The MEV. Is it a perversion?

[prophet]

I made no speculation.
Farstaad wrote a whole book detailing his preference of the Masoretic Text over the TR, from whence the Likes of the Reina Valera and Geneva descend.

But, please, drone on and on with your one trick pony.

There aren't enough Ruckmanites left to even argue with you.

No one cares about the Boogeyman in your head.
He's dead.
Pete kicked the bucket.
Move on.


Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

 

[logos1560]

Since Farstad wrote of his disdain for the TR in a book, and claimed that the NKJV editing was based on the MT , except in Revelation,  I call you out for this (hopefully) mistake.

I made no speculation.
Farstaad wrote a whole book detailing his preference of the Masoretic Text over the TR, from whence the Likes of the Reina Valera and Geneva descend.

Did you mean Majority Text instead of Masoretic Text in your statement above?

Your earlier claim in this thread that the editing of the NKJV was based on the Majority text was a speculation or was factually incorrect.   

You were given clear statements by Arthur Farstad where he clearly asserted that the NKJV's NT  is based on the same text as the KJV [the Textus Receptus], not on the Majority text as you claimed.    Do you close your eyes to his actual statements?

Arthur Farstad, executive editor of the NKJV, asserted:  ?The text of the New King James Version itself is the traditional one used by Luther and Calvin, as well as by such Catholic scholars as Erasmus, who produced it.  Later (1633) it was called the Textus Receptus, or ?TR?? (NKJV in the Great Tradition, p. 111).    In note 9, Arthur Farstad commented that ?deeper reflection led us to adhere to the traditional King James text? (p. 116).    Farstad quoted the following from the guidelines for the making of the NKJV:  ?the Traditional texts of the Greek and Hebrew will be used? (p. 34). 

The fact that Farstad preferred the Majority Text is not evidence that it was used as the underlying text of the NKJV's NT.

 

[logos1560]

I made no speculation.

You failed to prove your allegation against the NKJV to be true.

What would you call your unproven claim if not speculation?  Speculation may be a mild term for your allegation against the NKJV.

Would you admit that your allegation against the NKJV is false?

It can be more soundly demonstrated that the KJV and the NKJV are based on the same basic underlying Greek New Testament text than that the 1560 Geneva Bible and the KJV are.   

There are more significant textual variations between the New Testaments of the 1560 Geneva Bible and the 161 KJV than any that KJV-only advocates claim to find between the New Testaments of the KJV and the NKJV.