Quote:
Originally Posted by Greektim
Point in fact, the truth is, the NKJV used the TR as a textual basis for the NT. This is the bias I was talking about, and the objective reality I seek to provide. I can be objective on the NKJV because while I like the NKJV as a translation, I would say that it is not superior to the original languages.
When you say "readings" I can only assume you mean variant readings that differ from the TR. If that is the case, I have yet to see anyone show me one place where the NKJV departs from the TR at all in the NT. At best, I see translational differences, but that has nothing to do with Alexandrian texts like p66 or p72 or Siniaticus. Hopefully, Tony, you can point something out to me about the NKJV where it does depart from the TR to an Alexandrian reading.
|
Hi Greektim. Two points. First, your statement about the NKJV or any Bible (specifically the King James Holy Bible) being "not superior to the original languages" is a bunch of hooey. It sounds like you are trying to give us the impression that you have a copy of "the originals" right there in front of you and know how to read them, when we do not. You have no such thing and would not be able to tell anyone on this earth where to get an "original languages" copy if your life depended on it.
Secondly, you tell us that nobody has yet shown you one place where the NKJV departs from the TR in the New Testament at all. Well, hopefully this will be the last time you will be able to truthfully say that.
I will make a separate post for you and others to see some concrete examples of where the NKJV does depart from the TR that underlies the true Bible, the Authorized King James Holy Bible.
Happy hunting for those "original language" thingies,
Will Kinney