Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The NKJV continually points to the NU as having the correct reading. Who is NU?
The NKJV is neutral in it's textual footnotes. The NU footnotes represent the Nestle Aland and United Bible society's text which is essentially the same thing and the M notes represent the Majority Text. Arthur Farstad the main man behind the NKJV favored the Majority Text.
The idea that the notes of the NU were placed there, questioning the text is not neutral in itself.
The NKJV translators had a bias for the Alexandrian Text as shown in the first book of the New Testament as they followed the spelling of the Alexandrian Text.
They followed the same line as the translations that use the Alexandrian Text in replacing the word master for teacher when applied to Jesus. The head teacher is called the master, but they preferred to change the King James to the more diminutive form, which is teacher.
They followed again in changing "power" to "authority" in Matthew 28:18. There is a difference. You can have authority to do something, and yet not have the power to do it. For example, I may have the authority to arrest a criminal, but not the power if he is holding a gun to my head.
They followed again in changing "Son" to "servant" in reference to Jesus. They translated the same Greek word "son" in John 4:51 so it was obviously a choice they made.
These changes become more important when you read the words of a Revised Version Translator referring to these changes and stating that Quote "--it is well understood that the New Testament contains neither precept nor example which really sanction the religious worship of Jesus Christ."
Just having the notes there doesn't denote they support them. As I said, it's well known Arthur Farstad was a Majority Text advocate and didn't favor NU. If you look at the NU notes on the two largest textual variants in the New Testament, John 7:53-8:11 and the ending of the gospel of Mark, they take a position against the NU.
The issues you brought up are not textual, they are not textual variants but translation decisions.
"James is back" asked what was wrong with the NKJV. Translation decisions are pertinent to that question. Those translation decisions that follow a trail going back to the Revised Version, who appeared to have made a decision to eliminate any aspect that relates to the Deity of Christ, at least according to one member of that translation committee, is one reason for the dislike of the NKJV. When you combine that with the insert of text which follows back to that same original translation committee you have a double reason.
No one likes to beat up on a translation of the bible, and yet we should be knowledgeable of their history.
Best regards, Terry
Your question would only be viable if we possessed the original manuscripts.(Autographs/letters.)
No. The fact that we don't have the original discredits all claims of inerrancy. You cannot prove inerrancy without inerrant autographs.
A claim is discredited in Christianity for one of a couple reasons:It doesn't discredit the claims, it just makes it impossible to prove.
Terry
A claim is discredited in Christianity for one of a couple reasons:
1. IT is impossible for this doctrine to apply to all men following God in all times. If you can't apply KJVO to Christians prior to 1611, then it is not valid.
2. It cannot be proven from Scripture or from the manuscripts (or, for us Orthodox, from the Tradition which we have). KJVO is unsupported from all three viewpoints, not the least of which being that there weren't even copies of any Scripture in any language in some churches (such as the Church in Gaul under Irenaeus).
For 1500 years, there was no English translation.For nearly 400 years the Holy Spirit allowed the Received Text to stand alone as the English translation.
It took nearly a hundred years for men, who believed the first eleven chapters of the Bible to be folklore and legend, to gain acceptance for the Revised Version.
You really need to study these men to see who they were, and what they believed.
For 1500 years, there was no English translation.
The KJV isn't applicable for all of the Church, thus it is not required for Christians. It is a great translation which I have, but not the only.
For 1500 years, there was no English translation.
The KJV isn't applicable for all of the Church, thus it is not required for Christians. It is a great translation which I have, but not the only.
sculleywr; have you examined the manuscripts behind the new translations, and the men who have provided them?
Psa 116:11 I said in my haste, All men are liars.
1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Best regards, Terry
In many cases, those manuscripts happen to be older. In either way, the variants are in no way dangerous to Christian doctrine unless you treat the Bible like a Qur'an.
In many cases, those manuscripts happen to be older. In either way, the variants are in no way dangerous to Christian doctrine unless you treat the Bible like a Qur'an.
There is also good evidence that you say things without supporting your claims. Please show the evidence if you're going to compliment it.There is good evidence that suggests that their most touted old manuscript is no older than the nineteenth Century.
Best regards, Terry
There is also good evidence that you say things without supporting your claims. Please show the evidence if you're going to compliment it.
Literary Forgeries of the Nineteenth Century
( Originally Published 1893 )
Constantine Simonides (1820-1867)
The greatest forger of the last century was undoubtedly Constantine Simonides, a Greek, who was born in 1824. To meet the requirements of modern critics, who know styles of writing, the colours of the ink and paints of different times, and the very kinds of parchment used, there is need of such a combination of intellect with versatility, industry with ingenuity, as is rarely found. Yet, as even Juvenal could instance the audacity of the Graeculusesuriens, so in modern times that mixed race has shown many of the qualities which, when perverted to a base use, produce the skilled forger.-------------.
After this Simonides appeared only once with any prominence before the public, when in 1861 he boldly asserted that he himself had written the whole of the Codex Sinaiticus, which Tischendorf had brought in 1856 from the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. The statement was, of course, received with the utmost incredulity ; but Simonides asserted, not only that he had written it, but that, in view of the probable scepticism of scholars, he had placed certain private signs on particular leaves of the codex. When pressed to specify these marks, he gave a list of the leaves on which were to be found his initials or other monogram. The test was a fair one, and the AIS., which was at St. Petersburg, was carefully inspected. Every leaf designated by Simonides was found to be imperfect at the part where the mark was to have been found. Deliberate mutilation by an enemy, said his friends. But many thought that the wily Greek had acquired through private friends a note of some imperfect leaves in the MS., and had made unscrupulous use of the information.
Best regards, Terry
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?