• 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!

Was the Nkjv translated from same sorce texts as used by the 1611 translators for Kjv then?

KJB1611reader

KJB1611reader

Active Member
Logos1560 said:
The need for use of the same exact measures and standards in evaluating translation decisions is not a non-issue. The fact that the makers of the KJV give no English word or words for many original-language words of Scripture does have bearing on inconsistent accusations against the NKJV. The Scriptures clearly condemn the use of divers measures [double standards] as an abomination to the LORD (Proverbs 20:10).

Proverbs 20:10 Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the LORD.

My 500+ page book Practically Identical: The Geneva Bible, the KJV, and the NKJV provides many verifiable facts from the 1560 Geneva Bible, the 1611 KJV, and the 1982 NKJV that exposes the KJV-only use of double standards or divers measures in their misleading accusations against the NKJV.

I have really studied it out, perhaps more carefully and thoroughly than any KJV-only author has.
Click to expand...
May I have a copy?

My.email is Godisgracious1031@outlook.

Shawn
 
KJB1611reader

KJB1611reader

Active Member
Well, I.meant no one single perfect t.r. They compared to find the right reading. They also had vast knowledge of oriental language and had alot of sources.
 
J

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
KJB1611reader said:
Well, I.meant no one single perfect t.r. They compared to find the right reading. They also had vast knowledge of oriental language and had alot of sources.
Click to expand...
The Translators of the Nkjv and modern versions had many more sources and texts to use, advancement in Lexicons and tools, and were just as smart in original languages though
 
KJB1611reader

KJB1611reader

Active Member
JesusFan said:
The Translators of the Nkjv and modern versions had many more sources and texts to use, advancement in Lexicons and tools, and were just as smart in original languages though
Click to expand...
Please cite verses where 'these more sources and advancements.'

Do note their Greek and Hebrew abilities are unmatched of king's men.

They were also versed in the writings and commentaies of anicent times.
 
J

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
KJB1611reader said:
Please cite verses where 'these more sources and advancements.'

Do note their Greek and Hebrew abilities are unmatched of king's men.

They were also versed in the writings and commentaies of anicent times.
Click to expand...
There have been big improvements in Lexicons and Greek and Hebrew reference works and tools since 1611, in knowledge of history and culture, and the scholars on the Esv/Nas/Esv?Niv translation teams fully as capably as any o nt he 1611 team
 
C

Conan

Well-Known Member
Alan Dale Gross said:
See: An Examination & Critique of The NEW KING JAMES VERSION.


As we see above, the critical text is ill-advised and for all intents and purposes a compilation of the worst manuscripts known to Mankind.

While Logos points out, there is a 'KJV' of the Bible which had terrible, known to be spurious, manuscripts used to force-feed their errors into the footnotes in a King James version, as an example of, 'the exception proves the rule', since they were abandoned to that one publication, then dismissed out of hand.

Then, apart from that one-off instance, other versions, such as the original 1611 KJV, have had footnotes added in the margins, however, only to give some more clarity, such as in 'alternate renderings' of the text. Those footnotes were not from a completely different composition made in a vain attempt to 'reconstruct' the Word of God and not from manuscripts opposed to the actual text, like that reassembled attempt to reconstruct the text in the critical text. They are the first to admit that they don't believe that 'the Truth' of God's original Word has been Preserved where we can be confident that we have the Revealed Will of God in its entirety. THAT was the very reason they tried to reconstruct it, we're told.



The idea that the NKJV faithfully does anything, as it relates to the KJV can not be sustained.


I'm not KJVO-KJVO, but apart from not appreciating their own untenable position as KJVO the way everyone else sees it, since in their stated position the term 'version' is used, they're mostly mad, I assume, because the advertisement and sells campaign pushing the NKJV claimed it was based on the same manuscripts as the KJV, which is a demonic lie of the Devil. They even got everyone and his brother with any religious world stature to say it is. Even Logos 1560. But I don't know if he or they are paid for their warfare in its behalf. I can't say.



Note above and the fact that believers are not to have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, from these scraps unearthed from the Underground Occult, after hundreds of years.



Conspicuous in their absence today, while other so-called versions embrace anything that serves to dilute the original expression.
Click to expand...
The NKJB used Stephanus Textus Receptus, it is to be remember that the KJV used Stephanus TR, Bezas TR, and Erasmus's 5th edition. Stephanus and Beza was also based on Erasmus 5th edition.
 
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
Conan said:
The NKJB used Stephanus Textus Receptus, it is to be remember that the KJV used Stephanus TR, Bezas TR, and Erasmus's 5th edition. Stephanus and Beza was also based on Erasmus 5th edition.
Click to expand...
NKJV didn't use the TR which had in Luke 1:35, εκ σου . Omitted it in error.
 
David Lamb

David Lamb

Well-Known Member
KJB1611reader said:
They NKJV remove 'of God' in 1 Jhn 3:16?
Click to expand...
The NKJV didn't remove "of God" because those words don't appear in the original Greek, which is why the KJV puts them in italics:

16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down [our] lives for the brethren.
 
KJB1611reader

KJB1611reader

Active Member
David Lamb said:
The NKJV didn't remove "of God" because those words don't appear in the original Greek, which is why the KJV puts them in italics:

16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down [our] lives for the brethren.
Click to expand...
This is Untrue:


The words "of God" ARE found in the Greek texts that underlie the King James Bible.

The entire Greek phrase "the love OF GOD" is found in Beza's Greek texts of 1589 and 1598, the Complutensian polyglot version of 1514, the ancient Armenian bible, the Latin Clementine Vulgate - "In hoc cognovimus caritatem Dei"., Greek manuscript 52, as well as the Greek text of the Trinitarian Bible Society put out in 1894.
 
KJB1611reader

KJB1611reader

Active Member
Hereby perceive we the love of God,.... The phrase "of God" is not in the Oriental versions, nor in the Greek copies, but is in the Complutensian edition, and in the Vulgate Latin version, and is favoured by the Syriac version, which reads, "by this we know his love to us"; and so the Ethiopic version, "by this we know his love". That is, the love of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is truly and properly God, the great God, the mighty God, the true God, and God over all, blessed for ever. His love is manifested to his people, and perceived by them in various instances; but in nothing is it more clearly seen than in the following one:
because he laid down his life for us: of the life of Christ, and his laying it down in the room of his people; see Gill on , which shows his love, his free grace and favour; for this arose not from any merit or worth in the persons he died for; not from their love, loveliness, or duty, but from his rich mercy, and the great love wherewith he loved them; and which, though it cannot be equalled, should be imitated: - Gill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top