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

5 point Gillinist said:

The Message is the superior translation. In fact it is the re-inspired English version.

Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:

W. F. Moulton stated: "The Rhemish Testament was not even named in the instructions furnished to the translators, but it has left its mark on every page of their work" (History of the English Bible, p. 207). Diarmaid MacCulloch and Elizabeth Solopova asserted that in the KJV “it was possible to see some of the readings of the Doua-Rheims version amid all the work of Tyndale, Coverdale and the Geneva translators” (Moore, Manifold Greatness, p. 38). Ward Allen maintained that "the Rheims New Testament furnished to the Synoptic Gospels and Epistles in the A. V. as many revised readings as any other version" (Translating the N. T. Epistles, p. xxv). Allen and Jacobs claimed that the KJV translators "in revising the text of the synoptic Gospels in the Bishops' Bible, owe about one-fourth of their revisions, each, to the Genevan and Rheims New Testaments" (Coming of the King James Gospels, p. 29). About 1 Peter 1:20, Ward Allen noted: “The A. V. shows most markedly here the influence of the Rheims Bible, from which it adopts the verb in composition, the reference of the adverbial modifier to the predicate, the verb manifest, and the prepositional phrase for you” (Translating for King James, p. 18). Concerning 1 Peter 4:9, Allen suggested that “this translation in the A. V. joins the first part of the sentence from the Rheims Bible to the final phrase of the Protestant translations” (p. 30). Allen also observed: "At Col. 2:18, he [KJV translator John Bois] explains that the [KJV] translators were relying upon the example of the Rheims Bible" (pp. 10, 62-63). The note of John Bois cited a rendering from the 1582 Rheims [“willing in humility”] and then cited the margin of the Rheims [“willfull, or selfwilled in voluntary religion”] (p. 63). Was the KJV’s rendering “voluntary” borrowed from the margin of the 1582 Rheims? The first-hand testimony of a KJV translator clearly acknowledged or confirmed the fact that the KJV was directly influenced by the 1582 Rheims. KJV defender Laurence Vance admitted that the 1582 “Rheims supplies the first half of the reading” in the KJV at Galatians 3:1 and that the “Rheims supplies the last half of the reading” at Galatians 3:16 (Making of the KJV NT, p. 263).

In the introductory articles in Hendrickson’s reprint of the 1611, Alfred Pollard maintained that “the exiled Jesuit, Gregory Martin, must be recognized as one of the builders of the [1611] version of the Bible” (p. 28). David Norton affirmed that the words borrowed from the Rheims “make Martin a drafter of the KJB” (KJB: a Short History, p. 32). David Norton added: “Since most of them are transliterations of Jerome’s Latin, they also make Jerome an author of the KJB” (Ibid.). Norton pointed out that “the Roman Catholic John Hingham (fl. 1639) was to claim that the KJB in fact supported Roman Catholic, not Protestant views” (History of the English Bible, p. 54). Robert R. Dearden, Jr. observed that “it must be conceded that his [Gregory Martin’s] translations exerted a pronounced influence on the King James Version of 1611, transmitting to it distinctive phrases and style of expression” (Guiding Light, p. 219).

The sound evidence of the direct influence of the Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament on the KJV is a serious problem for a KJV-only view and its claims. In his book edited by D. A. Waite, H. D. Williams asserted the following as one of his criteria for translating: “Under no circumstances should a version which is not based upon the Received Texts be used as an example” (Word-for-Word Translating, p. 230). Troy Clark claimed that the Douay-Rheims “was translated strictly from the Critical Text Latin Vulgate bible of Rome,” and he listed it in his “Critical text” stream of Bibles (Perfect Bible, pp. 267, 296). Mickey Carter listed the 1582 on his “corrupted tree” of Bibles (Things That Are Different, p. 104). H. D. Williams maintained that “the Douay-Rheims Bible is based upon Jerome’s Latin Vulgate” (Word-for-Word, p. 42). Peter Ruckman acknowledged that “the textual basis of the Douay-Rheims is Jerome’s Latin Vulgate,” but he also claimed in his endnotes that “the Greek text of the Rheims Jesuit bible was the Westcott and Hort Greek text” (Biblical Scholarship, pp. 162, 517). Ruckman referred to “Satan’s interest in reinstituting the Dark Age Jesuit Rheims Bible of 1582” (Alexandrian Cult, Part Eight, p. 2). Jim Taylor asserted that “Jerome’s Latin Vulgate generally agrees with the Westcott and Hort Text” (In Defense of the TR, p. 204).


Were the KJV translators wrong to consult and make use of any edition of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate and of the 1582 Rheims New Testament that were not based on the Received Texts as an example or as a source for some renderings? Should the KJV translators have changed, revised, or corrected the Geneva Bible by borrowing renderings from the 1582 Rheims? Would not the fact that the makers of the KJV followed or borrowed renderings from Bibles on the KJV-only view’s corrupt stream/line of Bibles be a problem for KJV-only reasoning? Does a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning suggest that the makers of the KJV borrowed renderings from a corrupted source when they borrowed from the 1582 Rheims? Would KJV-only advocates suggest that Satan’s interest was involved in the KJV’s borrowing of renderings from the 1582 Rheims? Is a Pandora’s box opened when professed Bible believers accept any renderings from the Latin Vulgate or the 1582 Rheims being inserted into their claimed pure stream of Bibles? Would a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning suggest that a little leaven from the 1582 Rheims would leaven the whole KJV? Considering the fact of the multiple textually-varying sources used in the making of the KJV and the borrowed renderings from the 1582 Rheims, would it be accurate to suggest that the KJV emerges solely from the Received Text?

Do renderings from the 1582 Rheims make the KJV a hybrid Bible? Could the KJV’s borrowing from the Latin Vulgate or 1582 Rheims serve as a bridge to the modern versions? Is it now very clear that KJV-only advocates do not apply their own measures, criteria, or requirements concerning translating to the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV even though they may inconsistently use them to criticize later English Bibles such as the NKJV?

Click to expand...

JesusFan said:

many have asked Trinitarian Bible Society, strong KJVO group, to get behind revising Kjv to modernize the grammar and vocabulary and take the KJV into now the 21 Century, but they keep refusing as Kjv somehow sacred and no need to do anything to it

Basically they could end up with the NKJV that would meet their standards

Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:

W. F. Moulton stated: "The Rhemish Testament was not even named in the instructions furnished to the translators, but it has left its mark on every page of their work" (History of the English Bible, p. 207). Diarmaid MacCulloch and Elizabeth Solopova asserted that in the KJV “it was possible to see some of the readings of the Doua-Rheims version amid all the work of Tyndale, Coverdale and the Geneva translators” (Moore, Manifold Greatness, p. 38). Ward Allen maintained that "the Rheims New Testament furnished to the Synoptic Gospels and Epistles in the A. V. as many revised readings as any other version" (Translating the N. T. Epistles, p. xxv). Allen and Jacobs claimed that the KJV translators "in revising the text of the synoptic Gospels in the Bishops' Bible, owe about one-fourth of their revisions, each, to the Genevan and Rheims New Testaments" (Coming of the King James Gospels, p. 29). About 1 Peter 1:20, Ward Allen noted: “The A. V. shows most markedly here the influence of the Rheims Bible, from which it adopts the verb in composition, the reference of the adverbial modifier to the predicate, the verb manifest, and the prepositional phrase for you” (Translating for King James, p. 18). Concerning 1 Peter 4:9, Allen suggested that “this translation in the A. V. joins the first part of the sentence from the Rheims Bible to the final phrase of the Protestant translations” (p. 30). Allen also observed: "At Col. 2:18, he [KJV translator John Bois] explains that the [KJV] translators were relying upon the example of the Rheims Bible" (pp. 10, 62-63). The note of John Bois cited a rendering from the 1582 Rheims [“willing in humility”] and then cited the margin of the Rheims [“willfull, or selfwilled in voluntary religion”] (p. 63). Was the KJV’s rendering “voluntary” borrowed from the margin of the 1582 Rheims? The first-hand testimony of a KJV translator clearly acknowledged or confirmed the fact that the KJV was directly influenced by the 1582 Rheims. KJV defender Laurence Vance admitted that the 1582 “Rheims supplies the first half of the reading” in the KJV at Galatians 3:1 and that the “Rheims supplies the last half of the reading” at Galatians 3:16 (Making of the KJV NT, p. 263).

In the introductory articles in Hendrickson’s reprint of the 1611, Alfred Pollard maintained that “the exiled Jesuit, Gregory Martin, must be recognized as one of the builders of the [1611] version of the Bible” (p. 28). David Norton affirmed that the words borrowed from the Rheims “make Martin a drafter of the KJB” (KJB: a Short History, p. 32). David Norton added: “Since most of them are transliterations of Jerome’s Latin, they also make Jerome an author of the KJB” (Ibid.). Norton pointed out that “the Roman Catholic John Hingham (fl. 1639) was to claim that the KJB in fact supported Roman Catholic, not Protestant views” (History of the English Bible, p. 54). Robert R. Dearden, Jr. observed that “it must be conceded that his [Gregory Martin’s] translations exerted a pronounced influence on the King James Version of 1611, transmitting to it distinctive phrases and style of expression” (Guiding Light, p. 219).

The sound evidence of the direct influence of the Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament on the KJV is a serious problem for a KJV-only view and its claims. In his book edited by D. A. Waite, H. D. Williams asserted the following as one of his criteria for translating: “Under no circumstances should a version which is not based upon the Received Texts be used as an example” (Word-for-Word Translating, p. 230). Troy Clark claimed that the Douay-Rheims “was translated strictly from the Critical Text Latin Vulgate bible of Rome,” and he listed it in his “Critical text” stream of Bibles (Perfect Bible, pp. 267, 296). Mickey Carter listed the 1582 on his “corrupted tree” of Bibles (Things That Are Different, p. 104). H. D. Williams maintained that “the Douay-Rheims Bible is based upon Jerome’s Latin Vulgate” (Word-for-Word, p. 42). Peter Ruckman acknowledged that “the textual basis of the Douay-Rheims is Jerome’s Latin Vulgate,” but he also claimed in his endnotes that “the Greek text of the Rheims Jesuit bible was the Westcott and Hort Greek text” (Biblical Scholarship, pp. 162, 517). Ruckman referred to “Satan’s interest in reinstituting the Dark Age Jesuit Rheims Bible of 1582” (Alexandrian Cult, Part Eight, p. 2). Jim Taylor asserted that “Jerome’s Latin Vulgate generally agrees with the Westcott and Hort Text” (In Defense of the TR, p. 204).


Were the KJV translators wrong to consult and make use of any edition of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate and of the 1582 Rheims New Testament that were not based on the Received Texts as an example or as a source for some renderings? Should the KJV translators have changed, revised, or corrected the Geneva Bible by borrowing renderings from the 1582 Rheims? Would not the fact that the makers of the KJV followed or borrowed renderings from Bibles on the KJV-only view’s corrupt stream/line of Bibles be a problem for KJV-only reasoning? Does a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning suggest that the makers of the KJV borrowed renderings from a corrupted source when they borrowed from the 1582 Rheims? Would KJV-only advocates suggest that Satan’s interest was involved in the KJV’s borrowing of renderings from the 1582 Rheims? Is a Pandora’s box opened when professed Bible believers accept any renderings from the Latin Vulgate or the 1582 Rheims being inserted into their claimed pure stream of Bibles? Would a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning suggest that a little leaven from the 1582 Rheims would leaven the whole KJV? Considering the fact of the multiple textually-varying sources used in the making of the KJV and the borrowed renderings from the 1582 Rheims, would it be accurate to suggest that the KJV emerges solely from the Received Text?

Do renderings from the 1582 Rheims make the KJV a hybrid Bible? Could the KJV’s borrowing from the Latin Vulgate or 1582 Rheims serve as a bridge to the modern versions? Is it now very clear that KJV-only advocates do not apply their own measures, criteria, or requirements concerning translating to the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV even though they may inconsistently use them to criticize later English Bibles such as the NKJV?

Click to expand...

KJB1611reader said:

No, they used the c.t.

Click to expand...

JesusFan said:

KJVO always rail against the "corrupted impure " source text CT used by the modern bible translations, as being from satanic Rome influences, yet were not their beloved 166 translations doing very same when importing over renderings from Catholic Rheim and Vulgate themselves?

Click to expand...

KJB1611reader said:

Point is? They were good at Greek? So????

Click to expand...

KJB1611reader said:

What's wrong with that? Do know the n.t. is about the same in both?

Click to expand...

JesusFan said:

Point is that the 1611 team did use for some of their renderings intoi the 1611 kjv those used in a Catholic edition based upon not the TR but a critical Latin text, as well as the Catholic Vulgate, so based upon how KJVO views Modern versions using the CT, the 1611 Kjv would be just as guilty using corrupted catholic text sources!

Click to expand...

JesusFan said:

But the Rheimns based upon a Critical latin text being used, NOT the ole TR, so would be "corrupt" in KJVO eyes

Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:

The fact that Dr. James D. Price is not a TR-only advocate does not change the truth that the NKJV was based on the same multiple original-language texts of Scripture as the KJV is. The KJV translators were not all TR-only advocates. The KJV translators had been raised and taught from Jerome's Latin Vulgate, and one of the KJV translators wrote a book defending it. The KJV translators used Hebrew-Latin lexicons and Greek-Latin lexicons that often had renderings from Jerome's Latin Vulgate as the definitions of original-language words of Scripture.

KJV translator John Bois (1560-1643), one of this Arminian party, was known for his defense of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. Alexander McClure observed that John Bois had "a double share" in the translation of the KJV--first in the Cambridge company that translated the Apocrypha and then on the Cambridge company that translated 1 Chronicles to Song of Solomon (KJV Translators, p. 203). Gustavus Paine pointed out that Bois also "played an important part in the final revision of the entire Bible" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 61). The reference work The Dictionary of National Biography noted that Bois wrote a manuscript that "consists of brief critical notes, in which the renderings of the Vulgate are in the main defended, but Bois frequently proposes more exact translations of his own, both Latin and English" (p. 775). Austin Allibone quoted Orme as writing the following about John Bois: "his defences of the Latin Vulgate are often ingenious and important" (Critical Dictionary of English Literature, p. 233). John McClintock confirmed that Bois' only published work was "a vindication of the Vulgate version of the New Testament" (Cyclopaedia, I, p. 869). This manuscript written at the request of Bishop Andrewes would be published in 1655 and was entitled The Collatio Veteris Interpretis cum Beza. Nicholas Hardy noted that “Andrewes was the patron who commissioned the work” of John Bois—“a defense of the Vulgate version of the New Testament against the revisions of modern Latin translations from Erasmus to Beza” (Feingold, Labourers, p. 309). Scrivener observed: “Adopting the Vulgate Latin as his standard, he [Bois] compares it with the revisions of Erasmus, Piscator, Beza, and occasionally of one or two others” for the first five books of the New Testament (Supplement, I, p. 72). Scrivener added: “Beza is the chief, I might almost say, the sole object of Bois’s attack” (p. 72). Scrivener maintained that “the great end of the Collatio is to vindicate the rendering of the old version [the Latin Vulgate]“ (p. 72). Scrivener asserted that “this irrational desire of maintaining the integrity of the version [the Latin Vulgate] against the sense of the original disfigures every page of his book” (p. 73).

John Bois is said to have been one of the editors of the 1638 Cambridge standard edition of the KJV along with KJV translator Samuel Ward (1572?-1643), Thomas Goad (1576-1638), and Joseph Mede or Mead (1586-1638).

Click to expand...

KJB1611reader said:

I believe the pce kjb is.100% correct.

Click to expand...

KJB1611reader said:

And.this is why I can't be a tr only or bzt only.

Click to expand...

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...

KJB1611reader said:

I believe the pce kjb is.100% correct.

Click to expand...

JesusFan said:

KJVO keeps on spreading gossip and false rumors concerning the CT and those who used them in translation, and again, the NKJV scholars used the same textual source as the 1611 Kjv team did, and they altered and revised based upon the context, grammar, and modern English use of terms and phrases, it was NOT due to there being some "Catholics conspiracy"

Click to expand...

37818 said:

What is the identity of the New Testament Greek texts you recognize?

Click to expand...