KJV -vs- ESV

Wayne Leman · Oct 5, 2002

Originally posted by Clay Knick:
No, I'm a read the Bible and
study it and then translate
it into your life fanatic.
The best translation is the
one that is read-and lived!

Clay

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

Phillip · Oct 5, 2002

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Phillip:
1. What did the English speaking culture do for a Bible before 1611?
2. What about the NKJV?
3. What do you do about translations into other languages? Do you translate from the KJV or from original documents?
4. Are you aware that there was a debate during the KJV translation and four different manuscripts were used in Revelation alone, how do we know which is correct?
5. Without the originals, how can you define which ancient manuscript is the most accurate?

1. They used the Geneva Bible, Wycliffe Bible, Tyndale Bible, and others that were translated from the Greek Textus Receptus.

2. The NKJV has influences from the Westcott/Hort Text that I am concerned about.

3. Any faithful translation from the Majority Text is the Word of God regardless of what language it is in.

4. I was unaware of this. Could you please site your source of this information. I believe that God providentially preserved His Word. The MS's that were in majority agreement would be the correct ones to use.

5. The Received Text is an accurate compilation of the originals IMO.[/QUOTE]I humbly offer the following rebuttals:
(I've been around too many lawyers lately. I'm a main witness in a major patent infringement suit and have spent weeks being deposed. After a while you start talking like those guys. yuk!)

1. The textus receptus had its origins in the during and shortly after the Reformation. It is not the 'Majority Text' as many confuse it with. Which are you truly referring to? These texts (textus receptus) had their beginnings with Erasmus among several other scholars of the era.

2. I quote from the preface of the NKJV: "The Greek text obtained by using these sources and related papyri is known as the Alexandrian Text.
On the other hand, the great majority of existing manuscripts are in substantial agreement. Even though many are late, and none are earlier than the fifth century, most of their readings are verified by ancient papyri, ancient versions, and quotations in the writings of the early church fathers. This large body of manuscripts is the source of the Greek text underlying the King James Bible. It is the Greek text used by Greek-speaking churches for many centuries, presently known as the Textus Receptus, or Received Text, of the New Testament . . . In light of these developments, and with the knowledge that most textual variants have no practical effect on translation, the New King James New Testament has been based on this Received Text, thus perpetuating the tradition begun by William Tyndale in 1525 and continued by the 1611 translators in rendering the Authorized Version." Note: I redacted a large portion of supporting material that was supportive of the argument, but irrelevant to my point. (Told you those lawyers get under your skin

My response: Either Thomas Nelson Publishers is guilty of an extreme case of false advertising or your information is questionable.

3. The "Majority Text" or the "Textus Receptus", they are different? Which are you referring to?

4. Actually, if I remember my studies correctly it actually came from a total of 13 different papyri of which most matched except for the last few chapters which the translators had to piece together from more than one source to have a completed book. I will try to find some sources of information for this, actually, I thought it was fairly well known. The same as the fact the translators often reverse translated the Latin Vulgate to fill in missing sections. This can be proven because of the direct translation from the Latin wording. The KJV translators had the same problem as today scholars in attempting to use textual criticism (in their archaic way) to come up with a completed Bible.
I have a real 1612 printing of the 1611 KJV. My guess is that most laymen or women would have great difficulty even reading it and you would be amazed at the alterations (not just spelling) made since then and today's KJV. ......not to mention that most KJV's printed up through 1850 contained the Apocrypha. I can prove this with my collection of old Bibles printed from the 1600s through the 1800s (ebay used to be a wonderful place to clean out grandma's attic--until collectors grabbed them all) I will try to find more documentation for you regarding the translation of the "Revelation of Jesus Christ" by the 1611 translators.

6. Again which are you referring to, the "Majority Text" as mentioned in line-item three (3) or the "Received Text" (Textus Receptus as marked in the preface of several Greek New Testaments as early as the early 1500's "therefore you have the text now received by all" as quoted in line-item five (5)?

[ October 05, 2002, 10:37 PM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

Pastor_Bob · Oct 5, 2002

Originally posted by eric_b:
Do you mean 'Majority Text' or 'Textus Receptus'? I was under the impression that they were two separate things, and that the KJV came from the Textus Receptus...? Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm still learning this stuff...

Eric

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.

eric_b · Oct 5, 2002

Thanks, Pastor Bob, I understand your previous post now

Eric

Pastor_Bob · Oct 5, 2002

Originally posted by Pastork:
Since I use the NKJV regularly, I would be very interested in hearing what you think are the "Westcott/Hort text" influences on the NKJV. Could you list some of them for me?

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.

rsr · Oct 5, 2002

In short, the text that the NKJV used was not believed to be the Word of God.

Please substantiate this.

As far as I know, every translator believes the text is the word of God.

C.S. Murphy · Oct 5, 2002

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:

I believe that God providentially preserved His Word.

Pastor Bob I am KJV but not KJVO, I may have taken this quote out of context but this statement is what I believe God is able to do with more translations than the KJV. I just think it is best, why could God not providentially preserve His word in a form other than the KJV?
Murph

Phillip · Oct 6, 2002

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Pastork:
Since I use the NKJV regularly, I would be very interested in hearing what you think are the "Westcott/Hort text" influences on the NKJV. Could you list some of them for me?

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.[/QUOTE]You answered one of my questions. If this is true, it is a true case of deception. If this really is the case, why doesn't some good Christian scholars take the Textus Receptus and actually make a good, modern language translation and be honest and advertise it as such. I think the market would be good for one (not for profit, but to make enough to pay for the work required to do the job). I suggested (a while back) that we put a team together on the board of scholars who are capable of translating and do this and only got one person who was even slightly interested. I know the idea of translating a Bible would be a tremendous stress, if taken seriously, but it was done in the past!?

eric_b · Oct 6, 2002

If this really is the case, why doesn't some good Christian scholars take the Textus Receptus and actually make a good, modern language translation and be honest and advertise it as such. I think the market would be good for one (not for profit, but to make enough to pay for the work required to do the job).

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

Pastor_Bob · Oct 6, 2002

Originally posted by rsr:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />In short, the text that the NKJV used was not believed to be the Word of God.

Please substantiate this.

As far as I know, every translator believes the text is the word of God.[/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.

Pastor_Bob · Oct 6, 2002

Originally posted by C.S. Murphy:
[QB...why could God not providentially preserve His word in a form other than the KJV?
Murph[/QB]

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.

LRL71 · Oct 6, 2002

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rsr:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />In short, the text that the NKJV used was not believed to be the Word of God.

Please substantiate this.

As far as I know, every translator believes the text is the word of God.[/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.[/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 ]

eric_b · Oct 6, 2002

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

GrannyGumbo · Oct 6, 2002

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

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

Phillip · Oct 6, 2002

***************************************
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!

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

Well, I know if have backed the TR in past postings, but going back to my past original studies, I must agree with you regarding the TR documents. Just because of the location of documents that have been found (such as Alexandria) does NOT mean that the scribes responsible for keeping the accuracy of the manuscripts were not as careful--if not a lot more careful than the TR streams. Everybody seems to compare how many times a word is left out, etc. when the word was simply changed to a more accurate and modern English word. This is a trick of the KJVO crowd. The point is----the new translations DO NOT take away any of the doctrine for which we as Baptists have held for many, many years. I myself grew up with the KJV, but I must say that a MV has never changed ANY of my doctrine. I have reservations on the TNIV simply because of the number of good scholars who have questioned it, but will reserve judgement for when myself can see how doctrinally accurate it is. I have trouble believing (or with anyone even saying) that a scripture is "perverted" or "from Satan" when it very specifically provides the gospel of Jesus Christ without doctrinal change.
When I bought my first ESV, I questioned many scriptures at length, but upon comparing to the Greek or Hebrew -- there is an accuracy in the language that surprised me. If people only knew the true story of how the KJV was originally pieced together and many parts of it coming from the Latin Vulgate, then it is obvious that the KJV translators did the best they could with what they had. Today, we have more, and suprise, suprise, regardless of the naysayers, the doctrine of Jesus Christ still remains solid. A good parallel Bible just happens to be one of the BEST study tools for a layman or woman who cannot study the ancient languages in their entirety. If you don't believe me, just try it and see how you begin to understand difficult scriptures (such as some of Paul's comments) by comparing--then notice just how close all of the translations really are.

Pastor Larry · Oct 6, 2002

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.

Pastor_Bob · Oct 6, 2002

Originally posted by LRL71:
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?
[/b]

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.

LRL71 · Oct 6, 2002

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.

eric_b · Oct 7, 2002

Originally posted by GrannyGumbo:
It's only natural, and it's also very healthy to some extent.[eric_b]

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

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

GrannyGumbo · Oct 7, 2002

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

KJV -vs- ESV

New Member

<b>Moderator</b>

Well-Known Member

<img src="http://home.nc.rr.com/robotplot/tiny_eri

Well-Known Member

<b> 7,000 posts club</b>

New Member

<b>Moderator</b>

<img src="http://home.nc.rr.com/robotplot/tiny_eri

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

<img src="http://home.nc.rr.com/robotplot/tiny_eri

<img src ="/Granny.gif">

<b>Moderator</b>

<b>Moderator</b>

Well-Known Member

New Member

<img src="http://home.nc.rr.com/robotplot/tiny_eri

<img src ="/Granny.gif">