NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
I don't support the CT - never have.
Did the change in 1 John 5v12 in the KJV not conform the to choice other later English translators would use?
Last edited by a moderator:
-
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!
1611 KJV only and anger
- Thread starter beameup
- Start date
- Status
I don't support the CT - never have.
Did the change in 1 John 5v12 in the KJV not conform the to choice other later English translators would use?
Perhaps it did, I don't know. My study of this issue was MANY years ago, and quite frankly I have forgotten most of what I learned. I became convinced that the KJB was the accurate word of God in English and left all that behind. I feel no need to reopen my investigation.
There is nothing complex about my argument. I believe God promised to preserve his word. The TR and the CT are not the same, so only one can be the preserved word. I believe the KJB translated from the TR is that preserved word in English.
I will not keep on arguing about it, I rarely post in this forum. I don't attack those who read MVs, but many here attack folks like me that trust in the KJB.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Please report anyone who attacks you in that way. It is not permitted.
preacher4truth
Active Member
No one on the BB attacks others for reading a Bible version. Such an accusation is a fantastical whim.
seekingthetruth
New Member
What? How many times has Luke2427 posted that KJVOism is heretic and needs to be "demolished"? Last week he started a whole thread dedicated to bashing KJVO.
John
preacher4truth
Active Member
Please show me where he attacked another for reading the KJV. This happens to be the text he uses himself if I recall correctly.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Did you happen to see the red card in his posts? It is also true that he did not attack anyone who used or trusted the KJV.
markthebaptist
New Member
Well...for my very first post on this board I will put my self in this camp...thanks..Jesus is pure and perfect and so is his word..God IS able to preserve his word for us ...in any language..and we can rely completely on it...by faith..he certainly DOES NOT leave something this important up to the whims of man..the trusted and proven KJV is all we need..more to come..
markthebaptist
New Member
made that observation myself while perusing this and other boards as well...hanging around some of these guys is depressing...To them...I guess the Lord had other things to take care of while the 'Uzzahs' of this world were helping him out..
preacher4truth
Active Member
I find it of GREAT interest the "new" guy, of all threads comes to winmans rescue, with his very first posts as well! Interesting indeed!!!! 
NKJV is better at 2 Peter 1:1
Several early English Bibles and many modern translations including the NKJV clearly, precisely, and accurately identify Jesus Christ as "our God and Saviour" at 2 Peter 1:1. William Tyndale in 1534 and John Rogers in 1537 translated the last part of this verse as "righteousness that cometh of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ." The Great, Whittingham's, Geneva, Bishops', Haak’s 1657 English translation of the Dutch Bible, Wesley's, 1842 Baptist or Bernard's, NKJV, Majority Text Interlinear, and many other translations render it "righteousness of our God and Saviour [or Savior] Jesus Christ." James White maintained that this is the proper translation of the Greek according to the Granville Sharp's rule (King James Only Controversy, p. 268). Granville Sharp (1735-1813) cited 2 Peter 1:1 as his first example “of sentences which fall under the first rule, and are improperly rendered in the English version [KJV]“ (Remarks, p. 20). James D. Price noted that “the Greek grammatical construction here identifies Jesus Christ as God and Savior” (King James Onlyism, p. 323). Concerning this verse in his multi-volume commentary, David Sorenson wrote: “Though it is not quite as evident in English, in the Received Text, the phrase literally reads, ‘the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ’” (p. 228). Kenneth Wuest asserted: “The expression, ‘God and our Saviour’ is in a construction in the Greek text which demands that we translate, ‘our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ” (In These Last Days, p. 17). John Ankerberg and John Weldon noted that “Greek scholars Dana and Mantley, in their A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, confirm the truth of Sharp’s rule, and then explain: ‘Second Peter 1:1 … means that Jesus is our God and Savior” (Facts On Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 24). In his commentary on 1 and 2 Peter, Gordon Clark translated the phrase as “of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (New Heavens, New Earth, p. 170). Clark noted: “Other references to ‘our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ’ do not diminish the deity asserted here in 1:1” (p. 171).
Surprisingly, the 1611 edition of the KJV has a comma after God at 2 Peter 1:1 [God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ], and that comma seems to have remained in most KJV editions printed up to the 1769 Oxford edition. The 1743 Cambridge and 1760 Cambridge editions had removed it before the 1769. Even the first KJV edition printed in America in 1782 and KJV editions printed at Oxford in 1788 and in 1795 still have a comma after God at 2 Peter 1:1. How does this comma in KJV editions up to the 1769 Oxford affect the understanding and interpretation of this verse? Concerning this verse in his 1633 commentary on 2 Peter, Thomas Adams observed: “Some read these words by disjoining them; of God, and of our Saviour,“ which would seem to refer to the rendering in the 1611.
At 2 Peter 1:1, the 2005 Cambridge edition of the KJV has this note taken from the standard 1762 Cambridge edition: “Gr. of our God and Saviour.” KJV editions printed at Oxford in 1810, 1821, 1835, 1857, 1865, 1868, and 1885, and at Cambridge in 1769, 1844, 1872, and 1887 also have this same note. Granville Sharp observed: “In the margin of our present version the proper reading is ‘of our God and Saviour,‘ manifestly referring both titles to one person” (Remarks, p. 22). James Scholefield maintained that this verse has “the same construction as in verse 11” where it was rendered in the KJV as “of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (Hints, p. 157). A. T. Robertson wrote: “In 2 Peter 1:11 and 3:18, the pronoun ’our’ comes after ’Lord,’ but that makes no difference in the idiom. It is ’our Lord and Saviour,’ and it is so translated in the English versions. But we have precisely the same idiom in 2 Peter 1:1, ’our God and Saviour Jesus Christ’” (The Minister, p. 63). Robertson asserted: “The idiom compels the translation, ’our God and Saviour Jesus Christ” (p. 64). Concerning 2 Peter 1:1, Ralph Wardlaw noted in 1815: “An instance of construction, in every respect the same, occurs at the eleventh verse of this same chapter” (Discourses, p. 75). Wardlaw asserted: “It is just as improper to render the words in the first verse, ‘through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,‘ (unless the appellations ‘God and our Saviour’ be understood as both connecting with ‘Jesus Christ’) as it would be to render those in this verse [1:11] ‘in the kingdom of the Lord and our Saviour Jesus Christ’” (p. 76). John Dagg indicated that the rendering in our common English version at 2 Peter 1:1 should be emended to “the righteousness of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ” (Manual of Theology, pp. 183-184). Timothy Dwight (1752-1817) wrote: “According to the original, of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ” (Theology Explained, I, p. 525).
Several early English Bibles and many modern translations including the NKJV clearly, precisely, and accurately identify Jesus Christ as "our God and Saviour" at 2 Peter 1:1. William Tyndale in 1534 and John Rogers in 1537 translated the last part of this verse as "righteousness that cometh of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ." The Great, Whittingham's, Geneva, Bishops', Haak’s 1657 English translation of the Dutch Bible, Wesley's, 1842 Baptist or Bernard's, NKJV, Majority Text Interlinear, and many other translations render it "righteousness of our God and Saviour [or Savior] Jesus Christ." James White maintained that this is the proper translation of the Greek according to the Granville Sharp's rule (King James Only Controversy, p. 268). Granville Sharp (1735-1813) cited 2 Peter 1:1 as his first example “of sentences which fall under the first rule, and are improperly rendered in the English version [KJV]“ (Remarks, p. 20). James D. Price noted that “the Greek grammatical construction here identifies Jesus Christ as God and Savior” (King James Onlyism, p. 323). Concerning this verse in his multi-volume commentary, David Sorenson wrote: “Though it is not quite as evident in English, in the Received Text, the phrase literally reads, ‘the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ’” (p. 228). Kenneth Wuest asserted: “The expression, ‘God and our Saviour’ is in a construction in the Greek text which demands that we translate, ‘our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ” (In These Last Days, p. 17). John Ankerberg and John Weldon noted that “Greek scholars Dana and Mantley, in their A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, confirm the truth of Sharp’s rule, and then explain: ‘Second Peter 1:1 … means that Jesus is our God and Savior” (Facts On Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 24). In his commentary on 1 and 2 Peter, Gordon Clark translated the phrase as “of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (New Heavens, New Earth, p. 170). Clark noted: “Other references to ‘our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ’ do not diminish the deity asserted here in 1:1” (p. 171).
Surprisingly, the 1611 edition of the KJV has a comma after God at 2 Peter 1:1 [God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ], and that comma seems to have remained in most KJV editions printed up to the 1769 Oxford edition. The 1743 Cambridge and 1760 Cambridge editions had removed it before the 1769. Even the first KJV edition printed in America in 1782 and KJV editions printed at Oxford in 1788 and in 1795 still have a comma after God at 2 Peter 1:1. How does this comma in KJV editions up to the 1769 Oxford affect the understanding and interpretation of this verse? Concerning this verse in his 1633 commentary on 2 Peter, Thomas Adams observed: “Some read these words by disjoining them; of God, and of our Saviour,“ which would seem to refer to the rendering in the 1611.
At 2 Peter 1:1, the 2005 Cambridge edition of the KJV has this note taken from the standard 1762 Cambridge edition: “Gr. of our God and Saviour.” KJV editions printed at Oxford in 1810, 1821, 1835, 1857, 1865, 1868, and 1885, and at Cambridge in 1769, 1844, 1872, and 1887 also have this same note. Granville Sharp observed: “In the margin of our present version the proper reading is ‘of our God and Saviour,‘ manifestly referring both titles to one person” (Remarks, p. 22). James Scholefield maintained that this verse has “the same construction as in verse 11” where it was rendered in the KJV as “of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (Hints, p. 157). A. T. Robertson wrote: “In 2 Peter 1:11 and 3:18, the pronoun ’our’ comes after ’Lord,’ but that makes no difference in the idiom. It is ’our Lord and Saviour,’ and it is so translated in the English versions. But we have precisely the same idiom in 2 Peter 1:1, ’our God and Saviour Jesus Christ’” (The Minister, p. 63). Robertson asserted: “The idiom compels the translation, ’our God and Saviour Jesus Christ” (p. 64). Concerning 2 Peter 1:1, Ralph Wardlaw noted in 1815: “An instance of construction, in every respect the same, occurs at the eleventh verse of this same chapter” (Discourses, p. 75). Wardlaw asserted: “It is just as improper to render the words in the first verse, ‘through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,‘ (unless the appellations ‘God and our Saviour’ be understood as both connecting with ‘Jesus Christ’) as it would be to render those in this verse [1:11] ‘in the kingdom of the Lord and our Saviour Jesus Christ’” (p. 76). John Dagg indicated that the rendering in our common English version at 2 Peter 1:1 should be emended to “the righteousness of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ” (Manual of Theology, pp. 183-184). Timothy Dwight (1752-1817) wrote: “According to the original, of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ” (Theology Explained, I, p. 525).
markthebaptist
New Member
I could be wrong...but from what I have heard the NKJV did NOT use the same text as the KJV...
linky: http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/nkjvtext.asp I do not expect this to convince...all I could find in a quick search..
Last edited by a moderator:
You are wrong or misinformed. The KJV and NKJV are translated from the same original language texts. KJV-only authors will assert that the 1560 Geneva Bible and other pre-1611 English Bibles were translated from the same original language texts as the KJV when they were actually some textual differences between some of those pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV. Those actual textual differences between the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision and the KJV are far greater than any imagined textual differences that KJV-only advocates claim to find between the KJV and the NKJV. A consistent application of KJV-only assertions concerning the textual basis of the pre-1611 English Bibles demonstrate that KJV-only advocates have no proper foundation for claiming that the NKJV was supposedly based on different original language texts.
markthebaptist
New Member
cheap shot ...'misinformed?..'in error'...why is their a need for 'modern' translations anyway?..do the thee's and thou's offend thee?..to think think that these modern versions are a help and to leave the translating in the hands of questionable, well meaning but deceived intellectuals is the height of error in our day..the 'Holy Things' are not to be touched by the Uzzah's...
markthebaptist
New Member
Posted after the fact...I do apologize...again the link:
http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/nkjvtext.asp
"Question: I know the New King James is said to be a "revision of the King James." But were the Greek and Hebrew texts for the New King James the same as they were for the King James?
Answer: The NKJV is not a revision of the King James Bible. It is a subtle perversion of the King James Bible. Though years of extensive research have shown that the Greek and Hebrew texts used for the main NKJV text were similar to those used for the KJV, there is a subtle and deadly poison injected into the NKJV: it changes the meaning of God's words and it lifts up other texts that disagree with the King James. "..
this is confirmed by others as well..
Find some credible sources. Chick is as credible as Monty Python. Strike that- Monty Python is likely more credible than Jack Chick.
Where is the evidence for your serious accusation? What questionable, deceived scholars were supposedly involved in the making of the NKJV?
The overall doctrinal views of the NKJV translators were likely more sound than the Church of England doctrinal views of the KJV translators.
Some of the KJV translators were actually involved questionable activities such as persecuting of professed believers for their faith. At least two of the KJV translators were among those who approved the burning at the stake of two men for their beliefs.
Your source is wrong. Those accusations are not correct. It is merely confirmed by other biased, misinformed sources.
I have read over 100 books by KJV-only authors and have examined the evidence for myself, especially concerning KJV-only claims concerning the NKJV.
The NKJV is a revision of the KJV in the same sense and way that the KJV was a revision of pre-1611 English Bibles [Tyndale's to Bishops']. The NKJV is also a translation of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages in the same sense and way that the KJV is.
KJV defender David Norris acknowledged that the NKJV can “be classed largely as a revision rather than a retranslation” (Big Picture, p. 367). KJV defender David Sorenson admitted that the NKJV’s N. T. “is translated from the Textus Receptus” (Touch Not, p. 240). Sorenson also listed the NKJV as being “based upon the Received Text” (p. 10). In his list of formal equivalent translations, William Einwechter included the NKJV along with the KJV and he noted that the NKJV is “based on the TR“ (English Bible Translations, pp. 17, 29). KJV-only author Samuel Gipp acknowledged that the NKJV “is based on the correct Antiochian manuscripts” (Answer Book, p. 104).
- Status