• 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 Origen of All Modern Versions

verysincere

Exegete/Linguist
Jan 18, 2012
2,461
87
Haiti
✟25,646.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married

The choice was difficult (of all of the points in the OP) but I have to confess: I just printed the above and it's going on my office door.
 
Upvote 0

verysincere

Exegete/Linguist
Jan 18, 2012
2,461
87
Haiti
✟25,646.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
A warning label noting that it is heiferdust might be useful. Someone might be ignorant enough to actually believe it.

Point well taken. However, if I ever discover that a student of mine (even a new one just starting his studies) was unable to make that determination, I will be torn between investigating his/her qualifying examination scores and checking my own pulse!

[And frankly, I'm still not entirely confident that we are not being POE'd for someone's amusement. With the hyper-KJV pretenders on some forums, I've been fooled before and I will probably be fooled again. Unless one inspects a poster's history, it can be very hard to tell the pranksters from the die-hards. But I do thank you for making an excellent point for the benefit of those who may read our posts in the future.]
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Site Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,935
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟554,225.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives

Even if this were completely true, which it isn't, it contains one very essential error. There is one modern translation of the Bible that is based on the same manuscripts as those used in preparing the King James Bible. That is the New King James Version of the Bible.

So your accusations simply do not apply to the NKJV.
 
Upvote 0

a pilgrim

Not a fan, but a follower.
Jul 8, 2011
514
28
✟16,235.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

but your mistaken, sir. Read the footnotes in you NKJV, it contains some translation out of the NU-Text. What is that?

NU-Text - These variations from the traditional text generally represent the Alexandrian or Egyptian type of text...found in the Critical Text...of the Nestle Aland Greek New Testament (N) and in the United Bible Societies third edition (U), hence the term,
‘NU-Text.’

This is NOT the same as the TR. Here is an excellent article:
THE NEW KING JAMES VERSION


 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,553
709
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟140,373.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Let's put your NU-Text quote in context. This is what the preface of the NKJV states:
However, on what Greek text of the NT was the NKJV based? The preface of New King James Version reads:
So, the NKJV, according to the translator's preface, is based on the Received Text (the Textus Receptus).

As Dr. Arthur L. Farstad, Executive Editor of the New King James Version wrote: "the NKJV is an update of an historic version translated from a specific type of text. We felt it was unwise to change the base from which it [the Textus Receptus] was made..."'

We also need to realise that the original KJV of 1611 was not a new translation, but a revision of other earlier translations. How do we know? This is what the preface of the 1611 edition stated:
As Bruce Metzger stated of the 1611 edition of the KJV: "It is in fact a revision of the Bishops' Bible, as this itself was a revision of the Great Bible, and the Great Bible a revision of Coverdale and Tyndale" (Metzger, B M 2001. The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, p. 76).

And Tyndale's NT of 1382, hand written as printing had not been invented, was based on the Latin Vulgate.

The fact remains that the translators of the NKJV state clearly in the Preface that the NT translation is based on the Textus Receptus (the Received Text). No amount of talking about footnotes will change that fact.

Sincerely, Oz
 
Upvote 0