Featured KJV vs. NKJV: which do you prefer?

Well, what was the earlist date of citing Easter used in Acts of the Apostles 12:4 was a goof? The evidence seems to be it was translated Easter there in the KJV intentiionally.

 

The evidence from the 1600's is not that the rendering Easter was placed in the KJV by the KJV translators, but that a Church of England prelate or prelates later inserted it intentionally to try to provide a scriptural basis for the Church of England's celebration of Easter.

 

There is historical evidence including some from the 1600's that shows that at least some believers regarded the claimed 14 changes in the KJV to be mistakes or to be evidence of episcopal bias.

Another one of the reported 14 changes made by a prelate or prelates according to Thomas Hill’s 1648 sermon involved 1 Corinthians 12:28. “Helpers, governours” was the rendering of Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, Great, Whittingham’s, Geneva, and Bishops’ Bibles at this verse. The 1557 Whittingham’s and 1560 Geneva Bible have a marginal note for helpers: “As Deacons” and a marginal note for governors: “As Elders.” The 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible and a 1672 edition of the KJV have the following marginal note for helpers or helps: “the offices of deacons” and this marginal note for governours or governments: “He setteth forth the order of elders, which were the maintainers of the churches discipline.“ Concerning this verse, Paul Baynes (1573-1617) wrote: “The helps God hath put in his Church respect the calling of deacons” (Diocesan’s Trial, p. 72). Augustus Strong referred to “helps” as “indicating the duties of deacons” (Systematic Theology, p. 917). At this verse, the 1657 English translation of the 1637 Dutch Bible has these notes: “helps [that is, who take care of and help the poor and sick] governments, [that is, they that are appointed to keep the Church in good order, and to guide them, which are the elders, Rom. 12:8, 1 Tim. 5:17].”

Benjamin Hanbury quoted the following from the preface to the reader in the Just Defence of the Petition for Reformation that was printed in 1618: “1 Corinthians 12:28 is translated, both by the Genevan and former Church translation [Bishops’] ‘helpers, governors,‘ but the new translators, herein worse than the Rhemists, translate it ‘helps in governments;‘ foisting into the text this preposition ‘in.‘ Why? They cannot abide elders to assist the minister in governing Christ’s Church. So their churchwardens are but the prelates’ promoters” (Historical Memorials, I, p. 131). In his exposition of Ezekiel, William Greenhill (1598-1671) asserted that 1 Corinthians 12:28 “is faulty in this place, reading those words thus, ‘helps in government,‘ which was done to countenance all the assistants prelates had in their government” (p. 551). In his 1648 sermon, Thomas Hill maintained that helps in governments “is a most horrible prodigious violence to the Greek words; for they are both the accusative case, helps; there are elders; governments, there are deacons; now to obscure these, you must put it, helps in governments” (Six Sermons, p. 25).

In his 1593 book advocating that prelatic or Episcopal church government is apostolic, Bishop Thomas Bilson acknowledged that some use 1 Corinthians 12:28 as one verse that they cite for Presbyterian church government. Bilson wrote: “There remained yet one place where governors are named amongst ecclesiastical officers, and that is 1 Corinthians 12” (Perpetual Government, p. 197). Bilson wrote: “Why should they not be lay elders or judges of manners? Because I find no such any where else mentioned, and here none proved. Governors there were, or rather governments” (p. 199). Bilson claimed that “Chrysostom maketh ‘helps’ and governments’ all one” (p. 212). In 1641, George Gillespie maintained that “Chrysostom, expounding this place, doth not take helps and governments to be all one, as Bilson hath boldly, but falsely averred” (Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland, p. 19). The 1611 edition of the KJV does exactly what Bilson suggested by connecting the words “helps” and “governments” with “in.” David Norton pointed out: “1611, uniquely and apparently without justification from the Greek, reads ‘helps in governments” (Textual History, p. 34).

Was this change deliberately introduced in order to attempt to take away a verse that had been used by those who advocated Presbyterian church government? Did Bilson or other prelates take advantage of their position to attempt to undermine or obscure a favorite text used to support Presbyterian church government? What truth of the original demanded that this change be introduced into the 1611? In 1641, Scottish reformer George Gillespie wrote: “We cannot enough admire how the authors of our new English translation were bold to turn it thus, ’helps in government,’ so to make one of two, and to elude our argument” (Assertion, p. 19). Andrew Edgar suggested that Gillespie “recognized in these words a covert attack on the constitution of the Church of Scotland” (Bibles of England, p. 299, footnote 1). In 1646, Gillespie wrote: “Whereas he [Mr. Hussey] thinks, helps, governments, to belong both to one thing, there was some such thing once foisted into the English Bibles; antilepsis kubernesis was read thus, helps in governments: but afterwards, the prelates themselves were ashamed of it, and so printed according to the Greek distinctly, helps, governments” (Aaron’s Rod, p. 103).

 

Can you please cite the earlist one? Or the earlist one you can cite. Thanks.

 

I prefer the NKJV because I like to read the Bible in something resembling the language I speak. I use the NKJV for almost all my devotional reading and serious Bible study. My church uses the NIV so in sermon preparation I use that version but correct it either from the NKJV or (in the N.T.) the Greek.

I believe that the NKJV is about the best Bible around, though I don't claim to have made a careful study of every single Bible on the market. I am aware of a few errors and am hoping for a revision sometime soon. I am also persuaded that the Received Text is more likely to be the original in more places than the Critical Text.

I do not understand, however, the vitriol that is poured upon the KJV. I do a certain amount of itinerant preaching and am always happy to preach from the KJV when asked. There are advantages in a Bible that distinguishes between Second Person Singular and Plural (eg. John 3:7; Luke 22:31-32), but in these days when Bibles are more often read privately than publicly, I think that there are other, less archaic ways of indicating these differences than 'thee' and 'ye.'

 

I believe that the NIV is the best all-round Bible translation, and I have good company because the international community agrees with me.

Well, versions you have trashed such as the CSB and NLT you haven't given a chance. It's just your reflex action coming into play.

It is miniscule compared with the outrageous remarks you and Y-1 have made regarding the NIV. At most criticisms concerning the KJV is that the language is outdated and its accuracy is poor.

You specialize in hatching feminist plots. Make believe feminists are hiding out behind every tree and shrub in your imagination.

Y-1 makes specific claims for years on end, but is reluctant to supply specific passages in the NIV in which those 'claims' of his can be substantiated. And you are his partner in crime. You don't believe in fair play. One would think if you believe in justice despite your bad taste for the NIV, you could step forward and say: "If the charges cannot be found in the text, the charges should be taken back and effusive apologies made toward the translators of the NIV." But you aren't made of that kind of stuff.

Every time that complete falsehoods are made against the NIV on the BB I will turn it around and make it about the NKJV. That's because the false accusations against the NIV are just as false against the NKJV.

 

The problems with the NIV 2011 edition are real.

 

Make your charges and document them from the text. Make it clear.

 

One simple example of imposing popular interpretation into the translation, 1 Corinthians 6:19, ". . . that your bodies are temples . . . ."

 

"of the Holy Spirit." I thought you'd come up with something unique about certain texts. The rendering here is common among just about all English translations. I have the impression that you have nothing against the NIV in a singular fashion, but against Christian orthodoxy.

 

False. Show me two common English translations to support your claim regarding 1 Corinthians 6:19.

1 Corinthians 6 Parallel Chapters

 

It certainly was a synonym, look at the Geneva NT, 1557:
source


Also check this out in the Geneva OT of 1610 [!]):
source


That's right, still a synonym in 1610!

 

Looking at all the English versions on Bible Gateway, it seems other than the three NIV (NIV2011, NIrV, & NIVUK) the only other versions that give "bodies" plural are Eugene Peterson's The Message and Ruth Magnusson Davis's New Matthew Bible. (NIV also gives "temples" plural.)

 

The Great Bible 1539
Ether knowe ye not, how that youre bodyes are the temple of the holy ghost, which dwelleth in you, whom ye haue of God, and how that ye are not youre awne?

Matthew's Bible 1537
Either knowe ye not howe that youre bodies are the temple of the holye ghoste, whyche is in you, whome ye haue of God, and how that ye are not your owne?

Tyndale Bible 1534
Ether knowe ye not how that youre bodyes are the temple of ye holy goost which is in you who ye have of God and how that ye are not youre awne?

Wycliffe Bible 1382
Whether ye witen not, that youre membris ben the temple of the Hooli Goost, that is in you, whom ye han of God, and ye ben not youre owne?

Interlinear Bible: 1 Corinthians 6:19 - Textus Receptus Bibles

 

I found several others that do, including Tyndale, at Studylight (has some versions that Bible Gateway does not)

And FYI the Message says body.

 

The transcription for the 1534 Tyndale New Testament is bad and should read

Tyndale Bible 1534
Ether knowe ye not how that youre bodyes are the temple of the holy goost which is in you whom ye have of God and how that ye are not youre awne?


The macron. A horizontal stroke printed over a letter to indicate that the following letter or syllable (usually an n or m) has been omitted. For example, the is put for them. A curled macron (tilde) represents an omitted a. By this means, scribes and early printers often abbreviated a word so that their columns would be neatly justified.
The "Y" character, which came to be used to represent the runic "thorn" (þ - see above) was often used as an abbreviation for "th" in early printed books, and when it was used in this way it was normally printed with a superscript "e" or "t" as an abbreviation for "the" or "that."

Changes in the English Language

 

Are there any Greek text that have σῶμα and ναὸς as plurals?

You're right. The quote of The Message on that page is actually several verses rather than just the one, and I missed that with my quick search. It has "body" in the place that would be verse 19.

 

Many in the reformed and Baptist camp would disagree with you that the Niv 2011 is best version, as we prefer by far a more formal translation to use, since we hold to verbal plenary inspiration, why use a thought for thought instead of word for word?

 

How about Junia as an Apostle?

 

Well I understand the "body" and "temple" to refer to Christ's body His church. Compare 1 Corinthians 3:16, ". . . Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?"

Now 1 Cornthians 6:15 the believers bodies are so mentioned. And verses 17-18, can be so understood, ". . .against his own body. . . ." Now I understand verse 19 to refer to Christ's church.