• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

2 Samuel 12:31 - nkjv

L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
KJB1611reader said:
NKJV added to the KJB with 'put to work with' in 2 Sam 12:31.
Click to expand...
Are you willing to apply the same exact measures/standards to the KJV and suggest that the KJV added many words to the pre-1611 English Bibles and added many words in English for which it had no original-language words of Scripture?

Concerning 1 Samuel 14:14, Dave Brunn maintained that “the KJV translators added an expanded, interpretive clause to their translation” and that “they translated the Hebrew word for ‘yoke’ as ‘acre …which a yoke of oxen might plow” (One Bible, p. 57). Could 1 Samuel 14:14 be a place where the KJV kept part of an addition from the Bishops’ Bible? The 1568 Bishops’ Bible rendered the last half of 1 Samuel 14:14 as follows: “within the compass as it were about an half acre of land which two [oxen plow].” E. W. Bullinger claimed that the KJV’s rendering of 1 Kings 20:33 “is a loose paraphrase” (Figures of Speech, p. 116).

Concerning Psalm 69:22, William Barrick wrote: “In this brief text consisting of six Hebrew words, the [KJV] translators expanded them into a very different form utilizing twenty-two words (nine of which are additions not found in the Hebrew forms either lexically or grammatically). This particular example of expansion is paraphrastic” (Understanding Bible Translation, pp. 61-62).
 
L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Dave Olson asserted: “In 1 Samuel 15:27, the NKJV inserts ‘Saul’ where ‘he’ is supposed to be. Some might say, ‘What’s the problem? It refers to the same person. Isn’t that the same thing?’ Once you begin to make changes based on what you think is more appropriate, you no longer have a pure copy of God’s Words” (Understanding the KJB, p. 51). D. A. Waite's book contended that when the NKJV "changes pronoun to noun" at 1 Samuel 20:2, it is a supposed example of "not faithfulness in translation" or "not accuracy in translation" (NKJV compared to KJV, pp. 27, xiii). The 1537 Matthew's Bible, one of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision, has "Jonathan" instead of "he" at this verse just as the NKJV does. D. A. Waite claimed: “There is little reason for a translator who is faithful in his translating to change a pronoun and make it into a noun. That is interpretation. That is not translation” (Defending the KJB, p. 127).

Are KJV defenders or KJV-only advocates willing to apply their own stated claims, measures, and principles consistently and justly? Would they complain about or condemn the KJV for adding a noun in English where there was not a noun in the Hebrew or Greek? Would they actually claim that it would be wrong or sin for the KJV translators to change a part of speech in the Hebrew or Greek to another part of speech in English? Would they suggest that you no longer have a pure copy of God’s words in the KJV if the KJV translators any time substituted a proper noun where a pronoun is in the original-language Biblical text?

For example, the KJV changed "him" at 1 Samuel 20:18 in the 1535 Coverdale's Bible and Geneva Bible to "David." The KJV inserted this noun that was not in the Hebrew, and it did not put this addition in italics. According to a consistent application of Olson’s and Waite’s very own assertions, were the KJV translators guilty of interpretation and not translation? Would Waite ask why the KJV translators did not leave it the way the Holy Spirit wrote it as he asked about the NKJV translators (see p. 129 in Defending the KJB)? Was a double standard used since the same standard is not applied to the KJV? The English translation of the 1637 Dutch authorized version has “him” at 1 Samuel 20:18. Where the 1560 Geneva Bible has the pronoun "he" at 1 Kings 20:12, the KJV substituted the noun "Ben-hadad” in italics. The English translation of the Dutch Bible has “he” at 1 Kings 20:12. In verse 24 of 1 Kings 9, the Geneva Bible and the KJV replaced "he" in Coverdale's with "Solomon" in italics. The Dutch Bible translated into English has “he” at this verse with the annotation: [“Solomon”].
 
KJB1611reader

KJB1611reader

Active Member
Logos1560 said:
Dave Olson asserted: “In 1 Samuel 15:27, the NKJV inserts ‘Saul’ where ‘he’ is supposed to be. Some might say, ‘What’s the problem? It refers to the same person. Isn’t that the same thing?’ Once you begin to make changes based on what you think is more appropriate, you no longer have a pure copy of God’s Words” (Understanding the KJB, p. 51). D. A. Waite's book contended that when the NKJV "changes pronoun to noun" at 1 Samuel 20:2, it is a supposed example of "not faithfulness in translation" or "not accuracy in translation" (NKJV compared to KJV, pp. 27, xiii). The 1537 Matthew's Bible, one of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision, has "Jonathan" instead of "he" at this verse just as the NKJV does. D. A. Waite claimed: “There is little reason for a translator who is faithful in his translating to change a pronoun and make it into a noun. That is interpretation. That is not translation” (Defending the KJB, p. 127).

Are KJV defenders or KJV-only advocates willing to apply their own stated claims, measures, and principles consistently and justly? Would they complain about or condemn the KJV for adding a noun in English where there was not a noun in the Hebrew or Greek? Would they actually claim that it would be wrong or sin for the KJV translators to change a part of speech in the Hebrew or Greek to another part of speech in English? Would they suggest that you no longer have a pure copy of God’s words in the KJV if the KJV translators any time substituted a proper noun where a pronoun is in the original-language Biblical text?

For example, the KJV changed "him" at 1 Samuel 20:18 in the 1535 Coverdale's Bible and Geneva Bible to "David." The KJV inserted this noun that was not in the Hebrew, and it did not put this addition in italics. According to a consistent application of Olson’s and Waite’s very own assertions, were the KJV translators guilty of interpretation and not translation? Would Waite ask why the KJV translators did not leave it the way the Holy Spirit wrote it as he asked about the NKJV translators (see p. 129 in Defending the KJB)? Was a double standard used since the same standard is not applied to the KJV? The English translation of the 1637 Dutch authorized version has “him” at 1 Samuel 20:18. Where the 1560 Geneva Bible has the pronoun "he" at 1 Kings 20:12, the KJV substituted the noun "Ben-hadad” in italics. The English translation of the Dutch Bible has “he” at 1 Kings 20:12. In verse 24 of 1 Kings 9, the Geneva Bible and the KJV replaced "he" in Coverdale's with "Solomon" in italics. The Dutch Bible translated into English has “he” at this verse with the annotation: [“Solomon”].
Click to expand...
Hello,

I don't see a issue with that and I am not him.

As well, Geneva dosen't have 'David' in that verse.

Shawn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top