Perfect Translation

I will have to get back to you, time to go to work.

 

Have a good day at work. I look forward to your reply. I have been asking this question for years and can't seem to get an answer.

 

Hey Winman, I look forward too with C4K on some examples. I would accept it if you showed where the NKJV ever used the Critical text over the TR.

What I usually find are examples of translational differences. All the examples you gave earlier were translational differences, not textual.

 

Winman, we all appreciate the fact that you are adamant about your position but you don't back it up by giving us any critical apparatus differences between the TR and the CT because and in fact there are none between the KJV and NKJV because they are both based upon the Traditional Text as opposed to a text that is modeled after the W&H type texts which almost always choose either the Alexandrinus or the Vaticanus Manuscripts where there is a clear difference in the textual content.

Go back to my original answer to your challenge and please read it very carefully.

1 Timothy 3:16 is an example of a clear cut case of a textual difference between the W&H type text and the Traditional Text.

Maybe if I shout it you can hear it...

THE NKJV ALWAYS AGREES WITH THE TRADITIONAL TEXT vs THE CRITICAL TEXT.

Including 1 John 5:7 - Here it is from the NKJV

NKJV 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.​

This is one of the best litmus tests as to whether a Bible is using the Traditional Text, that it includes 1 John 5:7.​

HankD​

 

There are a few places that I have found where there is a textual difference between the KJV and the NKJV.

Romans 7:6

Romans 7:6
1884 TR :αποθανοντος
NA/UBS/some TR/MT αποθανοντες

A Minor difference. However, from my research, this is also a variant in the TR. The NKJV does deviate from the 1884 TR on this verse using the majority reading of αποθανοντες.

Difference is "that being dead" (KJV) vs "having died."

Stephanos-1550 has αποθανοντες

http://bibledatabase.net/html/stephanos_1550/45_007.htm

So really, the NKJV doesn't deviate from the TR because this is a variant even with the TR. BOTH readings are in the TR.

 

The KJV itself is not a strict TR translation. It, like the NKJV, does on occasion choose a Majority Text rendering.

Neither choose a Critical Text rendering.

The charge that the NKJV is a TR/CT hybrid is simply false.

I will recant that statement when I am shown a place where the NKJV choose a CT rendering over a TR/MT rendering.

 

That is because the "Traditional Text" is a NT Text that is one of or a composite of the texts of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza or the Elzevirs (and most recently Scrivener) and yes they have several minor variants among them, some of which do effect the tense, number or gender of the verbs and nouns.

The KJV follows none of them exclusively but is a composite of these Traditional type Texts.

As opposed to the MVs which model themselves (to one degree or another) after the W&H text based on their (W&H) theory of oldest reading is best, shortest reading is best, most difficult reading is best derived amost exclusively from a small handful of ancient Alexandrian manuscripts, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus their favorites.

HankD

 

I would like to offer my sincere apologies to everyone here, for not responding in a more timely manner.

I have grown to depend upon my email notification, to let me know when someone makes a new post, to threads that I am watching, and somehow my email messed up.
--------------------------------------------------
To C4K and others, who have asked for proof that the NKJV has been influence by the critical texts, that will be hard to find.
Because of the nature of “influence” itself.

“influence” (A power affecting a person, thing, or course of events.)

In the late 1970's when the publisher is putting this new Bible together, it is hard to say what really guided(influenced), the changes he made in it.

I grabbed my NKJV, and started reading and was reminded, why I had left it for the KJB back in 1982.

My wife had giving me a NKJV for my birthday and I started using it, but while making a visit and needing help in quoting verse of Scripture, I found that the NKJV was just too different.

That was the end of my use of the NKJV.

Here are just some of the changes that I have found..........
“Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, [Ye] men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.” (Acts 17:22 AV)
“Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious;” (Acts 17:22 NKJV)

“Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” (Matthew 7:14 AV)
“"Because narrow [is] the gate and difficult [is] the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.” (Matthew 7:14 NKJV)

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18 AV)
“"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18 NKJV)

“For the gifts and calling of God [are] without repentance.” (Romans 11:29 AV)
“For the gifts and the calling of God [are] irrevocable.” (Romans 11:29 NKJV)

“But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.” (Romans 6:22 AV)
“But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life.” (Romans 6:22 NKJV)

Now the question is, what “influenced” these changes.
It is hard to believe, that the publisher wasn’t influenced at all, by the critical text.
--------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------
Also, now that I think about this definition of the word influence........
“influence” (A power affecting a person, thing, or course of events.)

I started to think about the “power” of popular opinion.

I experience some of this “power”, here on the BB, and on 98% of every other Christian forum on the net.

What I am getting at, is the almost universal need, to satisfy today’s intellectual pomposity, when it comes to the critical text.

That is to say, if the publishers of the NKJV, had indeed ignored the critical texts, in light of all the pressure that I am sure was being exerted on them, how could they not have been "influenced" by it.

 

It's hard to find because it is non-existent.

What do you mean by changes? He is make a new translation, there is nothing to change.

A translational difference. Has nothing to do with the critical text. All manuscripts have deisidaimonesteros in the Greek text. It is not a variant. Saying the very same thing

Translational difference, not textual

strait/narrow is from the Greek word stenos
narrow/difficult is from the Greek word thlibō

It is teaching the same thing. The only problem is when kjv only advocates take the passage out of context to show a problem. If you look, it is teaching the very same thing. This one always makes me laugh when I see it.

hades is the greek word that the KJV translates as hell. The NKJV is showing a difference between "hades" and "Geenna"' which is the place of eternal torment.

This makes me laugh too when people poke fun at the word God used in the passage(the Greek word hades)

Again, teaching the exact same thing. Not a textual variant. There are no textual variants in Romans 11:29.

It is teaching that the gifts and calling of God are (without repentance|irrevocable) - same thing. This "repentance" isn't talking about without biblical repentance to salvation. Repentance can mean to change ones mind about anything. Typically now, we refer only to something negative, but in 1611, that wasn't so.

No textual variant and the verses are teaching the same thing. - again
Servant and slave is a translation of the term douloō

How would the critical text "influence" the NKJV when NONE of the passages you showed had a textual variant but the SAME WORD as the TR?

If it is the same, how could it be an influence over the TR?

Note that ALL the examples have no variant reading and all were teaching the VERY SAME THING.

Have a nice day, hope this helps.

 

First of all this is not a 'new Bible.' It was a new translation of the Bible.

All of this is simply your opinion. That is obvious from these quotes. You don't have any facts to support your contention.

I

 

Ok, I will attempt to show that the NKJV was influenced by the Critical Text. I am at a little disadvantage, not knowing Greek, so I have to rely on those who do.

Chick publications says that the NKJV was NOT based on the same texts as the KJB. Whether this is absolutely true or not, I cannot prove. But here is an article on the matter.

 

Here is another article that shows examples where the NKJV departed from the texts used in the KJB.

This article continued in next post.

 

Article continued from previous post.

Article continued in next post.

 

Article continued from previous post.

 

Sigh- same old hash- rewarmed, but it still stinks. Simply setting up the KJV as the standard and claiming that anything that deviates from the standard is not "the Bible" is not a legitimate reason to reject the NKJV or any other MV.

 

What does that have to do with C4K's question? Nothing. Instead of saying something of substance or value that could contribute to the thread, you simply bash those who believe in the KJB.

 

No bashing. Simply stating a fact.

 

Winman it seems to me that you aren't aware of some important facts.

I say that because in the litany of examples you have given the differences you mention are variances within the family of Traditional Texts.

In most cases it appears to me that these so called CT choices are not CT vs TR choices but choices among this family of Traditional Texts.

First there is no singular Greek text (such as the Stephanus text) that represents the underlying Greek text of the AV. But a composite of Byzantine type texts and yes, even a few verses which are from the Vulgate.

I gave you a list of these NT Koine scribes from which the AV English text was developed. Alexandrian type texts were not used.

A man named Scrivener (Late 1800's) took the Stephanus text as his base and then where the AV English seemed to deviate from that text he determined from which Greek text (from the list above or the Vulgate) that the AV translators chose and developed his text.

Scriveners text represents the best guess as to which of the Tradition Texts that the AV translators chose from because they left no Greek text behind and their archtype original English manuscript has been lost, burned in a fire at the Cambridge Library.

For example you listed Roman 7:6 (I simply can't take the time to go through every one).

First, there is no AV TR as such, one has to determine which Traditional Manuscript the AV committee used.

apothanontOS is the Scrivener choice and frankly I can't see why he chose it because both the Byzantine Majority AND Stephanus have apothanontES. Both are considered a Traditional Text type.

I dont have Beza or Elziver but this is enough to prove the point.

These are variants among the families of the Traditional Texts and even John Burgon disagreed with some of the choices the AV translators made and said so in writing - that the AV needed to be revised to reflect the better readings among the Traditional Text readings.

A committee was chosen and the revision took place.

Burgon was appalled when the revision committee introduced the Wescott and Hort theories and their resultant text which favored a small but ancient handful of Alexandrian manuscripts.

Scrivener then went on to actually develop the Greek text Burgon desired.

In addition, for 200 plus years the Church of England continuously revised the text to reflect what they thought were better choices from among the Traditional Text family as more scholarship proved it so.

Please allow the NKJV the same lattitude.

THERE ARE NO CLEARLY ALEXANDRIAN READINGS IN THE NKJV.

You have deceived by scholarship that does not tell you that the choices for the readings of the NKJV are taken from among the family of the Traditional Texts.

Another point of dishonest scholarship is that the choice between the Traditional Text families will often agree with an Alexandrian manuscript and are therefore attributed to the same.

Wescott and Hort were not even born when Stephanus developed his text (1500's), so if the Stephanus word choice agrees with the Sinaiticus it was because he found and chose the different word from within the Traditional Text family.

How do we know this? The Sinaiticus was not discovered until 1859.
Wescott and Hort developed their Greek text giving highest weight to readings from Sinaiticus (Aleph), Alexandrinus, Vaticanus and a few other Alexandrian texts in 1881 where they clearly differered from the family of Traditional Texts. Thereby making this allegation impossible.

Even now some of the MV's have departed from many of the W&H choices for the Traditional readings.

I hope this helps clear up this matter for you.

Repeat:
THERE ARE NO CLEARLY ALEXANDRIAN READINGS IN THE NKJV.

HankD

 

Thank you Hank, for that helpful information. I will be the first to admit that I am not a scholar on this subject, nor do I aspire to be. I believe the scriptures to be preserved by faith, not scholarship.

But the point is, the NJKV is not faithful to the same texts as the KJB. It often uses the same text as the MVs.

Now, what is funny to me is that usually you have folks here arguing that the MVs and the KJB are the same. They are the same scriptures, just said in a different way.

But for this argument I have been asked to prove that the NKJV has some text taken from the Critical Text, proving once and for all that they are very different and not the same.

Most of us are not Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew scholars. We depend on those who are to faithfully translate the originals into English. I think it is easy to see that the NKJV departed from the English translation of the KJB to agree with the MVs in many places.

Now, this is just my opinion, but I see this as a very subtle deception. It is an intentional corruption (in the view of KJB supporters) to introduce the errors (in the view of KJB supporters) of the Alexandrian texts into the scriptures.

You of course have the right to disagree.

 

Bingo - despite the copy and paste from a source which is not known for its intellectual honesty, there are still no readings from the CT in the KNJV.