Luke 1:35 (AV)
And the angel answered and said unto her,
The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,
and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee:
therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Luke 1:35 NKJV
And the angel answered and said to her,
“The Holy Spirit will come upon you,
and the power of the Highest will overshadow you;
therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.
Just some more info on "from you" (εκ σου) in Luke 1:35. The words are present in C* Θ 33, some Old Latin mss, the Clementine Vulgate, some Fathers, but also in f1, the primary ms of which Erasmus relied heavily upon in his first edition. Therefore, it is not surprising that the words are present in Erasmus' first edition, but he left them out in his 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and final editions. The words are absent in Beza's 1st and 2nd folio editions, but present in his 3rd, 4th, and final folio editions. In addition, the words are present in the Complutensian edition. To my knowledge, all of the editions of Estienne and of the Elzevirs do not have the words. So with this kind of division, one could either add or omit the words and still be within the Receptus tradition, although technically THE textus receptus is only that edition wherein those words were used to describe it in the preface, i.e., the 1633 Elzevirian edition.
Waterrock James Snapp
On this particular point involving Luke 1:35, I don't think you have a case. The base-text of the NKJV here is clearly different from the base-text of the KJV.
The claim that the NKJV "sometimes translates a different underlying text" is true. The NKJV's base-text, in this case, features a variant from the fuzzy edges of the Textus Receptus. In general terms, the NKJV and the KJV New Testaments have the same text; it's "essentially" the same text, as the Trinitarian Bible Society's materials say. But "essentially" does not mean "exactly." And here we have one of those rare instances where the two base-texts are different. The presence of EK SOU is not the same as the absence of EK SOU. Right?
Right. So how can you claim that "The Greek Text underlying the NKJV really is the same" if, by the same, you mean "exactly" rather than "essentially"?
Yours in Christ,
redgreen On this particular point involving Luke 1:35, I don't think you have a case. The base-text of the NKJV here is clearly different from the base-text of the KJV.
The charge is that the NKJV was not translated from the same Greek texts as underlie the KJV.Is Stephanus considered the TR? Yes.Was Stephanus part of the Greek texts underlying the KJV? Yes.
You have four base Greek texts being used. You can create different end products from those four texts, by picking and choosing from individual readings.But it's a total, self-serving lie on the part of Winzer and the KJVOs to say that the different end products would therefore have different underlying texts.
And of course, the next step in the KJVO circus is to imply that if it's not based on the same underlying texts, then it must (by default) be based on the satanic, corrupt Critical Text.It's a deliberate ploy on the part of the KJVOs, and they know exactly what they're doing by presenting such a false dilemma.Calling them out on their little trick is the best way to put a stop to it.