Like many other KJV-only authors, Doug Stauffer uses different measures/standards [double standards] in making his inconsistent, unjust allegations against the NKJV than he would apply to the textual criticism decisions and translation decisions involved in the making of the KJV.
Doug Stauffer asserted: “In order for a translation to be authoritative, strict adherence to the words of the Holy Spirit must be used. Therefore, a strict adherence to a word-for-word translation must be followed” (One Book Stands Alone, p. 253). Stauffer does not apply his own stated measure consistently, soundly, and justly to the KJV as he would ignore the places where the KJV does not provide a word-for-word translation.
In some of their marginal notes in the 1611 edition of the KJV, the KJV translators clearly pointed out some places where they did not put an English rendering in their text for some original-language words of Scripture. They put a rendering for the original-language word of Scripture in their marginal note, but they put no word for it in the verse.
Doug Stauffer asked: ""Does your version reduce Jesus to God's servant rather than His Son in Acts 3:13, 3:26, 4:27, or 4:30" (One Book Stands, p. 297)?
This same Greek word found at Acts 4:27 and 30 was also used of Jesus at Matthew 12:18a where it was translated "servant" in the KJV.
However, it was translated "child" in Wycliffe's, 1534 Tyndale's, Matthew's, Great, and Bishops' Bibles and as "son" in 1526 Tyndale's. Why is this difference important in Acts 4:27 and 30 but unimportant in Matthew 12:18? Does the KJV’s rendering at Matthew 12:18 demonstrate that the NKJV translators used one of renderings which the Greek NT text would allow?
Concerning Acts 4:27 but not concerning Matthew 12:18, Morton asked: "Which exalts the Lord Jesus Christ the most, being called God's servant or God's child?" (Which Translation Should You Trust, p. 43). Would Peter Ruckman claim that the KJV rendering at Matthew 12:18 was "another attack on Christ's Deity?" Riplinger claimed that the NKJV translators took the "Sonship away from the Lord Jesus Christ" and made him merely a "servant" (Which Bible is God's Word, p. 42).
Would Morton, Riplinger, Stauffer, and Ruckman claim that the KJV translators took away the Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ at Matthew 12:18 and made him merely a "servant?" The prophet Isaiah had referred to Christ as the servant of the Lord (Isa. 42:1-4, Isa. 52:13).
The Companion Bible [KJV] has this note for "child" at Acts 4:27: "child=servant, Greek pais, as in v. 25" (p. 1585). The 1657 English edition of The Dutch Annotations has the following note for "thy holy child Jesus" at Acts 4:27: "or servant, minister, See Acts 3:13, 26, see also Matthew 8:6 compared with Luke 7:2 and here verse 25." Concerning Acts 3:13, A. T. Robertson noted: "This phrase occurs in Isaiah 42:1; 52:13 about the Messiah except the name 'Jesus' which Peter adds" (Word Pictures, III, p. 43). Concerning Acts 3:13 in his 1851 commentary as edited by Alvah Hovey in the American Baptist Publication Society's American Commentary on the N. T., Horatio Hackett (1808-1875) wrote: "pais, not son=huios, but servant=Heb. ebhedh, which was one of the prophetic appellations of the Messiah, especially in the second part of Isaiah. (See Matt. 12:18, as compared with Isa. 42:1). The term occurs again in this sense in v. 26; 4:27, 30" (pp. 59-60). Concerning Acts 4:27, John Gill noted: "Unless the word should rather be rendered servant, as it is in verse 25 and which is a character that belongs to Christ, and is often given him as Mediator, who, as such, is God's righteous servant" (Exposition, VIII, p. 176).
To accuse the NKJV of copying the Jehovah Witnesses' Version when the NKJV translators did not copy it or even consult it is slanderous. To accuse the NKJV translators of taking away the Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ is ridiculous. The Greek word pais in these verses was used for both child or servant with the meaning determined by the context. Greek has a different word for "son"--huios. The KJV translated this word pais as "servant" 10 times, "child" 7 times, and "son" 3 times.
James D. Price explained that the real reason for this choice of rendering in the book of Acts in the NKJV is that the translators thought that in this context Peter was alluding to Isaiah 52:13, which identifies Christ as the Servant of the LORD (False Witness, p. 25).
Perhaps repeating a claim from Gail Riplinger, Doug Stauffer alleged that the NKJV has "51 omissions of God", but he does not compare these places in both the KJV and the NKJV to the Hebrew Masoretic text and Textus Receptus from which the KJV is translated (One Book Stands Alone, p. 150).
In response to this misleading charge likely repeated from Gail Riplinger, James D. Price noted: "The truth is that the KJV added the word "God" in fifty one or more places where the Hebrew or Greek text did not contain it--and that without using italics in most cases. This was because the KJV used dynamic equivalence paraphrases such as "God forbid," "God save the king," or "God speed" instead of a more literal expression in good English. In all these places the NKJV made the KJV more literal and more faithful to the Hebrew and Greek texts without undermining the place of God in the Bible" (False Witness of G. A. Riplinger's Death Certificate for the NKJV, p. 4).
An author with dubious academic credentials puts out a self-published book that looks like a 1990s-era Web page thanks to its inept overuse of italics and boldface and a cover image that looks like Photoshop vomited.
There are too many good books left unread in the world to waste time on this drivel.
I clicked on this thread to read some diverse opinions on OP,
and immediately after OP, before anyone else could get their first word in, there are 4 posts in row by logos.
This guy makes no sense, how can you spend all of your time attacking the Bible you claim to love and use instead of actually reading it and defending what it says?
The moment someone quotes from that Bible and defends what it says, you accuse them of being against your anti-KJVO position.
Isn't that odd?
UGC, you again throw out a completely bogus and false allegation that tries to suggest that disagreeing with and reproving incorrect, non-scriptural, human KJV-only reasoning is supposedly somehow "attacking the Bible." You expose your own erroneous reasoning by making such false allegations. You make no good sense by throwing out your false assertions.
Stauffer's unscriptural, deceitful use of unjust divers measures [double standards] in his inconsistent allegations against the NKJV does not demonstrate that he knows the Bible better or does not demonstrate that he practices what the Bible teaches better.