...
From:
©2000 by James M. Frye;
"Of all the "Bibles" that are readily available today, there is only one that comes from the Textus Receptus
and is translated according to the Formal Equivalency method - the Authorized Version (KJV).
"The New King James Version (NKJV), although it claims to be a "Formal Equivalent" translation, contains many (over 2000) instances of "Dynamic Equivalency". In the preface, (the NKJV) claims to be essentially the same as The Authorized King James Version (KJV) except that the language has been updated. Instead, it has thousands of changes that have nothing to do with updating the language at all. Where the language is updated, it is often updated incorrectly or in ways that change the entire meaning of a passage."
This is another case of a misleading, unproven KJV-only accusations based on use of double standards. This person is repeating D. A. Waite's incorrect and unjust accusation and claim of 2,000 dynamic equivalent renderings.
D. A. Waite claimed that the NKJV rendering "Rock" at Habakkuk 1:12 "changes noun," "omits noun for Deity," and "omits adjective" (
NKJV compared to KJV, pp. 15, 68). In his introductory remarks, Waite asserted that the examples he cited from the NKJV are "not faithfulness in translation," "not accuracy in translation," "not reliability in translation," and "diabolical dynamic equivalency" (pp. xi-xv). This is another inconsistent, inaccurate, and unfair attack on the NKJV based on use of unjust measures. In the margin of the 1611, the KJV translators themselves gave the literal meaning of the Hebrew word as follows: "Heb. rock." Kirk DiVietro asserted: “One does not pervert the word of God when he translates what he finds in the text accurately” (
Anything but the KJV, p. 58). The NKJV has a literal, accurate rendering of the Hebrew, not a dynamic equivalency as Waite alleged. In other references, the KJV translators themselves rendered this same Hebrew word as "rock," including references where this word was used of God. At Deuteronomy 32:4, the same Hebrew word was translated “mighty God” in the Geneva Bible and “most mighty God” in the Bishops’ Bible while it was revised to “Rock” in the KJV. Would Waite claim that the KJV omits adjective and omits noun for Deity at Deuteronomy 32:4 when compared to the Geneva Bible or to the Bishops’ Bible? Would Waite suggest that this change made in the KJV to the pre-1611 English Bible at Deuteronomy 32:4 was not faithfulness and accuracy in translation? At Deuteronomy 32:15 and 32:30, the Geneva Bible translated the same Hebrew word as “strong God” which the KJV translated it “Rock” in both verses. It is again clear that KJV-only advocates fail to apply their own reasoning and claims consistently and justly. Over and over, it is evident that KJV-only advocates will attack other translations such as the NKJV for being more consistent, faithful, or accurate to the same Hebrew and Greek texts used by the KJV translators.
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. 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”].
Coverdale's rendering "his heart" (Gen. 45:26) became "Jacob's heart" in the Geneva, Bishops’, and KJV. The Geneva Bible placed this inserted word "Jacob's" in italics, but the KJV does not. Waite claimed: “Wherever the King James translators added words, they put those words in
italics to show that the word does not appear in the Hebrew or the Greek but was added to convey the meaning for the English reader” (
Foes, p. 96). At 2 Kings 9:25, the KJV put "Jehu" in italics where the Matthew's Bible has "he." The KJV inserted "said Ahab" in italics at 1 Kings 20:34 when this addition was not in Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Bishops‘. "Moses" was added in italics at Numbers 15:23 in the KJV when it was not in the Hebrew and was not in Tyndale's, Matthew’s, and Coverdale‘s. Other examples where the KJV inserted a noun in italics include the following: "Abraham" (Gen. 21:33), "Samuel" (1 Sam. 9:24, 25), "Ish-bosheth" (2 Sam. 3:7), "Joram" (2 Sam. 8:10), "David" (2 Sam. 13:37, 1 Chron. 15:1, 1 Chron. 23:5, 1 Chron. 28:19), and "Beh-hadad" (1 Kings 20:34). At Acts 7:8, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Great Bibles have "he" where the KJV substituted "Abraham" in italics. The Geneva and Bishops’ have “Moses” in italics (Exod. 10:18) where the KJV has “he.” At Numbers 23:4, Tyndale’s, Geneva, and Bishops’ have “Balaam said” where the KJV has “he said.” At James 4:6, the Geneva and Bishops’ have “the Scripture” while the KJV has “he.”
Does a consistent application of claims and accusations in books defending the KJV in effect suggest that the KJV also has examples of unfaithfulness or inaccuracy in translation?
If these same kind of changes made by the KJV translators in their revision of the earlier English Bibles are not to be considered dynamic equivalencies, then it would show that Waite’s claims about these same kind of changes made by the NKJV translators in their revision of the KJV would also be invalid. That also suggests that Waite’s claim to have found 2,000 dynamic equivalencies in the NKJV based on these same kind of changes may be inaccurate and incorrect unless Waite in effect wants to suggest that the KJV may have many dynamic equivalencies. Was the KJV a revision of earlier English Bibles that had many dynamic equivalencies according to a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning? Too often claims and accusations concerning dynamic equivalencies in KJV-only books have been taken to such an inconsistent extreme that these claims seem to have become invalid or practically useless.
Do KJV-only advocates actually reject consistently and absolutely all dynamic equivalency if examples of it can be pointed out in the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision and even in the KJV itself? Do KJV defenders consider any examples of dynamic equivalent renderings in the KJV to be inaccuracy and unfaithfulness in translation or to be translation errors?
