# What text is the NKJ based on?



## Croghanite (Mar 5, 2008)

What text is the NKJ based on? from this thread


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Mar 5, 2008)

The Textus Receptus, or recieved text.


----------



## AV1611 (Mar 5, 2008)

Whilst the main body is based on the TR it contains the deviant readings in footnotes so I am unable to see how it can lay claim to being TR.



NKJV Preface said:


> the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the footnotes. Although these variations are duly indicated in the footnotes of the present edition, it is most important to emphasize that fully eighty-five percent of the New Testament text is the same in the Textus Receptus, the Alexandrian Text, and the Majority Text.



New King James Version


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Mar 5, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Whilst the main body is based on the TR it contains the deviant readings in footnotes so I am unable to see how it can lay claim to being TR.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It is TR precisely because they keep those deviant readings in footnotes, and do not insert them in the text. That is what makes it TR. Isn't it?


----------



## Civbert (Mar 5, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> > Whilst the main body is based on the TR it contains the deviant readings in footnotes so I am unable to see how it can lay claim to being TR.
> ...




I agree. We don't consider footnotes as part of God's Word. 

We might forget that the section headings are also not God's Word, but that's another issue.


----------



## sastark (Mar 5, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Whilst the main body is based on the TR it contains the deviant readings in footnotes so I am unable to see how it can lay claim to being TR.



I've had many a KJV that did the same, though.


----------



## Croghanite (Mar 5, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Whilst the main body is based on the TR it contains the deviant readings in footnotes so I am unable to see how it can lay claim to being TR.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The "main body" or entirely based on TR ? Not including the footnotes.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Mar 5, 2008)

Yes. The Main body, or text of the New Testament is based on and translated from TR.



LAYMAN JOE said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> > Whilst the main body is based on the TR it contains the deviant readings in footnotes so I am unable to see how it can lay claim to being TR.
> ...


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 5, 2008)

It is possible to buy NKJVs without footnotes if that is what you prefer.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Mar 6, 2008)

The footnotes point out variant readings in the Critical Text (Nestle-Aland and UBS) and the Majority Text (MT). If you view them as deviant, fine. But I find it useful to see where these differences are, as reflected in the NASB and ESV (for example) which don't give you the benefit of TR footnotes.


----------



## ADKing (Mar 6, 2008)

While the NKJV claims to follow the Received Text in the transalation itself, (footnote issues aside) and for the most part does, there are certain documented instances where it actually follows the Critical text readings, not in the footnotes, but in the body itself:
II Corinthians 3.14, II John 7, Acts 19.9, 39; Philippians 2.9 and Revelation 6.11. 

For more information see the latest issue of TBS's "Quarterly Record" in its critique of the NKJV.


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 6, 2008)

ADKing said:


> While the NKJV claims to follow the Received Text in the transalation itself, (footnote issues aside) and for the most part does, there are certain documented instances where it actually follows the Critical text readings, not in the footnotes, but in the body itself:
> II Corinthians 3.14, II John 7, Acts 19.9, 39; Philippians 2.9 and Revelation 6.11.
> 
> For more information see the latest issue of TBS's "Quarterly Record" in its critique of the NKJV.



The article is certainly correct that changes are made to the text of the NKJV from time to time but with no notice thereof.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 6, 2008)

Here are the above texts AV first, NKJV second

2 Corinthians 3:14



> 4But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.





> But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ



2 John 7



> For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.





> For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist



Acts 19:9



> But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.





> But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus.



Acts 19:39



> "But if ye enquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly."





> But if you have any other inquiry to make, it shall be determined in the lawful assembly.



Phil. 2:9



> Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:





> Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,



Revelation 6:11


> And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.





> Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed.


----------



## CDM (Mar 6, 2008)

What about in Acts 4:27:

KJV


> For of a truth against thy *holy child Jesus*, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,



NKJV


> “For truly against Your *holy Servant *Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together



and again later in Acts 4:30:

KJV


> By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy *holy child *Jesus



NKJV


> by stretching out Your hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your *holy Servant *Jesus.”



Holy Child? Servant? As best I can recall, all Critical text versions, such as the Nearly Inspired Version, (NIV) translate "child" as "servant".


----------



## Civbert (Mar 6, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> ADKing said:
> 
> 
> > While the NKJV claims to follow the Received Text in the transalation itself, (footnote issues aside) and for the most part does, there are certain documented instances where it actually follows the Critical text readings, not in the footnotes, but in the body itself:
> ...


Which "quarterly report" has this? I found a list here.


----------



## Civbert (Mar 6, 2008)

mangum said:


> Holy Child? Servant? As best I can recall, all Critical text versions, such as the Nearly Inspired Version, (NIV) translate "child" as "servant".



I'm a little confused. I thought the "critical text" and the "Textus Receptus" were manuscripts in original language - not the translations of them. The question then should be what is the correct _translation _of the TR text - holy child or servant? "Child" _is _a translation. What is the original word from the TR and then what might be the correct translation.

I did a check and there the same word in Greek is translated child and servant. This is the KJV Concordance:


> G3816
> παῖς
> pais
> Total KJV Occurrences: 24
> ...



So more times than not, the translation in the KJV itself has it as "servant". So there is no indication that the NKJV was using anything but the TR when it translated the word as "servant" instead of "child".


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Mar 6, 2008)

I agree with Civbert. The list provided by Daniel Ritchie (above) appear to be slight translation differences. No indication of a deviation from the TR.


----------



## CDM (Mar 6, 2008)

Civbert said:


> mangum said:
> 
> 
> > Holy Child? Servant? As best I can recall, all Critical text versions, such as the Nearly Inspired Version, (NIV) translate "child" as "servant".
> ...



My apologies for the confusion. You are correct in what you pointed out. Either way my point is the NKJV took what others _translations_ of the critical text use. Basically, many times, like in this instance, the NKJV renders a word that the critical text _translations_ use.


----------



## Civbert (Mar 6, 2008)

mangum said:


> My apologies for the confusion. You are correct in what you pointed out. Either way my point is the NKJV took what others _translations_ of the critical text use. Basically, many times, like in this instance, the NKJV renders a word that the critical text _translations_ use.



Isn't true that there is about 98% agreement between the TR and the CT manuscripts? I'd expect there to be a great deal of agreement then in the translations to modern English. 

So the key verses should be those where the actually language TR and CT differ. If someone can show me where the NKJV seemed to prefer the CT over the TR in those instances, that would be something. Otherwise, I would expect a great deal of agreement between modern translations since they happen to be based on manuscripts that agree 98% of the time and they are translating into the same modern English. 

P.S. I found that the last two issues of the TBS quarterly are the ones in question - issues 581 and 582.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 6, 2008)

> Holy Child? Servant? As best I can recall, all Critical text versions, such as the Nearly Inspired Version, (NIV) translate "child" as "servant".



Easy tiger. No version is inspired. If you really want to insult the NIV just call it the Northern Ireland Version.


----------



## AV1611 (Mar 6, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> > Holy Child? Servant? As best I can recall, all Critical text versions, such as the Nearly Inspired Version, (NIV) translate "child" as "servant".
> 
> 
> 
> Easy tiger. No version is inspired. If you really want to insult the NIV just call it the Northern Ireland Version.



Personally I go for "Non-Inspired Version"


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 6, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > > Holy Child? Servant? As best I can recall, all Critical text versions, such as the Nearly Inspired Version, (NIV) translate "child" as "servant".
> ...



You would be correct; though that is a label I would apply to every version (unless one is a Ruckmanite).


----------



## Barnpreacher (Mar 6, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> You would be correct; though that is a label I would apply to every version (unless one is a Ruckmanite).



Daniel,

They actually prefer to be called Ruckman"knights".


----------



## MW (Mar 6, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Easy tiger. No version is inspired. If you really want to insult the NIV just call it the Northern Ireland Version.



Don't you read the inspired word of God?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 6, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Easy tiger. No version is inspired. If you really want to insult the NIV just call it the Northern Ireland Version.
> ...



As far as a translation reflects the original then, in that sense, we say we are reading the inspired word of God.


----------



## MW (Mar 6, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...



Then it's inspired, albeit mediately, and a contradiction in terms to speak of an uninspired word of God.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 6, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > armourbearer said:
> ...



I understand what your saying, however, I prefer to say we read a translation of the inspired word of God as we don't claim the translation is immediately inspired.


----------



## MW (Mar 6, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> I understand what your saying, however, I prefer to say we read a translation of the inspired word of God as we don't claim the translation is immediately inspired.



2 Tim. 3:16, all Scripture is theopneustos, including that which Timothy had known from a child, which was not immediately inspired.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Mar 7, 2008)

It appears that the KJVO folks disregard the NKJV for translation variations even though it has the same textual basis as the KJV. 

So, am I to conclude that according to most of the KJV proponents, not only is the TR providentially preserved as the received "Word of God," but the KJV was providentially given as the only acceptable English translation of said TR?

 I must admit, I had not made that connection.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Mar 7, 2008)

Gomarus said:


> It appears that the KJVO folks disregard the NKJV for translation variations even though it has the same textual basis as the KJV.
> 
> So, am I to conclude that according to most of the KJV proponents, not only is the TR providentially preserved as the received "Word of God," but the KJV was providentially given as the only acceptable English translation of said TR?
> 
> I must admit, I had not made that connection.



Depends on how hard core they are. I know when I was in the Ruckman crowd they slandered the NKJV pretty badly. But they're about as hard core as they get.

I'm guessing most true KJVO folks would not place the NKJV alongside of their KJV. Hence the "only" part of KJVO.


----------



## ADKing (Mar 7, 2008)

Gomarus said:


> It appears that the KJVO folks disregard the NKJV for translation variations even though it has the same textual basis as the KJV.
> 
> So, am I to conclude that according to most of the KJV proponents, not only is the TR providentially preserved as the received "Word of God," but the KJV was providentially given as the only acceptable English translation of said TR?
> 
> I must admit, I had not made that connection.



Too often in this discussion, proponents of the AV who believe it is the best translation from the best texts we have (and has not been surpassed by any other modern version) are are given the title "KJVO". It is important to make distinctions. While there are some, no doubt, who claim that the 17th century translators were inspired, this is usually _not_ the position of those in reformed circles or those who would, for example, support the Trinitarian Bible Society. As I have attempted to note, the criticism of the NKJV transcends "translational differences".


----------



## CDM (Mar 7, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > armourbearer said:
> ...






Chirst and the Apostles quoting from the LXX indicates this wouldn't you say?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 7, 2008)

mangum said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...



As far as its accurate (the LXX that is), then we can say its the inspired word of God (mediately), not that it is immediately inspired of God.


----------



## MW (Mar 7, 2008)

mangum said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...



The LXX is a complex subject to go into, but certainly Heb. 3:7-11 is pertinent to this discussion. Here the reader's attention is drawn to the words of the Holy Spirit which were originally written in Hebrew and were being quoted in Greek. For these to be the words of the Holy Spirit in Greek or English, it must be a received principle that inspiration is not washed out in translation.


----------



## jaybird0827 (Mar 8, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> mangum said:
> 
> 
> > armourbearer said:
> ...


 
Thank you, Rev. Winzer, for so elegantly stating the real issue (In my humble opinion) regarding what ought to drive textual criticism and translations of the Scripture into the common tongue.

I have posted an entry on my blog, referencing this discussion, because I want to be readily able to recall this important point.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Mar 8, 2008)

Civbert said:


> Presbyterian Deacon said:
> 
> 
> > AV1611 said:
> ...



Or the chapter and verse delineations.


----------



## KMK (Mar 8, 2008)

jaybird0827 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > mangum said:
> ...



Hey, Jay, where is this blog entry? I looked at your blogs and couldn't find it.


----------



## jaybird0827 (Mar 8, 2008)

Ken,

My bad. Didn't realize it was still in draft status.

It's out there now. Thanks!!!


----------



## CDM (Mar 10, 2008)

*Links to TBS articles on the NKJV*

Here is link To TBS's article (part 1) on the NKJV (starts on page 9):
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/qr/qr581.pdf


Here is link To TBS's article (part 2) on the NKJV (starts on page 13):
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/qr/qr582.pdf


----------



## CDM (Mar 10, 2008)

mangum said:


> Here is link To TBS's article (part 1) on the NKJV (starts on page 9):
> http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/qr/qr581.pdf
> 
> 
> ...



Has anyone read the articles? There are many good points specifically about translation matters it it.


----------

