1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

NKJV does not always follow TR of KJB

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Will J. Kinney, Jan 15, 2004.

  1. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Untrue. The NKJV is NOT derived from the MT. It is translated from Scrivener's 1894 TR, which Scrivener "reverse engineered" to give the readings from the editions of 1525, 1551, and 1598 of the TR which underlie the KJV.
     
  2. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,850
    Likes Received:
    1,084
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thank you.

    But what happened to the fabled "40 percent" that is cited as the NKJV's departure, using the "New Majority Text" or ("the Dallas Text") from the "TR" (of whatever flavor?)

    But if Moorman is basing his critique of the NKJV on a non-Scrivener text, what happens to the whole Burgon Society argument about the NKJV?
     
  3. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    1
    That little puff of smoke you see going by is the remains of that argument.

    Thought it won't stop the KJV-onlyists from repeating it ad nauseam like they always do. (Say, did you know the NIV says Jesus is Satan? Or that one of its translators was a lesbian?)
     
  4. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hodges and Farstad, 1982. Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad, The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982; 2nd edition 1985.

    The closest representation of the M-text in print is The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text (Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2nd ed., 1985). The only translation with footnotes showing M-text readings is the New King James Version (NKJV, Also by Thomas Nelson, 1985).

    Click -- The Majority Text and the New KJV
     
  5. tinytim

    tinytim <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    If ONE word is changed from the 1611 or TR, doesn't that change a jot or tittle?
    Also, why does God preserve and oversee tranlators to make sure there is no errors but turns his head or goes on a break when the document goes to the printers?
    Where is the original 1611? If it's missing, how can we compare to find printers mistakes?
    Those poor printers, they must be suffering in Hell for changing the words of God. ;)
    Logic works both ways.
     
  6. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    759
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hi skwmatos, I have just begun to look at the responses here so I don't know what lies ahead yet, but I would like to address the points you brought up. You said: "Brother Kinney, if you will continue to look at Dr. Waite's excellent booklet you will notice on page 20, item numbers 0144 and 0177 where "GOD" was changed to "LORD" twice. On page 21, item number 0067 where "LAMBE" was changed to "RAM." I am sure you do not dismiss those as corrections of printer's errors. They are actual word changes. How do you address those actual word changes in view of your position on the perfect nature of the KJV?"


    I believe they are simple printing errors. The words God, Lord, GOD, LORD, are found with what a printer might consider monotonous frequency throughout those passages. It is quite easy to skip over one God and put Lord or vice versa.

    The second example of Ram to Lambe again is quite easy. Both words occur in Numbers 6:14 and it would have been very easy to confuse them.

    Will K
     
  7. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    759
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Untrue. The NKJV is NOT derived from the MT. It is translated from Scrivener's 1894 TR, which Scrivener "reverse engineered" to give the readings from the editions of 1525, 1551, and 1598 of the TR which underlie the KJV.

    ______________________________

    Correct brother. The NKJV does not always follow the same Greek text as the KJB, but easily 99% of the time, it does. It is not based on the MT, but I read that originally they were thinking of doing this. Problem is, there is no consensus or agreement on what exactly the "majority" text really is.

    The so called "Majority" text is still greatly divided in many places and not yet thoroughly documented or collated. To my knowledge, there never has been a major translation done using the "majority" text. Right now there are at least two different MTs out there - one by Farstaad and another by Pierpoint, and these differ from one another in several places.

    The NKJV has a lot of problems, but it is not as bad as the NIV, NASB, ESV stuff. But the NKJV, in my opinion, is certainly not the infallible, inerrant words of God. It really should be called something other than the "new" KJV, since it departs so many thousands of times from the wording of the KJB, and that is not counting the "thee", "thou" and "ye"s.

    Will K
     
  8. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    759
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Tim posts: "If ONE word is changed from the 1611 or TR, doesn't that change a jot or tittle?
    Also, why does God preserve and oversee tranlators to make sure there is no errors but turns his head or goes on a break when the document goes to the printers?
    Where is the original 1611? If it's missing, how can we compare to find printers mistakes?
    Those poor printers, they must be suffering in Hell for changing the words of God.
    Logic works both ways. "

    Tim, every book, even in modern times with all the scanning technology we have, will still have printing errors in them. The nasb has had several printing errors that were later corrected. James White's book had some printing errors, Newspapers and magazines have them.

    It is the underlying texts of the KJB, the Hebrew and Greek texts, that have not been changed. The same cannot be said for the niv, nasb, rsv, etc. These all have deliberately changed their own TEXTS from one edition to the next, as well as their English renderings.

    The whole "Printing Error" complaint the biblical relativists bring up, is really a non issue. What I mean by this is that if every single copy of the King James Bible that has ever come off the printing presses all read exactly the same with no minor printing errors ever found in any one of them, it still would not change their mind and opinion that the KJB is not the inspired, inerrant word of God.

    In other words, this argument carries no weight at all. It is brought up as a smokescreen, not as a serious issue of the ultimate truth of Scripture.

    I have known of people who studied the issue of 1 John 5:7 and considered the historical, textual and grammatical evidence for it being true, God inspired Scripture, and they became convinced it should be in the Bible, and they then became a KJB believer.

    Likewise I have known of another person who compared the meaning of Revelation 19:8 in the KJB and the NKJV, and since he was well grounded in sound doctrine, he became a KJB believer and rejected the nkjv.

    But these decisions had to do with the truth of Scripture, not minor mistakes in the printing process. Like I said, if someone is convinced the KJB is not the inspired word of God, no matter if all copies in its long history read exactly the same, his mind would not be changed by this fact.

    It is a non issue of no significance.

    If one adopts the view that printing errors negate any Bible version or text (Hebrew or Greek), from being valid or true, then you end up with no inspired, inerrant Bible anywhere on this earth. That too is carrying the argument to its logical conclusion.

    Will K
     
  9. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Even if this was shown to be true, we're not the ones who are holding them up as infallible. You've got a different set of standards, since you declare one book to be infallible.

    Misinformation.

    You're not even addressing the point really. How do you know that those types of supernatural perfection wouldn't change the mind of anyone. If the KJV was EXACTLY the same from each printing, especially with the technology that existed back there, I sure would see that as a sign of providence. As it is, though, I can't understand what GOd would let the original KJV printing be filled with such errors.

    You're deflecting, because you don't have an answer.

    And I've known of even more who have studied the issue, and considered history, textual criticism, and grammatical evidence who have dropped the KJVO-platform.

    And why do you call yourself a "KJB believer?" Is that not idolatry?

    see previous paragraph.

    Thta is beacuse they weren't able to see that God had preserved a perfect Word in 1611. If He had done that, then you might have seen people turn solely to the KJV. The fact is that God chose not to preserve the KJV in the printing. You can't make blanket statements and just assume them to be true so you can throw out an argument against your point.

    Which you accuse MV's of already, so that doesn't bother me too much.
     
  10. Anti-Alexandrian

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Will,this printing error "thing" is like you said,a "smoke screen," you know,change the subject when things get rough;the thickest plumes come from "where was the word of God in......??"


    Wild and crazy stuff!!!!! [​IMG]
     
  11. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There are problems with this explanation.

    Typesetting in those days was a very meticulous task. The probability of mis-setting a letter or two in a word was fairly high. The probability of getting an entire word wrong was fairly low since each character had to be individually chosen and compare to the exemplar. They also engaged in character counting, like the Hebrew scribes, as a form of quality control. Your explanation is very unlikely.
     
  12. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This whole argument is like saying, "I drive a Ford. Therefore, you're wrong because you drive a Chevy".
     
  13. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    But that is my whole point. The word "Ram" does NOT occur in the edition of 1611 which reads:
    Note the lack of the word "ram" as we see in later editions. (Also note the first "offring" is how it is spelled in the first edition, first printing of the edition of 1611 even though the rest of the times we see "offering" in the verse the spelling is correct.) [​IMG]
     
  14. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    These are typesetting/design/proofreading errors, not printing errors. The distinction is important. Printing is a repeatable, mechanical process. Typesetting/proofreading are human processes very much like being a scribe in the scribal days.

    You say that God somehow inspired/guided the KJV translators to perfectly perform the translation process but then failed to likewise guide the typesetter. At the same time, you bristle at the very notion that God inspired the originals then let countless scribes to introduce errors.

    You cannot produce this AV 1611 exemplar so that we can see if these things are printers errors but then scoff at those of us who hold the orthodox, biblical position on the doctrine of scripture for citing the originals as the source of authority for the Bible. You mock us for attributing inerrancy, infallibility, and inspiration only to the originals that perished almost 2000 years ago. Yet, you cite the 400 year old KJV original as authoritative when it has likewise perished.

    You are employing double standards. You are using two different weights in your balance.
    Changed from what? There were numerous revisions before the KJV. No one is even sure which edition(s) they used. The common TR available today is Scrivener's which dates from almost 300 years after the KJV was translated.

    Also, the TR was a change from everything that came before it. It was new when Erasmus created it.

    Yes. The texts underlying the KJV have changed. It is simply a matter of when and who did the changing and why.

    Yes it does. It refutes your logic by showing it to be completely inconsistent.
    Regardless of any argument about the text or translation of this passage, we derive doctrine from scripture... we don't determine what is scripture by our doctrinal preconceptions.
    Your argument is hypothetical. Ours is real life. You have been shown that all copies of the KJV and TR and Byzantine texts are not the same yet you assert that somehow they are.

    Or rather an issue you would rather not deal with.

    But we don't believe that. You are simply trying to set up a straw man.
    Since it is a fact that there are errors in printed Bibles and even more so in handcopied Bibles, your argument is self-defeating.

    We believe that we do have Bibles that have derived inspiration and that are inerrant to the degree that they agree with what the originals said. You actually appear to believe something very close to this but then arbitrarily limit God's Word to one translation and claim that it is equivalent to the originals.
     
  15. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Correct. The TR has gone through many revisions. Erasmus published 5 editions, all different, between 1516 and 1535. Stephanus added 4 between 1546 and 1551. Beza produced an additional 9 editions between 1565 and 1605, and the Elzevir's published 7 more between 1624 and 1678. Add to that the 4 editions produced by Scrivener between 1894 and 1907 and we have a total of 29 editions! If you consider the Complutensian Polyglot of 1522 to be a TR then we have 30 total TRs, all different. And what is interesting is that NONE of them agree with the KJV 100%. Even Scrivener, when producing his reverse engineered TR, found at least six places were he could not determine the origin of the KJV reading.
    Well, not exactly. The TR was simply the "commonly received text" or "text received by all" (i.e. Textum ab omnibus Receptum). Even Westcott and Hort say that Erasmus did not engage in any "modern scientific textual criticism" but merely "passed along" the text in common usage since the mid 5th century. [​IMG]
     
  16. Precepts

    Precepts New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm sorry, but this I can't resist: I'd rather be caught dead with a picture of a Ford in my pocketbook than have a chevy in my yard!

    Judges 3:28 And he said unto them, Follow after me: for the LORD hath delivered your enemies the Moabites into your hand. And they went down after him, and took the fords of Jordan toward Moab, and suffered not a man to pass over.
    [​IMG] :D [​IMG]
     
  17. russell55

    russell55 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh please don't say that! You're gonna start a big fight with Granny Gumbo!
     
  18. Precepts

    Precepts New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh please don't say that! You're gonna start a big fight with Granny Gumbo! </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, but once she saw my new Ford, she'd wanna ride in it! To help go catch those Moabites that is. :D

    Go, Granny, Go, Granny, Go, Granny,Go! [​IMG]
     
  19. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm sorry, but this I can't resist: I'd rather be caught dead with a picture of a Ford in my pocketbook than have a chevy in my yard!

    Judges 3:28 And he said unto them, Follow after me: for the LORD hath delivered your enemies the Moabites into your hand. And they went down after him, and took the fords of Jordan toward Moab, and suffered not a man to pass over.
    [​IMG] :D [​IMG]
    </font>[/QUOTE]I drive a Jeep 4x4 :D Where's that verse about a "Triumph heard in the land"? Now, we have deviated from the thread! Yikes.
    Seriously, I have learned more about the M.T. and T.R. reading this thread, and reading posted links. PTL. I'm still convinced the KJV1982 (NKJV) is a spendid update of the KJV1769, based on mostly the T.R.
     
  20. tinytim

    tinytim <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Will, are you the type of KJVO that believes that if two things are different then they can't be the same?

    Simple statements learned from experience that noone should dispute:

    1. Two KJV editions differ.

    2. They can't be the same

    3. Either a translator made a boo-boo, or a printer made a boo-boo (sorry for childish talk, I've got 3 boys, and I find it easier to explain things in language even they can understand.)

    4. God is all powerful, And is/was able to protect an edition from any error, even a printer's.

    QUESTIONS FOR WILL:
    If only one matches what God inspired in the originals, then which one?

    Why did God allow the printers to make mistakes when he guided the translators?

    Which is better, ford or chevy? [​IMG] ;)
     
Loading...