Bible Translations

[aerasmus]

It is not only whether the NKJV is a good translation, but is the KJV indeed the Best(for thorough Bible understanding).

I have found using a number of translations actually assist in Bible study, including the literal translations and of course the concordance, Strongs dictionary and so-on. We should be careful of knocking translations that have been keeping true to the Word of God. The original post was about a site that was referred to as worth looking at, but the reasoning on that site was flawed, and we should not subscribe to flawed hear-say internet propoganda... I always ask the question, what is the motive of the person writing the article, is it edifying and is it true...

[Richard Myers]

You will find that the discussion regarding Bible translations has centered on the blessing of having the KJV because of the trouble with the NIV and other modern translations. So, the real issue for most of us involved in this discussion is the credibility of the NKJV.  I will merge this topic with the other and we can look and see what has been said about the NKJV.

There are some who have difficulty with reading and would benfit from a modern translation to get them going in Scripture. But, I have yet to find a modern translation that is good. If the NKJV is good then let us hear about it. It would be a blessing and a surprise.

[Richard Myers]

It would seem that the first question to ask regarding the NKJV is which manuscript is it translated from. I would assume it is from the same as the KJV. But, I have learned that my reasoning is not sufficient for such things. It may be that the NKJV has amalgamated its translation? Just asking? 

[aerasmus]

The first question to ask is, why was it deemed important by some scholars to update the KJV... Why did they not just go for a totally new translation, such as the NIV.
The answer. 1)Copyright 2) Too remain faithfull to the original, well loved Bible, but to bring to understanding for modern readers.

Then yet again, the questions about the website remains, why are we entertaining internet rumours and conspiracy theories, rather than investigatinghe matter, why are we not wrestling with the facts, and why are we not quoting reputable sources.

To answer your question Richard

According to the preface of the New King James Version (p. v-vi), the NKJV uses the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica for the Old Testament, with frequent comparisons made to the Bomberg edition of 1524-25 (The Bomberg edition of 1524-25 was used for the King James Version). Both the Old Testament text of the NKJV and that of the KJV come from the ben Asher text (known as the Masoretic Text). However, the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica used by the NKJV uses an earlier manuscript (the Leningrad Manuscript B19a) than that of the KJV.

The New King James Version also uses the Received Text for the New Testament, just as the King James Version had used. The translators have also sought to follow the principles of translation used in the original King James Version, which the NKJV revisers call "complete equivalence" in contrast to "dynamic equivalence." New King James Version. (n.d.). Wikipedia. Retrieved March 09, 2008, from Answers.com Web site: http://www.answers.com/topic/new-king-james-version

I do have a number of translations, as this I have found is of great use, especially when preparing a Sermon, or doing Bible study.

[Wally]

Brother aerasmus, if you haven't already done so, it might be useful for you to view Dr. Walter Veith's presentations, "The Battle of the Bibles," and "Changing the Word."  Both are part of the Total Onslaught series, and are available from Amazing Discoveries.  I have liked the NKJV myself, but I use it with caution because I know there some problems with it.  When I preach I always use the KJV.  When I study I use the KJV as a base and then compare versions and commentaries, along with the SOP.

[Mimi]

These notes are from that DVD, Changing the Word, posted on February 15, 2008.

Changing the Word – Parts 1 through 3
Total Onslaught
Walter J. Veith

Notes from:
How theology is changed when using modern versions

Which Bible Can We Trust?
Les Garrett, Cluedram Centre Press, 1982 says:

Number of verses affected:

New American Standard – 909
Revised Version – 788
New World Translation 767
NIV – 695
Good News – 614
Amplified – 484
Douay – 421
Old Jehovah’s Witnesses – 129
NKJV ignored the textus recepticus 1200 times

Brief overview of subtle changes from KJV textus recepticus

Jehovah’s Witness’ Bible was the first changed

·   Matthew 16:3 left out
·   Mark 9:46 left out
·   Mark 16:9-20 left out
·   John 1:1 – word was a god
·   John 8:1-11 – left out
·   Acts 8:37 – left out
·   1 John 5:7 – left out

NIV
·   2 Samuel 21:19
·   2 Sam 23:5
·   Hosea 11:12
·   Matthew 20:22, 23 – left out phrases
·   Matthew 25:13 – left out 2nd half
·   Matthew 24:36 – added “nor the son”
·   Mark 2:17 – left off 2nd half – “to repentance”
·   Mark 10:21 – left off “take up the cross”
·   Mark 10:24 – left off “that trust in riches” yet says how hard it is for “the rich to enter the kingdom of God”
·   Luke 4:4 – left out “but by every word of God”
·   Luke 9:55, 56 – left off majority of verses – Jesus not to destroy but to save
·   Revelation 14:5 -  left out “before the throne of God”
·   Rev 22:14 – “wash their robes” vs. “do His commandments”
·   Luke 4:8 – leaves out “get thee behind Me Satan”
·   Acts 13:42 – subtle change for meaning of Sabbath – taking the Jews out replacing “Paul and Barnabas”
·   Acts 16:7 – added “but the Spirit of Jesus” - implies that the Spirit is in control of Jesus
·   1 Corinthians 5:7 – “Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed” “for us” is missing. Exclusivity of Jesus is gone. Changes the doctrine of Atonement
·   1 Peter 1:22 – “through the Spirit” is missing – no indwelling power of God
·   2 Timothy 4:1 – “at” His appearing is changed to “in view of” His appearing and his kingdom, implying the judgment could take place at any indefinite period
·    Hebrews 7:21 – “after the order of Melchisedec” is missing. Denying Jesus’ higher priesthood
·   John 5:39 – No longer “Search the Scriptures” – a command, yet a statement saying “you search the scriptures … “
·   John 2:11 – miraculous signs – not “miracles” performed by Jesus
·   Matthew 18:2, 3 – left out “be converted”
·   Hebrews 11:3 – “formed at God’s command” not by “the Word” of God.
·   Hebrews 1:2 – “through whom” not “by whom” – spiritualizes creation
·   Ephesians 3:9 – left out “all things by Jesus Christ”
·   Colossians 1:14 – leaves out “through His blood” – denies the atonement, shedding of blood
·   2 Thessalonians 2:2 – “has already come” – not “at hand”
·   Mark 7:19 – declares all foods clean
·   John 9:4 – “I” is changed to “we” must work. Jesus is the only one who can do this work – not “we”
·   1 Corinthians 11:29 – leaves out “unworthily” and the “Lord’s” body. Changes the idea of the text to say without discerning “the body of the Lord.” Transubstantiation.
·   James 5:16 – changes “faults to one another” to “sins to one another”  Makes man a confessor to man
·   Hebrews 10:21 – having “a great priest” not “an high priest” – denies Jesus High priesthood. Implies there can be other priests or a priesthood for confessionals other than Jesus.
·   Acts 15:23 – Church government is changed. A comma changed the priesthood apart from the brethren. It makes a vast difference, in sending out this letter, from the first council of the Christian Church, whether it is issued from the apostles and elders only, or issued from the apostles, elders, AND the brethren.
·   Hebrews 9:27 – judgment at death
·   Luke 1:72 – says Christ came to show to our dead fathers the mercy they need now. Praying for the dead – they needed mercy after death.
·   1 Peter 4:6 – gospel was preached “even to those who are now dead”
·   Acts 24:15 – “of the dead” left out
·   Job 26:5 – dead are “in deep anguish” beneath the waters and all that live in them. Purgatory teaching
·   2 Peter 2:9 – “while continuing their punishment” – everlasting hell
·   FOLLOWING TEXTS ARE A DENIAL OF JESUS DIVINITY
·   1 Corinthians 15: 3, 4 – “he hath been raised on the third day” denies his divine power to raise – that He is inferior
·   Titus 2:13 – deity of Christ removed – “appearing of the glory” – Jesus has only the glory God gives him – not His own
·    Proverbs 8:22 – His eternal pre-existence is denied – “brought me forth as the first of his works”  Says Jesus was a created being.
·   Daniel 3:25 – Jesus described as “son of the gods”
·   Luke 2:33 – denies God as father of Jesus
·   Matthew 13:51 – “Lord” is left out. Everywhere in the KJV where Jesus is referred to as “Lord” – it has been removed in the NIV.
·   Matthew 27:35 – “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, they parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture” did they cast lots, is removed.
·    Mark 15:3 – “but he answered nothing” is removed. Again in the KJV it is a fulfillment of prophecy
·   1 John 4:3 – “Christ is come in the flesh” is removed.
·   Matthew 6:13 – “for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever” is omitted.
·   Luke 11:2 – “Our Father, which art in heaven” “thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth” are removed. Any father can be prayed to in this version
·   Luke 11:2-4 – in addition to the above, “deliver us from evil” is removed
·   John 16:16 – reworded verse so that it appears as if Jesus is playing game of hide and seek. Left out is “because I go to the Father.”
·   Acts 9:29 – “the name of the Lord Jesus” is removed
·   Acts 22:16 – “calling on the name of the Lord” is removed
·   Romans 1:3 – “Jesus Christ our Lord” is removed
·   1 Timothy 3:16 – mystery of godliness. Says “he” appeared in a body, not “God” appeared in the flesh.
·   1 John 5:7 – Godhead removed saying “for there are three that testify:” without naming them as does the KJV
·   Revelation 5:14 – removed “him that liveth for ever and ever”
·   Matthew 17:21 – missing
·   Matthew 18:11 – missing
·   Matthew 23:14 – missing
·   Mark 7:16 – missing
·   Mark 9:44 – missing
·   Mark 9:46 – missing
·   Mark 11:26 – missing
·   Romans 8:1 – missing 2nd half of verse. “no condemnation” for those who are in Christ Jesus period
·   1 Timothy 3:16 – “He was” manifest in the flesh – not “God was”


RSV
·   Matthew 18:11 – left out
·   Matthew 5:44 – left off portion of full text
·   Matthew 20:16 – left off 2nd half of text
·   Matthew 25:13 – left out 2nd half
·   Mark 2:17 – left off 2nd half – “to repentance”
·   Mark 6:11 – left off 2nd half – more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment
·   Mark 10:21 – left off “take up the cross”
·   Mark 10:24 – left off “that trust in riches”
·   Luke 2:14 – changed 2nd half – “peace among men with whom he is pleased”
·   Luke 4:4 – left out “but by every word of God”
·   Luke 9:55, 56 – left off majority of verses – Jesus not to destroy but to save
·   Luke 22:43, 44 – missing
·   John 10:14 – changed to “my own know me”
·   Acts 28:29 – missing
·   1 Corinthians 10:28 – left out “for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof”
·   Revelation 14:5 - left out “before the throne of God”
·   Rev 22:14 – “wash their robes” vs. “do His commandments”
·   Luke 4:8 – leaves out “get thee behind Me Satan”
·   Acts 13:42 – subtle change for meaning of Sabbath – taking the Jews out replacing “they”
·   Acts 16:7 – added “but the Spirit of Jesus” - implies that the Spirit is in control of Jesus
·   1 Corinthians 5:7 – “for Christ our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed” “for us” is missing. Exclusivity of Jesus is gone. Changes doctrine of atonement
·   1 Peter 1:22 – “through the Spirit” is missing – no indwelling power of God but adding “your obedience”
·   2 Timothy 4:1 – “at” His appearing is changed to “by” His appearing and His kingdom, implying the judgment could take place at any indefinite period
·   Hebrews 7:21 – “after the order of Melchisedec” is missing. Denying Jesus’ higher priesthood
·   John 5:39 – No longer “Search the Scriptures” – a command, yet a statement saying “you search the scriptures … “
·   John 2:11 – “sign” not miracle of Jesus
·   Matthew 18:2, 3 – left out “be converted”
·   John 1: 3, 4 – the margin says “was life in Him”
·   Hebrews 11:3 – the margin “that the ages have been framed” – evolutionary rather than literal creation week. Hort’s commentary on this: “The ages, the universe under the aspect of time have been formed by the Word of God. Included harmonious unfolding … evolution in orderly succession.”
·   Colossians 1:15, 16 – changed “by Him all things were created” and said “in Him” all things were created.
·   Hebrews 1:2 – “through whom” not “by whom” He created “the ages” – spiritualizes creation and makes it evolutionary at the same time
·   Colossians 1:14 – leaves out “through His blood” – denies the atonement, shedding of blood
·   Matthew 24:3 – leaves out “thy coming” and “the end of the world” – says instead – “of thy presence” (margin) and “the consummation of the age.” Doctrine of the 2nd coming of Christ radically changed. Evolution again included
·   Philippians 3:20, 21 – change denied at the 2nd coming, but rather can occur at any time before His coming, or be continuous – it may be a change from abstract vices to abstract virtues. Spiritualizes away the 2nd coming
·   2 Thessalonians 2:2 – “now present” – not “at hand”
·   Titus 2:13 – by changing the adjective “glorious” to the noun “glory,” the revisers have removed the 2nd coming of Christ from this text. Now, it is not He that comes but His glory.
·   Revelation 1:7  - “shall mourn OVER Him” not “because of Him” Denies judgment. Spiritualizes away judgment through terrible expectation of vengeance. Most of the revisers did not believe there would be a personal return of Jesus before the restitution of all things which the KJV rendering of this passage teaches.
·   Mark 7:19 – says Jesus declares all foods clean
·   Luke 22:44, 45 – “while the sun’s light failed”
·   1 Corinthians 7:5 – leaves out “fasting”
·    John 9:4 – “I” is changed to “we” must work. Jesus is the only one who can do this work – not “we”
·   2 Timothy 4:1 – “at” His appearing changed to “by” His appearing
·   1 Corinthians 11:29 – leaves out “unworthily” and the “Lord’s” body
·   James 5:16 – changes “faults to one another” to “sins to one another”  Makes man a confessor to man
·   Hebrews 10:21 – having “a great priest” not “an high priest” – denies Jesus High priesthood.  Implies there can be other priests or a priesthood for confessionals other than Jesus.
·   Acts 15:23 – Church government is changed. A comma changed the priesthood apart from the brethren. It makes a vast difference, in sending out this letter, from the first council of the Christian Church, whether it is issued from the apostles and elders only, or issued from the apostles, elders, AND the brethren
·   Hebrews 9:27 – judgment at death – or purgatory
·   Luke 1:72 – says Christ came to show to our dead fathers the mercy they need now. Praying for the dead.
·   1 Peter 4:6 – gospel was preached “even to the dead”
·   Acts 24:15 – “of the dead” left out
·   Job 26:5 – the deceased “tremble beneath the waters and the inhabitants thereof”
·   Revelation 13:8 – teaches the different regions of the conscious dead, as RCC teaches.
·   1 Corinthians 15: 3, 4 – “he hath been raised on the third day” denies his divine power to raise – that He is inferior
·   1 Corinthians 11:24 – referencing the mass – leaves out “take eat” and “broken” for you
·   John 7:8 – left out “go not up YET” – but instead says “I’m not going” – but we know He did go. This version renders Jesus a liar.
·   FOLLOWING TEXTS ARE A DENIAL OF JESUS DIVINITY
·   Titus 2:13 – deity of Christ removed – “appearing of the glory”   Jesus has only the glory God gives him – not His own
·   Isaiah 7:14 “a young woman” not “a virgin”  A virgin conceiving is a “sign” otherwise any young woman could conceive
·   Psalm 45:6 – “your divine throne” and not “thy throne, O God” which Hebrews 1:8 refers to. The name of God is in Psalms reduced to the adjective “divine” – so when quoted in Hebrews it is made to apply to the Son.
·   Proverbs 8:22 – His eternal pre-existence is denied – “created me” at the beginning
·   Daniel 3:25 – Jesus described as “son of the gods”
·   Micah 5:2 – “whose origin” is from old and not “whose goings forth have been” from old, from everlasting
·   Matthew 1:25 – miraculous birth obscured – removed “her firstborn” son.
·   Matthew 1:16 – Joseph as “the father of Jesus”  KJV calls Joseph the husband of Mary
·   Luke 2:33 – denies God as father of Jesus
·   Matthew 13:51 – “Lord” is left out
·   Matthew 19:16, 17 – “teacher” is substituted for “Good Master” and the phrase is reworded, “why do you ask me about what is good” instead of “why callest thou me good?”
·   Matthew 27:35 – “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, they parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture” did they cast lots, is removed.
·   Matthew 2:15 – Out of Egypt “did” I call my son instead of “have I called”  With this being such, Hosea 11:1 is not a fulfillment of prophecy.
·   Mark 15:3 – “but he answered nothing” is removed. Again in the KJV it is a fulfillment of prophecy
·   Mark 15:28 – missing. It is a fulfillment of prophecy in the KJV, thus omitted
·   1 John 4:3 – “Christ is come in the flesh” is removed.
·   Mark 16:9-20 – post resurrection appearances are omitted, missing altogether
·   Matthew 6:13 – “for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever” is omitted.
·   Luke 11:2 – “Our Father, which art in heaven” “thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth” are removed. Any father can be prayed to in this version
·   Luke 11:2-4 – in addition to the above, “deliver us from evil” is removed
·   Luke 24:40 – post resurrection appearances omitted altogether
·   John 3:13 – rightful place of Son of Man in heaven denied. Removed is “which is in heaven”
·   John 6:33 – “is THAT which comes down from heaven” instead of “he” which comes down
·   John 6:47 – removed is “believeth on me” – instead it is just “he who believes” has eternal life. This dramatically changes theology
·   John 16:16 – reworded verse so that it appears as if Jesus is playing game of hide and seek. Left out is “because I go to the Father.”
·   John 16:23 – Prayer to the Father in the name of the Son discountenanced. “he will give it to you in my name” rather than “ask the Father in my name”
·   Acts 2:30 – “he would set one of his descendants” upon his throne instead of “according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne”
·   Acts 8:36, 37 – Divine Sonship omitted. Verse 37 omitted altogether
·   Acts 22:16 – “calling on the name of the Lord” is removed
·   Romans 1:3 – “Jesus Christ our Lord” is removed
·   Romans 9:5 – deity of Christ eliminated. “… is THE Christ” vs. KJV “ … flesh Christ came, WHO is over all”
·   Romans 14:10 – “seat of God”  vs. “judgment seat of Christ” in KJV which exalts Jesus as God and judge.
·   1 Corinthians 15:47 – pre-existence of the Son as Lord in heaven discredited. “the Lord” is omitted
·   1 Timothy 3:16 – mystery of godliness. Says “he” was manifested – not “God was manifested” in the flesh
·   1 Peter 4:14 – omits “on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.”
·   Revelation 1:11 – removed “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest …”
·   Revelation 5:14 – removed “him that liveth for ever and ever”
·   Matthew 17:21 – missing
·   Matthew 18:11 – missing
·   Matthew 23:14 – missing
·   Mark 7:16 – missing
·   Mark 9:44 – missing
·   Mark 9:46 – missing
·   Mark 11:26 – missing
·   Romans 8:1 – missing 2nd half of verse. “no condemnation” for those who are in Christ Jesus period
·   1 Timothy 3:16 - “He was” manifest in the flesh – not “God was”

ASV
·   Mark 10:21 – left off “take up the cross”
·   2 Timothy 3:16 – “is also profitable for teaching”
·   Rev 22:14 – “wash their robes” vs. “do His commandments”
·   Philippians 3:20, 21 - change denied at the 2nd coming, but rather can occur at any time before His coming, or be continuous – it may be a change from abstract vices to abstract virtues. Spiritualizes away the 2nd coming
·   Revelation 1:7  - “shall mourn OVER Him” not “because of Him” Denies judgment through terrible expectation of vengeance. Spiritualizes away judgment. Most of the revisers did not believe there would be a personal return of Jesus before the restitution of all things which the KJV rendering of this passage teaches.
·   FOLLOWING TEXTS ARE A DENIAL OF JESUS DIVINITY
·   1 Corinthians 15: 3, 4 – “he hath been raised on the third day” denies his divine power to raise – that He is inferior
·   Titus 2:13 – deity of Christ removed – “appearing of the glory”
·    Daniel 3:25 – Jesus described as “son of the gods”
·   Matthew 2:15 – Out of Egypt “did” I call my son instead of “have I called”  With this being such, Hosea 11:1 is not a fulfillment of prophecy.
·   Mark 15:3 – “but he answered nothing” is removed. Again in the KJV it is a fulfillment of prophecy
·   

NASV
·   Job 19:26 Ghost theology – “without my flesh” I shall see God. KJV says “in my flesh” I shall see God
·   Luke 24:51, 52 – Miraculous Ascension obscured – removed “and carried up into heaven. And they worshipped him.”

Douay
·   Luke 4:8 – leaves out “get thee behind Me Satan”
·   Acts 13:42 – subtle change for meaning of Sabbath – taking the Jews out replacing “they”
·   Acts 16:7 – added “but the Spirit of Jesus” – implies that the Spirit is in control of Jesus
·   1 Corinthians 5:7 – “for Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed”  “for us” is missing. Exclusivity of Jesus is gone.
·   2 Timothy 4:1 – “at” His appearing is changed to “by” His coming and His kingdom, implying the judgment could take place at any indefinite period
·   Hebrews 7:21 – “after the order of Melchisedec” is missing. Denying Jesus’ higher priesthood
·   John 5:39 – No longer “Search the Scriptures” – a command, yet a statement saying “you search the scriptures … “
·   Luke 2:33 – denies God as father of Jesus
·   Matthew 6:13 – “for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever” is omitted.
·   Luke 11:2-4 – in addition to the above, “deliver us from evil” is removed

Moffat
·   Luke 23:44, 45 – “owing to an eclipse of the sun”

[Won Bae]

Brother aerasmus, you seem to discredit the web site I quoted.  I think, it is worthwhile to look at the evidences shown at the site.  I have looked at most of them.  The modern versions either omitted or placed different words from KJV.  Some cases the entire verses were omitted from the new versions.  How important  are these verses?  I do not know, however, the meaning seemed to change quiet differently than original KJV statement. 

You have quoted a statement from the Wikipedia.  The wikipedia is not trustworthy.  Any one can go in there place one's own definition or edit.  There are some true statements in wikipedia but, I would not use this source as the accurate one.

Won

[aerasmus]

Friends, You have to realise that in the past 406 years since work started on the Authorised Version(Which included the Apocrypha) there has been quite a number of new(in fact older) manuscripts discovered, thus, quite a number of modern translations have actually tried to be closer to the original text. If an older manuscript is found, it tends to have more weight.

But lets first of all deal with Won's objection...You may also write to Thomas Nelson Inc the copyright holders for further info. but here is wording from the Preface



The Old Testament Text

The Hebrew Bible has come down to us through the scrupulous care of ancient scribes who copied the original text in successive generations. By the sixth century A.D. the scribes were succeeded by a group known as the Masoretes, who continued to preserve the sacred Scriptures for another five hundred years in a form known as the Masoretic Text. Babylonia, Palestine, and Tiberias were the main centers of Masoretic activity; but by the tenth century A.D. the Masoretes of Tiberias, led by the family of ben Asher, gained the ascendancy. Through subsequent editions, the ben Asher text became in the twelfth century the only recognized form of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Daniel Bomberg printed the first Rabbinic Bible in 1516—17; that work was followed in 1524—25 by a second edition prepared by Jacob ben Chayyim and also published by Bomberg. The text of ben Chayyim was adopted in most subsequent Hebrew Bibles, including those used by the King James translators. The ben Chayyim text was also used for the first two editions of Rudolph Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica of 1906 and 1912. In 1937 Paul Kahie published a third edition of Biblia Hebraica. This edition was based on the oldest dated manuscript of the ben Asher text, the Leningrad Manuscript B 19a (A.D. 1008), which Kahie regarded as superior to that used by ben Chayyim.

For the New King James Version the text used was the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica, with frequent comparisons being made with the Bomberg edition of 1524—25. The Septuagint (Greek) Version of the Old Testament and the Latin Vulgate also were consulted. In addition to referring to a variety of ancient versions of the Hebrew Scriptures, the New King James Version draws on the resources of relevant manuscripts from the Dead Sea caves. In the few places where the Hebrew was so obscure that the 1611 King James was compelled to follow one of the versions, but where information is now available to resolve the problems, the New King James Version follows the Hebrew text. Significant variations are recorded in footnotes.

The New Testament Text

There is more manuscript support for the New Testament than for any other body of ancient literature. Over five thousand Greek, eight thousand Latin, and many more manuscripts in other languages attest the integrity of the New Testament. There is only one basic New Testament used by Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox, by conservatives and liberals. Minor variations in hand copying have appeared through the centuries, before mechanical printing began about A.D. 1450.

Some variations exist in the spelling of Greek words, in word order, and in similar details. These ordinarily do not show up in translation and do not affect the sense of the text in any way.

Other manuscript differences such as omission or inclusion of a word or a clause, and two paragraphs in the Gospels, should not overshadow the overwhelming degree of agreement which exists among the ancient records. Bible readers may be assured that the most important differences in English New Testaments of today are due, not to manuscript divergence, but to the way in which translators view the task of translation: How literally should the text be rendered? How does the translator view the matter of biblical inspiration? Does the translator adopt a paraphrase when a literal rendering would be quite clear and more to the point? The New King James Version follows the historic precedent of the Authorized Version in maintaining a literal approach to translation, except where the idiom of the original language cannot be translated directly into our tongue.

The King James New Testament was based on the traditional text of the Greek-speaking churches, first published in 1516, and later called the Textus Receptus or Received Text. Although based on the relatively few available manuscripts, these were representative of many more which existed at the time but only became known later. In the late nineteenth century, B. Westcott and F. Hort taught that this text had been officially edited by the fourth-century church, but a total lack of historical evidence for this event has forced a revision of the theory. It is now widely held that the Byzantine Text that largely supports the Textus Receptus has as much right as the Alexandrian or any other tradition to be weighed in determining the text of the New Testament.

Since the 1 880s most contemporary translations of the New Testament have relied upon a relatively few manuscripts discovered chiefly in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Such translations depend primarily on two manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, because of their greater age. The Greek text obtained by using these sources and the related papyri (our most ancient manuscripts) is known as the Alexandrian Text. However, some scholars have grounds for doubting the faithfulness of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, since they often disagree with one another, and Sinaiticus exhibits excessive omission.

A third viewpoint of New Testament scholarship holds that the best text is based on the consensus of the majority of existing Greek manuscripts. This text is called the Majority Text. Most of these manuscripts are in substantial agreement. Even though many are late, and none is earlier than the fifth century, usually their readings are verified by papyri, ancient versions, quotations from the early church fathers, or a combination of these. The Majority Text is similar to the Textus Receptus, but it corrects those readings which have little or no support in the Greek manuscript tradition.

Today, scholars agree that the science of New Testament textual criticism is in a state of flux. Very few scholars still favor 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.

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.

New King James Footnotes

Significant explanatory notes, alternate translations, and cross-references, as well as New Testament citations of Old Testament passages, are supplied in the footnotes.

Important textual variants in the Old Testament are identified in a standard form.

The textual notes in the present edition of the New Testament make no evaluation of readings, but do clearly indicate the manuscript sources of readings. They objectively present the facts without such tendentious remarks as “the best manuscripts omit” or “the most reliable manuscripts read.” Such notes are value judgments that differ according to varying viewpoints on the text. By giving a clearly defined set of variants the New King James Version benefits readers of all textual persuasions.

Where significant variations occur in the New Testament Greek manuscripts, textual notes are classified as follows:

   1. NU-Text These variations from the traditional text generally represent the Alexandrian or Egyptian type of text described previously in “The New Testament Text.” They are found in the Critical Text published in the twenty-sixth edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (N) and in the United Bible Societies’ third edition (U), hence the acronym, “NU-Text.”
   2. M-Text This symbol indicates points of variation in the Majority Text from the traditional text, as also previously discussed in “The New Testament Text.” It should be noted that M stands for whatever reading is printed in the published Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, whether supported by overwhelming, strong, or only a divided majority textual tradition.

The textual notes reflect the scholarship of the past 150 years and will assist the reader to observe the variations between the different manuscript traditions of the New Testament. Such information is generally not available in English translations of the New Testament.

 
Copyright 1997, Thomas Nelson, Inc.
Special thanks to Thomas Nelson for allowing us to reprint this excerpt here for you.

  http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/cms_content?page=186191&sp=57319&event=SP57319|220793|57319

[aerasmus]

Friends, I am a Bible Believing Christian, and I believe God has kept His Word in safe hands through the ages, so we will know that His Testimony is True.

Please just understand, that Some things were added by copyist's, most likely as marginals to explain certain things, but unfortunately crept into the KJV. Though they are there, and not in some modern translations, does not mean we should throw the Bible out. It is the Word of God.

I suggest you read a book by Lee Strobel, where he interviews Scholars on these subjects, the book is called : The case for the Real Jesus.


Due to these differences, some so called scholars are attacking the Inspiration of the Word, We need to understand that, though there are some "errors" in the KJV, that the crux of the message stays the same. That the Prophetic applications remain and that we do have a Word which we can really trust.


Just to look at a few other texts

 Mark 15: 3. He answered nothing.


Textual evidence attests the omission (cf. p. 146) of these words here in Mark.
[Nichol, Francis D.: The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary : The Holy Bible With Exegetical and Expository Comment. Washington, D.C. : Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1978 (Commentary Reference Series), S. Mk 15:3]

1 John 5:7

In heaven. Textual evidence attests (cf. p. 10) the omission of the passage “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth.” The resultant reading of vs. 7, 8 is as follows: “For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” The passage as given in the KJV is in no Greek MS earlier than the 15th and 16th centuries. The disputed words found their way into the KJV by way of the Greek text of Erasmus (see Vol. V, p. 141). It is said that Erasmus offered to include the disputed words in his Greek Testament if he were shown even one Greek MS that contained them. A library in Dublin produced such a MS (known as 34), and Erasmus included the passage in his text. It is now believed that the later editions of the Vulgate acquired the passage by the mistake of a scribe who included an exegetical marginal comment in the Bible text that he was copying. The disputed words have been widely used in support of the doctrine of the Trinity, but, in view of such overwhelming evidence against their authenticity, their support is valueless and should not be used. In spite of their appearance in the Vulgate A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture freely admits regarding these words: “It is now generally held that this passage, called the Comma Johanneum, is a gloss that crept into the text of the Old Latin and Vulgate at an early date, but found its way into the Greek text only in the 15th and 16th centuries” (Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1951, p. 1186).

Nichol, Francis D.: The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary : The Holy Bible With Exegetical and Expository Comment. Washington, D.C. : Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1978 (Commentary Reference Series), S. 1 Jn 5:8

[Richard Myers]

Friends, I am a Bible Believing Christian, and I believe God has kept His Word in safe hands through the ages, so we will know that His Testimony is True.

Amen! We appreciate your testimony, dear brother.

The problem that we have is that our faith rests in the Word, not in man's word. So, it is a bit of a difficulty, especially for those new to the faith. I have no trouble with my Bible. I trust it even though there are a few problem areas. It is consistent from Genesis to Revelation. The new "bibles" that I have looked at are not consistent. So, if we are to look to the Bible as our source of truth, it becomes very important that the Bible be accurate. The NIV is not.

The question I have for you, Aerasmus, is this; these "scholars" who have translated the new "bibles", who are so highly valued, who are they? Where do they come from?  Do they reject Bible truth? If so, why would I trust their work? If they do not reject Bible truth, I assume that some of them are in our church?

[aerasmus]

Richard Call me Andre

We are referring to the NKJV... Which I have given ample proof is consistant with the KJV and is a good translation.

I will address the other issues later, but please acknowledge what I have allready provided. We cannot duck and dive, we have to wrestle and be Bereans :-)

[aerasmus]

Richard I can supply you with the whole list, but it is BIG... How many Adventists were involved with the KJV ;-)

[asygo]

One of my cousins settled this issue for me long ago. He said he used the KJV because he wanted Christ's words "just the way He said them." Case closed.

[asygo]

When we realize that the NKJV differs from the KJV, we should also realize that this fact proves that the NKJV is wrong JUST AS MUCH as it proves that the KJV is wrong.

The only legitimate method to determine which is correct is to go to the originals - Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic - and determine what God meant, then compare the translations to see if they convey the same meaning. But without going to the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, it's all just a bunch of blah blah.

If someone wants the KJV, go for it. But don't presume to say any other translation is bad unless you're willing to put on your scholar hat and dig into the original manuscripts. Anything short is just rhetoric. I prefer to leave that with the politicians.

[Wally]

I suggest you read a book by Lee Strobel, where he interviews Scholars on these subjects, the book is called : The case for the Real Jesus.

I have more confidence in Dr. Veith's studies than I do Lee Strobel's.  Veith is a PhD professor and scientist; Strobel is a newspaper reporter.  That doesn't mean he can't arrive at truth, but based on what I've seen, I have more confidence in Dr. Veith when it comes to Scripture.  I've read some of Strobel's material and heard him on the radio many times.  He is a good Christian apologist, but can't always be relied upon--makes the same mistakes in exegesis that most evangelicals make.  I take it you are not familiar with Dr. Veith's material.  It's well worth viewing, if you have an open mind.

[Wally]

When we realize that the NKJV differs from the KJV, we should also realize that this fact proves that the NKJV is wrong JUST AS MUCH as it proves that the KJV is wrong.

The only legitimate method to determine which is correct is to go to the originals - Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic - and determine what God meant, then compare the translations to see if they convey the same meaning. But without going to the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, it's all just a bunch of blah blah.

If someone wants the KJV, go for it. But don't presume to say any other translation is bad unless you're willing to put on your scholar hat and dig into the original manuscripts. Anything short is just rhetoric. I prefer to leave that with the politicians.

Well, most of us are not Greek and Hebrew scholars, and so that is unrealistic, and we are stuck with the English language.  Given all the problems with the modern translations, not the least of which are the biases (more abundant than they were 400 years ago, due to the multiplication of heresies), it still makes sense to use the KJV as the default translation.  Use as many others as you want for comparison, but if it's way off from the KJV, the eyebrows should be raised.

Dr. Veith has done the homework, and his series is a thorough exposition of how we acquired our English translations.  It may interest you to know that my French Bible reads like the KJV, and I don't recall any Frenchmen complaining about it when I was in school over there.  My Spanish-speaking friends tell me that the common version they use also reads like the KJV.  It is only in English that we have multiplied translations.  Most other languages have 1 or 2 at most.  I don't think the abundance of translations is a benefit to preaching the gospel.  On the contrary, I think it has served to muddy the waters, and open things up for all sorts of aberrant doctrines--which is exactly what the devil likes to see.

[Richard Myers]

Richard Call me Andre

We are referring to the NKJV... Which I have given ample proof is consistant with the KJV and is a good translation.

I will address the other issues later, but please acknowledge what I have allready provided. We cannot duck and dive, we have to wrestle and be Bereans :-)

Amen, we must participate in the discussion as difficult as it may be, if we are interested in truth. Brother Andre, I accept your experience and want to better understand your position on this. I have not taken a position on the NKJV because I am not familiar with it. I have on the NIV. It is not from God, but rather is used to lead away from the truth. Yes, it has much truth, but that is how Satan works. He presents much truth with his lies.

As I read your post regarding the history of the NKJV a number of things come to mind. It appears that it is as I thought. Many manuscripts have been used to do the translation. That to my mind would be like me using all of the "bibles" and the KJV to try and understand what  is truth. It does not work. If we rely upon error to form our principles, then we will have error in our results.  There is a discussion of the original manuscripts used by various translations. Have you read through this? And do you disagree? I am not trying to over simplify this subject, but I do believe that Satan has a hand in what is being presented today as God's Word. Do you?

[LindaRS]

I will add only this as one line of reasoning is always brought up whenever the Bible versions are discussed. The age of a manuscript is no proof of its accuracy.

[aerasmus]

I suggest you read a book by Lee Strobel, where he interviews Scholars on these subjects, the book is called : The case for the Real Jesus.

I have more confidence in Dr. Veith's studies than I do Lee Strobel's.  Veith is a PhD professor and scientist; Strobel is a newspaper reporter.  That doesn't mean he can't arrive at truth, but based on what I've seen, I have more confidence in Dr. Veith when it comes to Scripture.  I've read some of Strobel's material and heard him on the radio many times.  He is a good Christian apologist, but can't always be relied upon--makes the same mistakes in exegesis that most evangelicals make.  I take it you are not familiar with Dr. Veith's material.  It's well worth viewing, if you have an open mind.

Thank you for your valued contribution, I am based in the Basin Veith is from, I have attended his Lectures and He is a great guy.

He has his PHD in Biology not Theology!
Lee Strobel interviewed Men of Note. Such as Prof D Wallace, Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. -  Here is a short Bio

"Daniel B. Wallace has taught Greek and New Testament courses on a graduate school level since 1979. He has a Ph.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary, and is currently professor of New Testament Studies at his alma mater.
His Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Zondervan, 1996) has become a standard textbook in colleges and seminaries. He is the senior New Testament editor of the NET Bible. Dr. Wallace is also the Executive Director for the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.

So as you can see when it comes to the Textual issues, he should know his stuff. Friends, the reason for me debating this point, is that we should not be blinded by tradition, but should realise that the Biblical text in its original is what we should hold to. The KJV was not the original. It was and is a great version(especially for memorising, as it is written in prose) But the KJV is not the Be all end all

[aerasmus]

One of my cousins settled this issue for me long ago. He said he used the KJV because he wanted Christ's words "just the way He said them." Case closed.

I am sorry that is not a valid argument for people who really want to wrestle with the text and get to know the Bible and of course by inferrence the God of the Bible.

If we take the original text's then we get closer to Christ's exact words... Remember, not even Paul or Luke or Matthew actually quoted even the written word of the Day word for word. The Holy Spirit Inspired... The KJV as mentioned is a good translation, but it is not the original... Why are we trying to keep the Bible from the average reader out there who would struggle with the English in KJV?

The NKJV, is a fair translation, as mentioned, and it keeps true to the ideals set by KJV...It even includes the same mistakes as earlier pointed to(which our own Commentary has acknowledged) but we should not be too concerned by the translation mistakes...Be confident in the Inspired Word,but dont be scared to test it... Believe you me it will stand, because it is Inspired by the One true God.