because those words or phrases are found in another Bible version based on another Greek text.