NKJV - translators did not believe their text was Scripture - fifth revision

Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Scott Ingram

More here ...

Textus Receptus Academy
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/?multi_permalinks=1679602779552244

Textus Receptus Academy Debate Group
MYPOSTS - add one about not examining their Bible beliefs
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1660361457469407/posts/2699880903517452/

King James Bible / Textus Receptus Defenders
https://www.facebook.com/groups/34028934690/?multi_permalinks=10162986198169691

Exposing New Testament
https://www.facebook.com/groups/916344108459616/?multi_permalinks=8790309201063028

KJV Onlyism Discussion Unbiased
https://www.facebook.com/groups/665729241690421?multi_permalinks=1111150300481644

Youtube
What did the NKJV Translators Really Believe?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XspLrtGmbYM
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator

Jerry Falwell and Curtis Hutson:
Both men sat on the translation committee of the New King James Version of the Bible and both men demanded that their names be removed from the board of editor listing. Dr. Falwell has gone so far as to call the modern translations "lesser versions."

Unless noted otherwise the following information is documented in:



G.A. Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions,
William P. Grady's Final Authority: A Christians Guide to the King James Bible,
Dr. Edward DeVries' Divinely Inspired and Inerrantly Preserved.


Who Were The Translator's?

"​
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
https://www.facebook.com/TextusReceptus/posts/132630813575868

In 1996 David Cloud corresponded with the executive editor of the Old Testament - Dr James Price.
Cloud stated:
"..he admitted to me that he is not committed to the Received Text and that he supports the modern critical text in general:
‘I am not a TR advocate. I happen to believe that God has preserved the autographic text in the whole body of evidence that He has preserved, not merely through the textual decisions of a committee of fallible men based on a handful of late manuscripts. The modern critical texts like NA26/27 (Nestle-Aland) and UBS (United Bible Societies) provide a list of the variations that have entered the manuscript traditions, and they provide the evidence that supports the different variants. In the apparatus they have left nothing out, the evidence is there. The apparatus indicates where possible additions, omissions, and alterations have occurred… I am not at war with the conservative modern versions [such as the New International Version and the New American Standard Version]’. (James Price, e-mail to David Cloud, April 30, 1996).
The above demonstrates how the executive editor of the Old Testament of the New King James Version does not advocate the Greek Textus Receptus; but rather that he is an advocate of the Nestle-Aland critical Greek text.
The overall principal editor of the New King James Version, Arthur L. Farstad, was also coprincipal editor, along with Zane Hodges, of the Hodges-Farstad majority text, a Greek text that makes nearly 1,900 changes to the Textus Receptus. This fact could lead us to answer why the editors of the New King James desired to show us with their textual apparatus of alternate Greek readings in the footnotes, because they do not believe in the Textus Receptus, but approve alternate readings and other Greek texts!
[edit] Arthur L. Farstad
Dr Farstad stated in his preface to the New King James:
"Today, scholars agree that the science of New Testament textual criticism is in a state of flux. Very few scholars still favour the Textus Receptus as such, and then often for its historical prestige as the text of Luther, Calvin, Tyndale, and the King James Version. For about a century most have followed a Critical Text (so called because it is edited according to specific principles of textual criticism) which depends heavily upon the Alexandrian type of text. More recently many have abandoned this Critical Text (which is quite similar to the one edited by Westcott and Hort) for one that is more eclectic. Finally, a small but growing number of scholars prefer the majority text, which is close to the traditional text except in the Revelation." Dr. Arthur Farstad, (Chairman of the NKJV Executive Review Committee)[1]
Thus, we see that Dr Farstad deprecates the Textus Receptus. New Testament textual criticism is in a state of flux, he tells us; the old is no longer good, he implies. Very few scholars still favour that old-fashioned Textus Receptus, which was once universally recognised by the Church as the providentially preserved and pure text of all ages, and which once held universal sway as the Byzantine text for 1,400 years, the last nearly five hundred years as the printed Textus Receptus. But no, we must now set aside that old-fashioned text; we must turn instead to the Greek texts favoured by the REAL scholars: either to the critical text, which is favoured by most, or to the new so called Byzantine majority text which is favoured by an increasing minority of scholars. Thus, the editors of the NKJV will now do us a great favour by setting forth to us these better readings in the margin, these better readings which they have given in English in the margin, these better readings which overthrow and undermine the authority of the translation from the Textus Receptus we see in the main body of the text.[2]
Apparently, according to these "NEW" King James men, the Textus Receptus is no longer to be regarded as the providentially preserved Greek text because it was compiled by a ‘committee of fallible men’ using ‘a few late manuscripts’, as Dr Price has told us. If, as we are told by Dr Farstad (who was co-editor of the Hodges-Farstad majority Greek text which is at major variance with the Textus Receptus in over 1,000 places), that scholars today hold for the most part to either the critical text or the majority text and therefore those texts are better than the Textus Receptus, then one of those texts and a translation made from one of those texts should be what we read. Therefore, it follows that the NKJV's main contributors consider that the Textus Receptus, and its faithful translation, the Authorised Version, should be set aside for the “new” Greek.
See my page here:
http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/New_King_James_Version
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Find

Fifth revision edition quote new king james

Facrbook -
Textus Receptus Academy
Kent Settlemeyer
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/posts/1691211301724725/

“The NKJV was not only deceptive in name, but in the way it was marketed to the public, with special emphasis on the campuses of colleges and universities. Every effort was made to equate the Thomas Nelson ‘revisions’ of 1979-1982 with the legitimate proofreading editions of the 1611 Authorized Version…Among the propaganda ploys of this time was a color brochure, circulated by a leading ‘Christian’ university, displaying a page from the original 1611 edition. Their motive was to convince the young person that since his King James Bible was not an exact match of the original 1611, the NKJV could be passed off as just another revision.” Dr. William P. Grady, Ph.D., Final Authority, p.301

Preface to the New King James Version
The New Testament Text
https://www.bible-researcher.com/nkjv.html
In light of these facts, and also because the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, 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
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator

1732626740371.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top