A correction about the NKJV

(Andrew Bromage) writes:

>[Followups trimmed]

>G’day all.

(Nigel B. Mitchell) writes:

>>Michael, you should know by now that the NKJV is a translation of the

>>KJV into slightly more modern English. It deliberately retains the

>>same teachings (and therefore the same errors) as the KJV.

>Nigel, I don’t believe that this is an entirely fair accusation.

>The NKJV is a translation of the majority text into modern English. It

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >does maintain a similar translation style to the KJV, using similar

>jargon terminology for the benefit of those familiar with KJV language,

>but of course it’s much more consistent as you would expect from a

>modern translation.

The phrase “majority text” is not the same as the “received text”. The “majority text” is that found in the majority of the existing Greek texts, and, in quite a number of places, is different from what is accepted as the original text – see either of the two major Greek NTs available today, Nestle/Aland and UBS, which agree on the text, but have different marginal notes.

I don’t know whether NKJV claims to be a translation of the “majority text”, but at least in 1 John 5:7, about the “three heavenly witnesses”, it follows the “received text”. In this place the “received text” has the support of only four Greek manuscripts, one of which was written expressly to include this verse, another of which dates from the 18th century. There are only four other Greek manuscripts which even mention this as a marginal note.

[rest deleted]

>Cheers,

>Andrew Bromage

Ken Smith

— Dr Ken Smith – Christian, husband, retired mathematician, skeptic, … `If you were going to make a ghost trap, how would you set about it? – particularly if you had not even a small ghost to practice on.’ Anonymous scientist, in “The Kraken Wakes”