[Diligent]

Originally Posted by againstheresies

I said they are “variant readings.” If they are not variant or alternate readings what are they?

As the KJV governing rules said, they were explanatory in nature. Honestly though, I don't regard them as all that important.

The real issue here is that you are comparing two very different types of footnotes and saying they are the same. The NKJV introduces doubt in its footnotes whereas the KJV only uses footnotes to give further explanation of a word or phrase.

Section 5 of this article explains more:
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/whatabout-nkjv.html

Originally Posted by Diligent

One more comment on this, since your charge warrants it:


The translators' governing rules explained when a marginal note could be written:

6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.

The NKJV translators were not working under the same kind of guideline, otherwise their marginal notes would not routinely cast doubt on the veracity of the Scripture text.

The only marginal readings in the original AV that I am aware of that resemble anything like what the NKJV translators wrote appeared in the apocrypha -- the books they kept out of the Old Testament and plainly did not regard as inspired Scripture. One example is 1Esdras 5:5 where the translators wrote "this place is corrupt." I suppose the NKJV translators decided to apply the same attitude to the New and Old Testaments that the KJV translators had for the apocrypha!

That is correct. In the 17th Century the common practice was to include explanatory commentary that was from a particular theological perspective. They avoided that practice and only included variant and alternate readings with cross reference notations.
The NKJV committee was consistent with that practice. There just happens to be more known variants.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by againstheresies

The NKJV committee was consistent with that practice. There just happens to be more known variants.

You're missing the point.

Look at the footnote text in your NKJV for 1Jo 5:7. Then find for me any comparable statement from the KJV translators anywhere in the Testaments.

I agree. The footnotes are much better in the NKJV. Do you think it is better to ignore that there is a major problem with this passage? Erasmus had doubts about the Comma Johanneum. You may think that this reading is correct, but no serious apologist will use this passage to defend the trinity precisely because it is in doubt. The NKJV footnote merely documents that there is a problem with this passage.

In John MacArthur’s Study Bible he notes:

5:7,8 in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit… three that bear witness on earth. These words are a direct reference to the Trinity and what they say is accurate. External manuscript evidence, however, is against them being in the original epistle. They do not appear in any Greek Manuscripts dated before ca. tenth century A.D. Only 8 very late Gr. mss. contain the reading, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Furthermore, 4 of those 8 mss. contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript. No Greek or Latin Father, even those involved in Trinitarian controversies, quote them; no ancient version except the Latin records them (not the Old Latin in its early form or the Vulgate). Internal evidence also militates against their presence, since they disrupt the sense of the writer’s thoughts. Most likely, the words were added much later to the text. There is no verse in Scripture which so explicitly states the obvious reality of the Trinity, although many passages imply it strongly. See 2 Cor. 13:14.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by againstheresies

In John MacArthur’s Study Bible he notes:

I don't care what MacArthur says, and don't be so willing to accept the mythology behind the Comma's inclusion in the TR. Study the issue more carefully. The Comma has plenty of support (read Crowned With Glory, Which Version is the Bible, etc) -- but I fear no amount of evidence will sway you at this point. You have ceded ground to the Devil by being unwilling to cite God's word on the subject just because some commentator has told you it's not a reliable reading. Imagine if Christ had that same attitude towards Scripture when he rebuked Satan! [You've inspired me to get back on to an essay I've been working on about this very topic of believers letting Satan dull their swords. Gotta get back to that later today...]

But you have summed this up very well for us. You don't regard the KJV as God's word without error, therefor you are happy to have someone change it for you and write in comments that make you even more happy about not knowing what is and isn't Scripture.

You wanted to know why we reject the NKJV, and you have ample reasoning in front of you. If we wanted a Bible that didn't have (or casts doubt) on verses like 1Jo 5:7, we'd pick one. The NKJV isn't a KJV in any sense.

Originally Posted by againstheresies

You may think that this reading is correct, but no serious apologist will use this passage to defend the trinity precisely because it is in doubt.

No serious apologist? I am one - there are many others, such as Brandon here, Will Kinney, David Cloud, D.A. Waite, and many others. Just because those preferring the Critical Text don't defend it doesn't mean those who love their Bibles don't.

Originally Posted by Diligent

You're missing the point.

Look at the footnote text in your NKJV for 1Jo 5:7. Then find for me any comparable statement from the KJV translators anywhere in the Testaments.

Direct hit!

Originally Posted by Diligent

You don't regard the KJV as God's word without error

Actually there were many errors in the first editions of the King James. Most all of them have been corrected through time. One obvious error, not made by other early English translations can be found in Matthew 23:24. The Greek text is “strain out” not “strain at.” Unfortunately both the modern Oxford and Cambridge editions (which have different readings) of the KJV still retain the same error.

Wesley’s New Testament 1755--Ye blind guides, who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel.

King James 1611--Ye blind guides, which straine at a gnat, and swallow a camel

The Geneva Bible 1587--Ye blinde guides, which straine out a gnat, and swallowe a camell.

The Bishops Bible 1568--Ye blynde guides, which strayne out a gnat, and swalowe a Camel.

Miles Coverdale 1535--O ye blynde gydes, which strayne out a gnat, but swalowe vp a Camell.

Tyndale New Testament 1526--Ye blinde gydes which strayne out a gnat and swalowe a cammyll.

Wycliffe Bible 1395--Blynde lederis, clensinge a gnatte, but swolewynge a camel

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by againstheresies

The Greek text is “strain out” not “strain at.”

Are you unaware of the irony here?

Absolutely! It appears that you guys spend an inordinate amount of time nit picking every translation when the one you prefer has had errors in it and continues to have errors in it and has also had problems. The textual variants in question comprise less than 5% of the Bible. Perhaps the church would be better served if you devoted yourselves to the apostles doctrine and prayer.