NKJV on Genesis 49:6

[David Lamb]

They used all the versions they had, there are many times they went to the Latin instead of the Hebrew.

How do we know they used hebrew in 49:6?

They knew there was a option for ox. Its in the margin.

We know that they translated out of Hebrew (Greek for the New Testament) because the title page includes these words: "THE HOLY BIBLE, Containing the Old Testament, AND THE NEW: Newly Translated out of the Original tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties special Commandment." So they referred to earlier translations, but they translated from the Hebrew and Greek.

 

[KJB1611reader]

We know that they translated out of Hebrew (Greek for the New Testament) because the title page includes these words: "THE HOLY BIBLE, Containing the Old Testament, AND THE NEW: Newly Translated out of the Original tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties special Commandment." So they referred to earlier translations, but they translated from the Hebrew and Greek.

Okay, I will try to find the verses where they went to Latin not Hebrew.

 

[KJB1611reader]

Please read what I said by an Hebrew scholar waybefoore 1611 said about the words in Genssis 49:6.

 

[KJB1611reader]

I made a mistake:

Neither did wee thinke much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrewe, Syrian, Greeke, or Latine, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdaine to revise that which we had done, and to bring backe to the anvill that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helpes as were needfull, and fearing no reproch for slownesse, nor coveting praise for expedition, wee have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the worke to that passe that you see. (From the Translators to the Reader, pp. 9-10 of Campbell’s edition)

 

[Logos1560]

The nkjv didn't keep the KJB text and went with an alternative reading.

The NKJV translated the KJV's underlying Hebrew Masoretic text. Disagreeing with the KJV translators' translation decision does not suggest that they did not follow the KJV's underlying text. The NKJV does not go with an alternative reading.

William Tyndale, in effect the primary translator of the KJV, translated the Hebrew at Genesis 49:6 as "houghed an ox." The 1535 Coverdale's Bible and 1537 Matthew’s also have "houghed an ox." In its marginal note at Genesis 49:6, the 1611 KJV has "houghed oxen" as an acceptable alternative rendering. Would David Cloud give Tyndale, Coverdale, and Rogers the benefit of the doubt and “admit that they had serious reasons for every translation they gave” (For Love of the Bible, p. 65)? Was William Grady unaware of this rendering in the KJV-only view's line of good Bibles such as Tyndale's, Coverdale's, and Matthew’s and as the acceptable alternative rendering in the 1611 KJV [see Final Authority, p. 312)?

 

[Logos1560]

In the concise Hebrew dictionary in Strong's Concordance, James Strong indicated that the Hebrew word was translated "wall" in the KJV "by mistake" (p. 114). In his Exposition of Genesis, H. C. Leupold contended that this KJV rendering "is not correct" (p. 1174).

Concerning this verse in his commentary on Genesis, Peter Ruckman indicated that "the word 'ox' (Heb. Shor) is translated by the A. V. as Shur" (p. 840).

John Gill contended that Simeon and Levi "don't seem to have had proper instruments" for digging down a wall of a city, "nor a sufficient number for such work, and which would have required longer time than they used" (Exposition, I, p. 302). Benjamin Kennicott asserted that the Hebrew word “does not signify a wall, may be inferred from the history of the destruction of the Sichemites by Simeon and Levi; chapter 34:25 etc., since no such circumstance is at all mentioned as their digging down the walls of the city: which indeed could have answered no end, as they had murdered all the men and plundered the city” (State, I, p. 57). Benjamin Kennicott added that “it is more unlikely still, that old Jacob should in this solemn manner curse their passion most for doing, what (if they had done it) would have been the least part of their crime” (Ibid.).

James D. Price maintained that the Massoretic Text's reading "hamstrung an ox" was emended under the influence of three ancient Versions--Latin Vulgate, Aramaic Targum, and Syriac (Textual Emendations, pp. 18, 75; see also King James Onlyism, pp. 293, 589). KJV defender Charles Surrett asserted that “based on vowel pointing” the Hebrew supports the NKJV’s rendering “hamstrung an ox” at Genesis 49:6 (Certainty of the Words, p. 109).

 

[KJB1611reader]

Read Calvin's note.

The kings men rejected the ox reading, so did Geneva.

The nkjv is not a kjb.

It didn't even make a note.

 

[KJB1611reader]

I do not care what they say, the KJB is right and overrided all others.

 

[Logos1560]

The nkjv is not a kjb.

The NKJV does not claim to be the 1611 KJV.

The truth remains that the NKJV is a revision of the KJV in the same sense (univocally) as the KJV is a revision of the 1568 Bishops' Bible and other pre-1611 English Bibles.

Just as the KJV is both a revision and a translation, the NKJV is both a revision and a translation.

 

[KJB1611reader]

The NKJV does not claim to be the 1611 KJV.

The truth remains that the NKJV is a revision of the KJV in the same sense (univocally) as the KJV is a revision of the 1568 Bishops' Bible and other pre-1611 English Bibles.

Just as the KJV is both a revision and a translation, the NKJV is both a revision and a translation.

No.

 

[KJB1611reader]

I reject the Nkjv.

I am a defender of the King James Bible (the text, not the scholars or the Margins.)

I do not accept any word changes from lexicons or previous or future versions.

I accept the English text purfied in the Pure Cambridge Edition.

 

[Logos1560]

No.

Your "no" opinion is a rejection of the actual truth.

The truth remains that the NKJV is a revision of the KJV in the same sense (univocally) as the KJV is a revision of the 1568 Bishops' Bible and other pre-1611 English Bibles.

 

[Logos1560]

I do not accept any word changes from lexicons or previous or future versions.

I accept the English text purfied in the Pure Cambridge Edition.

The claimed Pure Cambridge Edition has some changes made to the words of the 1611 edition that were already earlier found in the 1560 Geneva Bible or the 1568 Bishops' Bible. Thus, some of the changes and revisions made to the 1611 edition of the KJV could be said to come from previous English versions.

 

[KJB1611reader]

The claimed Pure Cambridge Edition has some changes made to the words of the 1611 edition that were already earlier found in the 1560 Geneva Bible or the 1568 Bishops' Bible. Thus, some of the changes and revisions made to the 1611 edition of the KJV could be said to come from previous English versions.

So, its not the 1769 that added it back?

Have a list of PCE changes that no other version had before?

 

[KJB1611reader]

Houghed an ox is wrong, and digged a wall is right.

Thanks,

End of discussion until I find more evidence.

Shawn

 

[KJB1611reader]

Myles Coverdale was the same translator as the Great Bible which changed it to wall.

He had ox at first.

Last message here.

 

[Conan]

I reject the Nkjv.

I am a defender of the King James Bible (the text, not the scholars or the Margins.)

I do not accept any word changes from lexicons or previous or future versions.

I accept the English text purfied in the Pure Cambridge Edition.

Then you reject the 1611 KJV and are not a defender. You believe in the unauthorized changes to the true KJV and it's Translators.

 

[KJB1611reader]

Then you reject the 1611 KJV and are not a defender. You believe in the unauthorized changes to the true KJV and it's Translators.

I reject the printing errors of the 1611.

No, its not unauthorized.

 

[Conan]

I reject the printing errors of the 1611.

No, its not unauthorized.

Changes in the King James version

 

[Logos1560]

I reject the printing errors of the 1611.

You merely assume that all the errors in the 1611 edition of the KJV were the fault of the printers. You do not prove that assumption to be true.

Some of the errors in the 1611 edition came from the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible, and they were left uncorrected by the KJV translators, which would make them their responsibility, and not the fault of the printer of the 1611 edition.

David Norton maintained that “there are some 250 variants where the first [1611] edition preserves a 1602 [Bishops’] reading” (Textual History, p. 36). David Norton noted that the 1568 edition of the Bishops’ Bible has the consistent spelling “Aialon” for a Hebrew name, “but the 1611 KJB follows the variations of the 1602 text exactly, giving ‘Aialon,‘ ‘Aiialon,‘ and ‘Aijalon’” (p. 35). David Norton asserted that a clear error in the 1602 Bishops’ Bible at 1 Kings 8:61 [“the Lord your God”] was kept in the 1611 edition while the 1568 Bishops’ Bible had the correct rendering [“the Lord our God”] (p. 36). This error was corrected in the 1629 Cambridge KJV edition. Norton also observed that “the present tense at Acts 23:3, ‘then saith Paul,‘ where the Greek and the context require the past, also comes from the 1602 text” while the 1568 Bishops’ text had “then said Paul” (p. 36). David Norton suggested that the keeping of errors from the 1602 text is “important for establishing that the [KJV] translators were fallible in their attention to the text: sometimes they nodded” (Ibid.). David Norton asserted: “Several times a Bishops’ Bible mistake creeps apparently unnoticed into the KJB text” (KJB: Short History, p. 130).


The KJV translators may have left uncorrected the error of the name of the wrong group of people “Amorites” (1 Kings 11:5) that is in the 1602 edition of the Bishops’ Bible, which could make them responsible for this error of fact being found in the 1611. At 2 Kings 24:19, the 1611 edition has the name of the wrong king “Jehoiachin,” introduced from the 1602 edition’s “Joachin.” If the KJV translators had noticed this error of fact at 2 King 24:19 in the 1602 edition of the Bishops’ Bible, they failed to make sure that the printers at London corrected it since it remained in editions of the KJV printed at London in 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1626, 1630, 1631, 1633, 1634, 1640, 1644, 1650, 1652, 1655, 1657, and 1698. Would Jack McElroy suggest that since the 1611 edition and some other KJV editions are factually and historically wrong in its renderings at 1 Kings 11:5 and 2 Kings 24:19 that it was the Lord Jesus Christ who allowed these errors to appear in the KJV (Bible Version Secrets, p. 202)? Jack McElroy claimed that the Lord “won’t accept material error (i.e., errors of fact, history, geography, Science, & doctrine) in his holy book” (Bible Version Secrets, p. 472). Does KJV-only teaching in effect suggest that God failed to guide the minds of the KJV translators, editors, and printers to make every word of the 1611 edition perfect?

Sound evidence confirms that the KJV translators kept or left uncorrected some renderings from the 1602 edition of the Bishops’ Bible that later KJV editors considered to be errors or to need changed. The stern logic of facts from the Bishops’ Bible would provide clear evidence that would be a serious problem for unproven KJV-only claims concerning the 1611 edition.