Logos Focus

JackCaviness said:

Ken Avery said:

Ted,

…The Critical Text is based on Greek Texts that were rejected because they came out of the Arian controversy; if you are Calvin then the TR represents your belief better than the CT which was rejected by the Church Fathers and attempts to produced Greek texts that reflect a more Arian view.

This being the case, your NKJV is not based on the TR; thus, it would not be consider AV.

I hope this helps.

God bless you and keep you,
Ken

Ken

What is the source of this information?

Jack

Jack,

I was only attmpting to give a strait answer on what the AV position is; the question was about wheather or not the NKJV would be considered kosher with the AV; I was mearly answering this question with a little background on the AV position.

If you google AV, Textus Reseptus and such, you can find more information on the AV position; there is plenty of information available to show that their position is what I stated. If you are asking me to prove what the are saying is correct then that will take more time digging thru old historical documents and such.

I was only answering the question based on some of the stated AV reasons; I was not offering to defend the AV position.

God bless you and keep you,
Ken

George Somsel said:

Ken Avery said:

It is much more fundamental; the AV is based on the Textus Receptus (TR) Greek and the modern versions are based on the Critical Text (CT). The TR is the Greek version of the NT that was passed down from generation to generation and preserved even if ones life was dependendent on preserving the Greek Text. The Critical Text is based on Greek Texts that were rejected because they came out of the Arian controversy; if you are Calvin then the TR represents your belief better than the CT which was rejected by the Church Fathers and attempts to produced Greek texts that reflect a more Arian view.

 

What in the world ever gave you that idea?  There is nothing Arian regarding the Critical Text or the texts on which it is based.  The TR is the corrupt text as has been shown time and again.  The Pericope Adultera, the Johannine Coma, numerous errors in single words such as the one you earlier asked regarding in Revelation.  It didn't occur to me to check the TR on that since I knew the TR was corrupt which is why I wasn't aware that there was actually a textual difference.  Even the Byzantine Majority text is an improvement on the TR.  You realize, I suppose, that Erasmus even had to backtranslate from the Vulgate since there were some verses for which he had no text.  I think the NKJV is also based on the the TR which is one reason I would never use it.

It is interesting that Ha Satan quoted the Bible; Jesus, corrected him because he misrepresented the information. Notice, Ha Satan did not lie; in other words you can be telling the truth; though, not tell the whole story, giving a fasle representation of the truth. For this I will not contend with what you have said; though, I will note that it is not obvious that the entire story is being told; thus, it is not apperant that the truth is being represented in its proper context.

Ken Avery said:

You have asked this question several times and I believe you deserve a strait answer; the answer Mr. Jones gave is not that.

It is much more fundamental; the AV is based on the Textus Receptus (TR) Greek and the modern versions are based on the Critical Text (CT). The TR is the Greek version of the NT that was passed down from generation to generation and preserved even if ones life was dependendent on preserving the Greek Text. The Critical Text is based on Greek Texts that were rejected because they came out of the Arian controversy; if you are Calvin then the TR represents your belief better than the CT which was rejected by the Church Fathers and attempts to produced Greek texts that reflect a more Arian view.

This being the case, your NKJV is not based on the TR; thus, it would not be consider AV.

I hope this helps.

God bless you and keep you,
Ken

Dear brother Ted H.,

Ken just gave you his rationale for why the TR is the better manuscript than the CT. Ken also gave his opinion as to why a Calvinist would reject NKJV - "if you are Calvin then the TR represents your belief better than the CT."
George, a Calvinist, has strongly criticized the TR and defended the CT manuscripts in these forums. So not all Calvinists would agree with Ken.

I agree whole-heartedly with Ken that TR is the better manuscript. I would state just because someone dies for their beliefs does not make them right. Consider Michael Servetus' execution by Calvin and the modern day suicide-bombers.

I answered your question precisely, based on what the "AV only" proponents would say. Every one of them would reject the Geneva Bible, even though it is also based on the TR and preceded the AV in publication. The self-described KJVO does not accept any other version - no matter what Greek manuscripts it is based on.  They even reject The Evidence Bible which is essentially the KJV with just the Thees/Thous/Thines updated.  You will rarely hear them refer to the "original Greek" from the pulpit. So I surmise the issue the self-labeled KJV Only adherents would take with the NKJV is not manuscript-based but a faith that the AV is THE version God will have us read and no changes are permissible. (BTW: the NKJV editors claim it is based on the TR with "comparisons" to the CT manuscripts.)

I thought you were asking for a cultural insight into the "KJV Only" views. If you were inquiring about manuscripts & the best version for Calvinists, I am sorry I misunderstood.

Ken Avery said:

When you say we have many older texts you are correct and the majority, no pun intended, of them agree with the TR; as a matter of fact, they are variants of the TR based on a common text.

No, they are not variants of the TR even though you qualify it as "based on a common text."  The TR and Byz Maj and other individual texts such as Alexandrinus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus are variants of a common text.  It is not that the others are variants of the TR.  It seems that this statement is a backdoor attempt to establish the TR as the base.

Michael Huffman said:

Hey Ken,

Thanks for the comment. However, much of what you said is historically incorrect. That is the musing of Riplinger, Ruckamn and Cloud. The TR, historically, were the beginning work of one man, Erasmus. In fact, when he did the TR, he didnt even have The Revelation. He had to translate that back from the Latin. What I said lacked detail simply because of space, I dont want to write a book here. I will submit to to you that there are alot more than 1,000 variants, since no Greek text would agree with each other 100%. But when people speak about the TR being the most accurate, I ask them "which one." And when I get the raised eyebrows, i tell them that there are about 100 different TR texts and none of them agree 100%. That is why we take the majority of the readings, in context, and a true textual critic will consult all of the 5,000 text and get the true reading, bringing all of the text into view. I have also challenged people who tell that there are doctrinal variants between the TR and the CT that are unexplained and they have not been able to do so. Thanks for sharing on this thread, I appreciate your comments very much.

As I understand it, the starting text is Erasmus compilation of the texts that were considered correct. As we know there were multiple texts with scribal errors; the texts that followed were based off of the same texts that were considered correct.

 The RT was produced by men who had the fear of God in them and spent their entire life examining the texts to produce the best possible Greek text. If you want to sort thru the details there is a great web site that is full of valuable information; it probably will not change your mind; though, it might fill in the details that are so often overlooked.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/index.html

God bless you and keep you,
Ken

George Somsel said:

Ken Avery said:

When you say we have many older texts you are correct and the majority, no pun intended, of them agree with the TR; as a matter of fact, they are variants of the TR based on a common text.

No, they are not variants of the TR even though you qualify it as "based on a common text."  The TR and Byz Maj and other individual texts such as Alexandrinus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus are variants of a common text.  It is not that the others are variants of the TR.  It seems that this statement is a backdoor attempt to establish the TR as the base.

Have it your way; I will word it differently:

The TR is based off of a common set of texts that disagree with the commonalities of the Vaticanus and Alexadrinus texts.

Is that better [:D]

God bless you and keep you,
Ken

Ken Avery said:

I was only pointing out my own personal opinion that I do not believe your depiction is accurate;

That is not good enough.  Your opinion or my opinion does not matter.  It does not matter whether we afre "comfortable" with a position.  What matters is whether it is correct.  You really should get some books on textual criticism and educate yourself in the field if you intend to continue to make statements regarding it.  Logos has a collection on textual criticism you might consider.  Also, you would do well to avoid comparing someone to Satan when you are discussing his position. 

You have a different first name, but you remind me of another Avery who knew no Greek or Hebrew but who was a steadfast defender of the AV and the TR.  I had not intended to mention his name, but are you related?

If anyone would like to get horse's-mouth info re what the NKJV translation is based on, I suggest you get a hardcopy from a bookstore and check out the Preface.  It may not be very detailed, but at least it does make it fairly clear what relation it bears to some flavor or other of the TR.  Also note - one of the things I like about the format of the NKJV - it includes as a part of the translator's efforts a relatively extensive set of brief but interesting annotations as to other sources considered and/or alternate readings, in the side margins - not a function of whatever study-bible-author's notes might be included.  This is a big plus, in my opinion, for the hardcopy edition.

In fact, this investigative method has always been my starting point when considering a new translation - I read thru the Preface very carefully.  What they DON'T say is often as revealing (suppositionally) as what they DO say.

I was somewhat disappointed to learn (just now) that the NKJV provided with Libronix does not include access to that Preface.  Nor does it include the Preface for the ESV or NASB or NIV or HCSB.  Does anyone know how to access that text within Libronix?  I own all the hardcopies - that's where I've gotten info in the past.

FWIW, I feel sort of cheated ... I bought those licenses, and that text IS a part of the copyrighted document. 

I happen to have a copy of the NKJV translation handy.  It's got a long preface ... but on the fifth page (in this printing), after reciting a long and interesting history of translation principles used in relation to the KJV, the eighth paragraph under the heading "New Testament Text" says:

"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 center reference column. Although these variations are duly indicated in the center-column notes 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:"

In my opinin the preface to the NKJV is one of the best of its type in explaining not only where its sources came from, but also the intent and mechanisms the translators used.

I'm not offering an opinion here about which text is better or worse.  Just wanted to give you info from "the horse's mouth".  There is a lot more avail in the hardcopy.

Someone will prob ask about OT texts ... here is an extract from the preface of the NKJV about that:

"For the New King James Version the text used was the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Bilbia Hebraica, with frequent comparisons being made with the Bomberg edition of 1524-25.  The Septuagint (Greek) version of the Old Testment and the Latin Vulgate were also consulted.  In addition to referring to a variety of ancient versions of the Hebrew Scriptures, the New King James Version draws on the resource 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 the center reference column."

In my  opinion, which is worth very little in these areas, it appears that this group of translators have tried to "duplicate" the "mindset and approach" of the original KJV group, as if that group was doing their work TODAY, with the additional info that is now available.  That's just my impression, from reading thru the entire preface ... I'd encourage y'all to do that.

I hope this has been helpful.

JimDean said:

I was somewhat disappointed to learn (just now) that the NKJV provided with Libronix does not include access to that Preface.  Nor does it include the Preface for the ESV or NASB or NIV or HCSB.  Does anyone know how to access that text within Libronix?  I own all the hardcopies - that's where I've gotten info in the past.

I can feel your pain, I have Logos books where sections are omited; for example, Dr Fructenbaum's "Footsteps of the Messiah" is missing the most useful section, the extensive verse cross reference.

God bless you and keep you,
Ken

Ken Avery said:

JimDean said:

Hey Ken -

Where did you find that paragraph you quoted ... looks like you copied and pasted ... I had to type it all out :~(

 LOL - From Libronix

Ok, but where?  I tried just scrolling to the tops of the documents, and they all start with Gen 1.1 ... how do I get access to the preface info?

I'm probably missing something really obvious ..

JimDean said:

I'm probably missing something really obvious ..

Toggle Contents Pane? (the little icon in the upper right hand corner of the document bar)

Ted Hans said:

George Somsel said:

I think the NKJV is also based on the the TR which is one reason I would never use it.

Hi George, any proof that the NKJV is based on the TR? I am happy with my NKJV,AV,NASB,ESV & many more literal translations. I do not want to start a war here, i just want to get the right info. Thanks

Sir T.

The best evidence is straight from the horse's mouth.  This is from the Preface to the NKJV

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. Those readings in the Textus Receptus which have weak support are indicated in the side reference column as being opposed by both Critical and Majority Texts (see “Popup Notes”).

JimDean said:

How can I get that little folded-paper icon to OPEN UP and show me its text?

Interesting; as far as I know, you should be seeing the text you have selected (purpose).

I am not sure why it is not working?

Ted Hans said:

It was all relevant, thanks for taking the time to respond.

Ted

The whole thread was NOT pointless but it was, as a former US President said, " a thousand points of light." I've learned half a dozen tidbits in this one. Thanks to Michael, Ted and all the rest.