KJV -vs- ESV

Amen!

To the rest of the list, my wife and I had the privilege of visiting the church Clay pastors this last summer. He had us share with the congregation about our missionary Bible translation work. We were blessed there, and felt right at home, even though we were 2000 or so miles from home.

Wayne
http://committed.to/fieldtesting

 

Textus Receptus literally means "Received Text." Other accepted names for the TR are Majority, Traditional, Byzantine, and Antiochian.

You may referring to the "majority text" of Hodges and Farstad which does indeed depart from the TR.

 

Thanks, Pastor Bob, I understand your previous post now

Eric

 

IMO, the deceptiveness of the NKJV shows itself at the bottom of each page in the footnotes. The editors indicate where the text they use (TR) differs from the Nestle/Aland 26th Edition which is basically the W/H Text.

So when you are reading your Bible, all of a sudden you read a footnote that says what you just read wasn't what was supposed to be there. Something should have been ommitted or added or changed.

In the back of the NKJV (page 1235), the editors wrote: "It was the editors' conviction that the use of footnotes would encourage further inquiry by readers. They also recognized that it was easier to delete something he or she felt was not properly a part of the text than to insert a word or phrase which had been left out by the revisers."

In short, the text that the NKJV used was not believed to be the Word of God. They simply used the TR as a basis to give this translation some validity and then in the footnotes they undermined the TR. That to me is deception.

 

It's already been done, it's called the NKJV

Also, the mKJV is also based on the KJV, and therefore the Textus Receptus. Some people just don't trust new translations no matter what, and will always find something to object to. I can actually sympathize pretty well with that; I'd probably feel the same way if I grew up with the KJV. For years, just about everyone in the Protestant English-speaking world considered King James and the Bible one and the same, and of course they will distrust new translations and Biblical scholarship. It's only natural, and it's also very healthy to some extent.

Having said that, though, I think a dispassionate observer would have to admit that the NKJV pretty much says exactly what the KJV says, just in more modern English And the people who support the critical text actually have some good evidence in their favor, from what I've been told; many of the Christian writings from before 900 AD quote from the CT versions of various verses, or so I've been led to believe. (If that's not true, please someone correct me... I am not a Biblical scholar, nor do I play one on TV

Eric

 

Please substantiate this.

As far as I know, every translator believes the text is the word of God.</font>[/QUOTE]Brother,
IMO, the revisers and editors of the NKJV used the TR as a base for the sole purpose of attracting the KJV crowd. They used the text but believed it to be inferior. That is made very clear in the footnotes.

That is why I make the claim that they believed they were translating from a text that was not, in their opinion, the Word of God.

 

I believe that He has. I believe any faithful translation from the Textus Receptus is the preserved Word of God regardless of what langauge it is in.

The NKJV was translated, as stated above, with deceptive motives. I honestly feel that the marketing aspect was the biggest motivation for producing the NKJV.

To the credit of the NASB and the NIV, at least they were honest and stated that were not using the TR but rather the W/H Text. As a result, they have fewer footnotes.

When a Christian picks up a NKJV, they have a smorgasboard of textual variance down in the footnotes. It puts doubts in the mind as to what the Bible really is supposed to say. It causes the reader to wonder, "Which reading is right? The one in the text, or the one in the footnotes?" Whichever one you pick, you'll always have a doubt. When we have doubt about the Word of God, Satan wins.

 

Please substantiate this.

As far as I know, every translator believes the text is the word of God.</font>[/QUOTE]Brother,
IMO, the revisers and editors of the NKJV used the TR as a base for the sole purpose of attracting the KJV crowd. They used the text but believed it to be inferior. That is made very clear in the footnotes.

That is why I make the claim that they believed they were translating from a text that was not, in their opinion, the Word of God.</font>[/QUOTE]
***************************************
Greetings brethren,

I have been reading the past few posts on this, and as usual the original topic has gotten lost in the shuffly (oops , I meant to say shuffle, sorry-- I was thinking about having some Shoo-fly pie right now!!)

I don't think that Pastor Bob's analysis of the motives of the NKJV translators was any bit correct. They have listed in the NKJV preface that their intention was to bring the KJV text into conformity with modern English, and that they believed that the TR (which they used) was a superior Greek text. I'd say that I have to agree with Eric_b in that KJV-onlyists only want to 'object' for the sake of objecting to a modern English version based on the TR that the KJV translators used. The footnotes only delineate the differences between the modern critical Greek texts (UBS 4th edition/Nestle-Aland), the Majority Text (Hodges & Farstad), and the very TR that the KJV translators used (Scrivener's).

Now, I get my say....
I believe the the corruptions (not to be taken with the meaning of deliberate tampering)
in the TR/Majority Text is not close to the original manuscripts. That's my *opinion*, not some high-falootin' nonsense-- like a doctrine of preservation spiel to prove that I have a better (or ONLY) 'true' Bible and you all don't. The KJV uses a corrupted (but not perverted) text that added & conflated many readings over the centuries. The modern versions, *in my opinion* are closest to the original manuscripts than that of the KJV/NKJV. That doesn't mean that the KJV/NKJV is "a corrupt and perverted" translation, but that it does reflect the scribal tendencies to add to the Greek NT text. Sorry, guys-- especially those who are KJV-only or KJV-preferred-- but I thought it necessary to say all this because I know I'm right!

*************************************

Pastor Bob, where did DocCas go? If you need another 'moderator', and IMHO we need some balance to KJVO's like yourself here! Why not an......
Independent, Fundamental, Doctrines of Sovereign Grace, Missionary, Pre-Mill/Pre-Trib, NIV/NASB preaching , Calvinist, Predestined by the free will of God's foreknowledge and election, and a sinner saved *only* by the Grace of God through Jesus Christ...... BAPTIST?

Whaddya say?


[ October 06, 2002, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: LRL71 ]

 

I would just like to respond to the last post by saying that even though I don't agree with Pastor Bob's KJVO views, I think he does an excellent and fair job of moderation and does not need another moderator to "balance" out his moderation - his moderation is already quite balanced and fair IMHO.

Eric

 

It's only natural, and it's also very healthy to some extent.[eric_b]

I call the KJBible my naturally, healthy "straight-stick"!

 

Several things that need correction so as not to confuse or mislead people.

1. The TR is a text made from the Majority Text type. The Majority text does differ in almost 2000 from the TR. The TR Only advocates such as Pastor Bob are faced with the need to decide why the Majority text is wrong and the TR (the minority readings in these cases) is right. The problem should become self-evident. If you are going to argue that the Majority Text is the Word of God, then you must argue against the TR Only position.

2. As for the footnotes and deception, the KJV 1611 contained footnotes of the vary same nature as the NKJV does. It is inconsistent to argue some deception or conspiracy against the NKJV for following in the footsteps of the KJV1611. It is only later editions that removed these footnotes. Again, this argument is shown to be an inconsistent argument when based on the facts.

To discuss which manuscripts are most reliable or most likely to be original is a valid discussion but it is carried on too simplistically in many cases. This is one of them. These two arguments made several times in several different forums cannot stand the weight of the evidence.

 

Brother,
I do not have the authority to chose moderators. That is at the discretion of the Webmaster. As far as the "balance" is concerned. My views expressed are those of a member just like you. They carry no extra weight because I happen to be the moderator. I hope they carry extra weight because they are biblical, but of course, that is relative.

My duties as moderator are to insure that the posting rules are not violated. I try to be as unbiased as possible in the execution of my duties. After 20 years of marriage and having a mother-in-law, I've learned the art of getting along with those that I disagree with.

If and when another moderator is chosen, I'm sure the Webmaster will make the right choice.

 

Ah, roger that.

Yes, I'd agree with you 100%! I wasn't sure how the 'moderator' was supposed to operate here, so thanks for clarifying your duties here on this topic's BB. I feel sometimes that the current moderators, and perhaps this applied to only DocCas, were a bit strident in editing posts here. I only want to make sure that those like myself who oppose KJV-onlyism aren't going to be censored by a KJV-onlyist moderator who may just decide that he's going to edit my post because he didn't like something I said. Obviously, those who blatantly disregard 'tact' in their posts should have questionable parts deleted or modified by someone who can 'moderate' the BB. So far, I cannot say anything against you (Pastor Bob) for I believe that your personal integrity in moderating here is without question.

 

Well, I think it's the source texts that are the straight stick against which the KJV and other translations should be measured. But I agree with you that the KJV is an excellent translation, and I'm glad many people still use it. I use it myself more than you might assume from my posts

Eric

 

Bro.Eric~I know, I know! I can tell!