• 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!

An Examination & Critique of The NEW KING JAMES VERSION.

L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Alan Gross said:
4. While passing off as being true to the Textus Receptus,
the NKJV IGNORES the Receptus over 1,200 times.
Click to expand...

Are you now acknowledging that your earlier quoted accusation of 1,200 times ignoring the Textus Receptus is bogus and false?

Alan Gross said:
Click to expand...

Only eight claimed or alleged [not proven] departures would be a huge difference from your favorably quoted 1,2000 in a post in the other thread.

The KJV itself could be considered to have eight departures from the Textus Receptus to follow Jerome's Latin Vulgate.

KJV defender Edward F. Hills pointed out: "Sometimes the King James translators forsook the printed Greek text and united with the earlier English versions in following the Latin Vulgate" (Believing Bible Study, p. 207). In his preface to a Norton Critical Edition of the KJV’s New Testament, Austin Busch affirmed: “There are a few places where they [the KJV translators] seem to follow the Vulgate” (p. xxvi).

Doug Kutilek asserted: "In at least 60 places, the KJV translators abandoned all then-existing printed editions of the Greek New Testament, choosing instead to follow precisely the reading in the Latin Vulgate version" (Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus, p. 4).
 
L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Concerning John 10:16 in their tract entitled “A Corrected English Version Needed for the Heathen,“ Spencer Cone and William Wyckoff asserted that “the learned monarch’s translators rejected this rendering [Tyndale’s] of the original, and adopted one made from the Vulgate Latin, which has ovile fold, for both Greek words“ (p. 2). A writer in the Primitive Church Magazine asserted: “Tyndale and Coverdale translated John 10:16, ‘There shall be one flock, and one shepherd,‘ correctly rendering the Greek; but in the great Bible, or Cranmer’s, as it is often called, the reviser, following the vulgate Latin, put ‘one fold and one shepherd,‘ thus introducing ‘an inaccurate rendering, which continued through several revisions” (Vol. IX, June, 1852, p. 169). David Brown cited or quoted the following: “It is worth remarking that in this Bible (referring to Great Bible) one serious mistranslation is introduced which Tyndale had avoided” … “the rendering ‘fold’ in lieu of ‘flock’ in John 10:16” (Indestructible Book, p. 317). Henry Craik maintained that the KJV translators “ought to have restored the correct rendering given by Tyndale” at John 10:16 (Hints, p. 42).

Bullinger's Lexicon defined poimne as "a flock," and it noted that in the KJV at John 10:16 "it is wrongly rendered 'fold'" (p. 291). John Wesley commented: “There shall be one flock (Not one fold)“ (Explanatory Notes, p. 244). Melancthon Jacobus wrote: “The term here rendered fold, means flock, and is altogether different from the term rendered ‘fold’ in the context” (Notes on the Gospels: John, p. 183). Ralph Earle maintained that poimne “means ‘flock’” (Word Meanings, p. 89). Concerning this verse in his commentary on John, Oliver B. Greene maintained that “the Greek reads ‘one flock’” (II, p. 133). In his commentary on John, J. Vernon McGee noted: “It is really ‘flock’ (poimne), not ‘fold’ (aule) in this second phrase” (I, p. 164). In its note for this verse, the Ryrie Study Bible has “fold--better, flock” (p. 1607). A. C. Gaebelein asserted that “the Authorized Version is incorrect in using the word ‘fold’” (Annotated Bible, VI, p. 215). In his commentary on the Gospel of John, Arno Clemens Gaebelein wrote: “The authorized version states ‘one fold,’ but this is a serious mistake. Not one fold, but one flock, not an exclusive enclosure of an outward church—but one flock, all knowing the one Shepherd, and known of Him” (p. 185).

At this verse in the KJV, two different Greek words are translated "fold" which removes the clear distinction between them. Were there any important, essential, or necessary reasons why one English word was used to translate these two different Greek words? William Tyndale kept this difference of meaning between the two Greek words by translating the second Greek word (poimne) as "flock," as it is also translated in Jay Green's Interlinear Greek-English New Testament and Berry's Interlinear Greek-English New Testament. Arthur Farstad in his Logos 21 Version of the Gospel of John also translated this second Greek word as "flock" (Living Water, p. 37). The 1535 Coverdale’s Bible and 1537 Matthew’s Bible also have “flock” in agreement with Tyndale. The KJV translators themselves translated poimne as "flock" at Matthew 26:31, Luke 2:8, and 1 Corinthians 9:7. The KJV translators also translated another form of this word poimnion as “flock” at Luke 12:32, Acts 20:28, 29, and 1 Peter 5:2, 3. The old Syriac Peshitta, which is on the KJV-only line of good Bibles, also distinguished between the two Greek words. Thus, Murdock’s English translation of the Peshitta has “one flock” at the end of John 10:16. The Old Latin also distinguished between the two Greek words with its translation unus grex (one flock) for the second word.

Luther’s 1534 German Bible distinguished between the two Greek words, using Stalle for aule and Herd or Herde for poimne. The 1657 English translation of the authorized Dutch Bible also has “one flock” in agreement with Tyndale’s and Luther‘s.
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Genesis 1:1

KJV

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"

Hebrew

"Bürë´šît Bärä´´élöhîm ´ët haššämayim wüët häärec"

NKJV

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"

The Hebrew "haš šämayim", is PLURAL, which should read THE HEAVENS

"THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH" = THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I see that once again we have a thread claiming the KJV is superior to the NKJV because it is based on a better TR and because when the underlying text is the same, the NKJV engages in translational flaws when it differs from the KJV.

Both these claims have been refuted over and over.
 
robycop3

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Alan Gross said:
Click to expand...
You make many goofs in your Scripture comparisons. Let's start with an easy one-"Easter" in Acts 12:4. Easter didn't exist when Luke wrote "Acts".. And the word 'pascha' is found 29 times in the Greek, and in 28 of those instances, the KJV translates it "passover'. There are many other reasons, but, seeing that Jesus used pascha for passover, you must think He observed Easter as well !
 
Alan Gross

Alan Gross

Well-Known Member
37818 said:
You throw
Click to expand...

Yes, and at any time I am looking to learn how to
"Throw the Baby Out with the Bathwater", you will be my "Go-To Guy".

Believe that.

37818 said:
Hebrew with the Greek
Click to expand...

In the Old Testament as well as The NEW, the NKJV authors
offer a paratha of unnecessary changes, jumblings of words around
while deleting the meaning of the verses altogether,
various mistranslated sections, give admissions that their readings
are not the literal ones, and very often contain misleading errors
in the footnotes that dishonestly relate the KJV, to illegitimate sources,
while the NKJV makes wholesale departures from the Masoretic Hebrew text.

They initially ADVERTISE (even on the cover sleve)
to convince the uninitiated they are devoted to
the same underlying texts as the KJV,
little could be farther from the truth, particularly in their footnotes,

and then admits it doesn't follow the KJV texts,
in those very same footnotes and also in their preface,
if you pay attention, where they told us
they would follow the Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint,
and other flawed texts whenever they felt to do so.

Whether in Hebrew or Greek, many of the NKJV verses
are not the same things, as depicted in the KJV,
they are opposites.

For example, there is where the "New" King James Version
is seen praising Israel for their goodness and beauty instead of God for His.

How can this be a "New" KJV? It totally changed the meaning.

WHILE TYPICALLY ROBBING GOD OF HIS GLORY.

While the universally acknowledged
FIRST PRINCIPAL IN LANGUAGE
AND TRANSLATION IS THAT "IT MUST MAKE SENSE,
in context, many verses make little sense in the NKJV.

It is clear the NKJV departs from the Hebrew underlying the KJV,
as well as the Greek, and needlessly changes the words, which changes

the clear meaning of the KJV's,

changes the concepts,

creating contradictions destroying prophecy,

removes words, which makes the text say the exact opposite of the KJV,
such as when it does not follow but causes metaphors to be reversed,

adds disconcerting and disorienting words
even though they are not found in the Hebrew Masoretic text,
the RV, ASV, Jewish translations, or Geneva bible, etc., etc.,

and try to imply that the KJV got some of its readings from the Latin Vulgate
that they didn't, rather than the Hebrew Masoretic Text,

which all reveals the confused nature of the NKJV,
and also their inability to explain their position in their own footnotes,
or their dishonesty.

Either way, it reveals c********n, in a five-hundred-foot-tall font.

Then, immediately, beginning in The New Testament,
the New King James Version's translation is faulty having

"The genealogy of Jesus Christ",

SWITCHED OUT AND REPLACED WITH:
"the generation of Jesus Christ."

WHEN THE FACT IS:
Jesus Christ had no earthly genealogy except through His mother.

Someone might even say that
the changes between the NKJV from the KJV
ARE NOT ONLY GENERALLY, BUT SPECIFICALLY,
where the NKJV alterations,
such as this attempted concealment of deception
when they swapped out "generation" to replace it with "genealogy"
could fairly be viewed as demonstrably devious.

So, yes much to the heart-breaking disheartening heartburn
of those who LOVE THESE TYPE OF DEPARTURES FROM THE FAITH
Textus-Receptus.com did throw Hebrew in with the Greek
when they provided their list of:
Alan Gross said:
NKJV Changes from the KJV
Click to expand...
 
L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Alan Gross said:
while the NKJV makes wholesale departures from the Masoretic Hebrew text.
Click to expand...

You keep making accusations that you do not prove to be true.

Hebrew OT scholar Dr. James D. Price listed "82 justifiable emendations to the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament made by the King James translators" and listed "146 unjustifiable emendations made by them" (King James Onlyism: A New Sect, p. 561).
The 146 unjustifiable emendations are listed in Appendix I-2, pp. 573-590.

In those 146 places, the NKJV is following or being faithful to the Hebrew Masoretic text while it is the KJV that departed from it.

You reveal again that you do not apply the same exact measures/standards consistently and justly; therefore, your judgments are unrighteous.
 
robycop3

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Alan Gross said:
Click to expand...
The KJVO myth is phony as a Ford Corvette. There's absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for it. Many of the above changes, such as removing "Easter" from Acts 12:4 are corrections of goofs in the KJV.
 
L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Alan Gross said:
In the Old Testament as well as The NEW, the NKJV authors
offer a paratha of unnecessary changes, jumblings of words around
while deleting the meaning of the verses altogether,
various mistranslated sections, give admissions that their readings
are not the literal ones, and very often contain misleading errors
in the footnotes that dishonestly relate the KJV, to illegitimate sources,
while the NKJV makes wholesale departures from the Masoretic Hebrew text.
Click to expand...

That may be your biased, subjective opinion, but you fail to prove it to be true. You fail to prove any dishonesty on the part of the NKJV translators. The makers of the KJV could be said to have made unnecessary changes to the pre-1611 word of God in English. The makers of the KJV noted in their marginal notes that many of their renderings were not the literal ones.

Would you suggest that the Church of England makers of the KJV used illegitimate sources when they borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament made from an edition of Jerome's Latin Vulgate or when they made use of an edition of the Greek Septuagint, the Syriac Peshitta, Jerome's Latin Vulgate, etc. in making emendations to the Hebrew Masoretic Text?

You fail to apply the same measures/standards justly as you seem to use unscriptural divers measures.
 
Alan Gross

Alan Gross

Well-Known Member
What generally speaking are you talking about
and what specifically am I talking about?

Logos1560 said:
The 1611 edition of the KJV had some textual marginal notes that referred to readings found in the corrupt Latin Vulgate of Jerome or the corrupt Greek Septuagint
Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:
At Hebrews 6:1, Backus maintained that the 1611 KJV has in the margin "a literal translation of the Vulgate 'the word of the beginning of Christ'" (Reformed Roots, p. 147). At Matthew 4:12, Backus asserted that the 1611 KJV put “the Vulgate reading ‘delivered up’ in the margin” (p. 48). Scrivener suggested that the 1611 marginal note at 2 John 8 came from the Vulgate (Authorized Edition, p. 59). In its marginal note at Mark 7:3, the 1611 KJV has an alternative translation, the literal meaning of the Greek, and the translation of a church father: "Or, diligently, in the Original, with the fist; Theophilact, up to the elbow." The KJV translators put the following marginal note in the 1611 for “mercies” at Acts 13:34: “Greek, [hosios] holy, or just things; which word in the Septuagint, both in the place of Isaiah 55:3, and in many others, use for that which is in the Hebrew mercies.“ At Acts 13:18, the 1611 KJV has another marginal note that refers to the Septuagint and that refers to a church father--Chrysostom
Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:
At Luke 10:22, the textual marginal note in the 1611 stated: "Many ancient copies add these words, 'And turning to his disciples, he said.'" The 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible has in its text at the beginning of Luke 10:22 the following: “Then he turned to his disciples.“ Scrivener suggested that the words in the 1611 margin at Luke 10:22 “are from the Complutensian edition and Stephen’s of 1550” (Authorized Edition, p. 58). At Luke 17:36, the textual marginal note in the 1611 stated: "This 36 verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies." At 2 Peter 2:2, the textual marginal note in the 1611 noted: "Or, lascivious wages, as some copies read." At Acts 25:6, the textual marginal note in the 1611 was the following: "as some copies read, no more then eight or ten days."
Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:
Other marginal notes that gave variant readings in the 1611 KJV can be found at Judges 19:2, Ezra 10:40, Psalm 102:3, Matthew 1:11, Matthew 26:26, Acts 13:18, 1 Corinthians 15:31, Ephesians 6:9, James 2:18, 1 Peter 2:21, 2 Peter 2:11, and 18. The 1611 marginal note beginning with “or” at Hebrews 5:2 could be properly considered a textual note since it basically agrees with Beza and the Geneva translation [“which is able sufficiently to have compassion”] while the makers of the KJV may follow the Latin Vulgate reading “who can have compassion” in their text. At Hebrews 5:7, the 1611 marginal note beginning with “or” could be considered a textual note since it indicates the reading of Erasmus [“pro sus reverential”] as followed by Tyndale’s and the Great Bible. In addition, the 1611 marginal note beginning with “or” at Romans 8:11 [“because of his spirit] could also be considered a textual note since Edward F. Hills presented this as a textual difference or variation in editions of the Textus Receptus with Beza having “by his Spirit” and Erasmus and Stephanus having “because of his Spirit” (KJV Defended, p. 222). Scrivener listed Romans 8:11 as one of thirty-seven NT textual marginal notes in the 1611 (Authorized Edition, p. 58). Scrivener indicated that the 1611 marginal note beginning with “or” at Revelation 6:8 “to him” is with “Complutensian, Vulgate, [and] Bishops’ Bible” (p. 59). Backus noted that “at Matthew 7:14 the ‘how’ reading occurs in AV margin (after the Vulgate)” (Reformed Roots, p. 70), and Scrivener listed it as a textual note (Authorized Edition, p. 58). At Mark 1:34, Backus indicated that the KJV followed the Bishops’/Tyndale/Vulgate reading “because they knew him” while “keeping the Beza/Geneva reading [“to say that they knew him”] as marginal alternative” (Reformed Roots, p. 66). In the 1611 at Mark 14:72, Backus asserted that “the Vulgate reading ‘he began to weep’ is suggested as a marginal alternative along with ‘he wept abundantly’ after Erasmus” (p. 75). At Galatians 4:15, Backus maintained that the KJV “adopts the Vulgate text more explicitly than Bois, reading ‘Where is then,’ but inserting the TR reading in the margin” (pp. 135-136). In its marginal note at Luke 8:18, the 1611 KJV evidently has the Latin Vulgate reading “thinking that he hath” (p. 84). At Luke 7:30, the 1611 KJV is said to put the Latin Vulgate reading “frustrated” in its marginal note (p. 83). Concerning Luke 8:18, Backus suggested that “the Vulgate reading ‘thinking that he hath’” is “retained in the margin” (p. 84). At Luke 17:20, Backus indicated that Whittingham, Geneva, Bishops, and KJV all read “with observation” in the text after the Vulgate while the 1611 marginal note “with outward show” is after Beza (p. 87). Backus asserted that the KJV follows the Latin Vulgate and reads “within you” at Luke 17:21 and “inserts the Bezan reading ‘among you’ as marginal alternative” (p. 87). At Romans 1:28 in the 1611 edition, Backus maintained that the “Revisers suggest the Bois/Beza reading as a marginal alternative” (p. 114). Backus asserted that at Romans 5:12 the KJV “inserts the Bezan reading ‘in whom’ in the margin” (p. 159). At Romans 8:22, Backus maintained that the KJV “adopts the Bezan reading in the text and the Vulgate/Erasmus reading in the margin” (p. 118). Concerning 1 Corinthians 10:30, Backus observed: “The Vulgate/Erasmus alternative ‘or by thanksgiving’ as suggested by [KJV translator Andrew] Downes is inserted in the AV margin” (p. 131). As seen in some of the above examples (Matt. 4:12, Mark 1:34, Mark 14:72, Luke 7:30, Luke 8:18, Luke 17:20, Luke 17:21, Rom. 1:28, Rom. 5:12, Rom. 8:22, 1 Cor. 10:30, Heb. 5:2, Heb. 5:7, Heb. 6:1), Backus identified another ten or more 1611 NT marginal notes as being textual that Scrivener may not have noticed as being such and that he did not include in his count or list of thirty-seven. Thus, Scrivener’s count of textual notes in the 1611 is evidently incomplete and is not inflated.
Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:
John R. Kohlenberger III pointed out a textual variant in the marginal note in the 1611 edition at Deuteronomy 28:22. John Kohlenberger asserted: “This variant is caused by the change of a single vowel point in Hebrew (horch versus the Masoretic herch) and likely reflects the Vulgate et aestu” (Burke, Translation, p. 50). Kohlenberger noted: “An example of an alternative reading that is not clearly stated is found at Luke 2:38: ‘that looked for redemption in Hierusalem’; note: ‘Or, Israel.
Click to expand...
 
Alan Gross

Alan Gross

Well-Known Member
What generally speaking are you talking about
and what specifically am I talking about?

Logos1560 said:
The Byzantine texts based on an imperfect, incomplete collation of over 400 Greek NT manuscripts are not fatally flawed if the twenty or more varying Textus Receptus editions based on an imperfect, incomplete collation of less than 100 Greek manuscripts are not also fatally flawed. Is it likewise being suggested that the TR's underlying incomplete, imperfect collation with its imperfect apparatus is useless for a reconstruction of the Greek NT text?
Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:
Samuel Tregelles wrote: "Robert Stephens, ten years before, in editing the Latin Vulgate, had made pretty extensive use of MSS.; and in giving the work of Greek collation into the hands of his son Henry, then aged only eighteen, he might have had some thoughts of similarly applying criticism to the Greek text" (Account, p. 31). Scrivener asserted that “Robert Stephen professed to have collated the whole sixteen for his two previous editions,” but that “this part of his work is now known to be due to his son Henry [1528-1598], who in 1546 was only eighteen years old” (Introduction, II, p. 190). Edward Miller affirmed: “Robert Stephen did not collate his authorities himself, but employed the services of his son Henry” (Guide to the Textual Criticism, p. 10). J. Scott Porter also maintained that “the MSS. were collated, and their readings noted, by Henry Stephens, son of Robert, then a youth of eighteen” (Principles, p. 250). Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible contended that “the collations were made by his son Henry Stephens” (III, p. 2131). Irena Backus asserted that Robert Stephanus “used Henri’s collations as the sole source of Greek variants for his 1550 edition of the New Testament” (Reformed Roots, p. 3). Henry Baird quoted
Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:
Theodore Beza as writing in a preface to his NT about a copy of “our Stephens which had been most carefully collated by his son, Henry Stephens” (Theodore Beza, p. 236). KJV-only author Laurence Vance acknowledged that the text of Stephanus included the “collations of his son Henry” (Brief History, p. 13). Jan Krans pointed out that “in a 1565 addition to the preface, Beza informs us that the collations were actually Henri Stephanus’, who was probably asked to do them by his father” (Beyond What is Written, p. 212). Krans also referred to another source revealing that the collations were done by the son of Robert Stephanus, which is “Henri Stephanus’ own words in the preface to his 1587 New Testament” (p. 212, footnote 6).
Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:
Has anyone ever checked and confirmed the accuracy of these manuscript collations that underlie varying Textus Receptus editions? Scrivener suggested that “the degree of accuracy attained in this collation may be estimated from the single instance of the Complutensian, a book printed in very clear type” (Plain Introduction, II, p. 190). Scrivener then indicated that “forty-eight, or one in twelve [of Stephen’s citations of the Complutensian] are false” (p. 190, footnote 1). Samuel Tregelles maintained that “it may be said, that as the Complutensian text is often incorrectly cited in Stephen’s margin, we may conclude that the same thing is true of the MSS which were collated; for it would be remarkable if manuscripts were examined with greater accuracy than a printed book” (Account, p. 31). Smith’s Dictionary maintained that “while only 598 variants of the Complutensian are given, Mill calculates that 700 are omitted” (III, p. 2131). Marvin Vincent asserted: “Of the Complutensian readings many more were omitted than inserted, and the Complutensian text is often cited incorrectly” (History of the Textual Criticism, p. 57). In a note, John Eadie commented: “The margin of the New Testament of Robert Stephens, 1550, is not of great value. He did not print all the various readings which his son Henry had gathered, nor did he fully collate all the sixteen MSS” (English Bible, II, p. 214).
Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:
Samuel Newth maintained that the manuscripts used by Stephanus were “imperfectly collated” (Lectures, p. 86). Frederic Gardiner claimed that the collation in this edition “is neither complete nor accurate” (Principles, p. 5). Marvin Vincent suggested that “the collation, both of the Complutensian and of the manuscripts was partial and slovenly” (History of the Textual Criticism, p. 57). Marvin Vincent wrote: “The body of manuscript evidence amassed by the Stephens were imperfectly collated in the edition of 1550. Though the authorities stand in the margin, the text is perpetually at variance with the majority of them, and in 119 places, with all of them. No fixed principles regulated the occasional applications of the manuscript readings to the construction of the text” (pp. 63-64). Richard Porson (1759-1808) asserted that “Stephen’s margin is full of mistakes in the readings and numbers of the MSS” (Gentlemen’s Magazine, May, 1789, p. 386; Letters, p. 55). Richard Porson maintained that Stephens “has favored us with only a part of the various readings, (probably less than half) and has frequently set down a reading as from one manuscript which belonged to another” (Letters, pp. 88-89). Charles Hudson reported that the “various readings collated by his son” . . . “are known to be given very inaccurately” (Greek and English Concordance, p. xiv).
Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:
Is the textual apparatus in the 1550 Stephanus TR edition honeycombed with errors?

Do KJV-only advocates and TR-only advocates deal adequately with these pertinent facts that the collating of the few Greek NT manuscripts that are the basis for the TR editions was incomplete, imperfect, or slipshod, which could suggest the possibility that some of the TR textual criticism decisions may not have been soundly made?
Click to expand...
 
Alan Gross

Alan Gross

Well-Known Member
What generally speaking are you talking about
and what specifically am I talking about?

Logos1560 said:
Your accusations are bogus. The NKJV does not essentially install a second version as you falsely allege. You continue to bear false witness against the NKJV translators. There are even editions of the NKJV that have been printed without the textual notes. I have a copy of one.

Some of these marginal notes in the 1611 edition of the KJV are the same-type textual marginal notes or footnotes that KJV-only advocates claim to be harmful to the faith. The presence of one such textual note in the 1611 KJV or in any other editions of the KJV would condemn the KJV-only view for its inconsistency, hypocrisy, or unjust divers measures when it strongly blasts the NKJV and other translations for the same-type notes.
Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:
The makers of the KJV disagree with your incorrect opinions concerning marginal notes. In the 1611 preface, this is stated: “doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident; so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption.”

The 1611 preface also noted that “diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.”
Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:
According to the large number of marginal notes in the 1611 edition, its makers must have found many places where they considered the text not to be so clear in its meaning. The makers of the KJV gave many more word-for-word, literal renderings in their marginal notes, and they also offered many acceptable, alternative renderings. In some marginal notes, they provided examples of where they gave no English word/rendering for an original-language word of Scripture in their underlying texts.

These marginal notes clearly contradict any suggestion that all their translation decisions should be considered certain and unquestionable. The marginal notes could also raise doubt concerning some of their textual criticism decisions. The 1611 preface noted: “They that are wise, had rather have their judgment at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.”
Click to expand...
 
Alan Gross

Alan Gross

Well-Known Member
What generally speaking are you talking about
and what specifically am I talking about?

Logos1560 said:
You fail to apply your assertion and question consistently and justly including to the KJV and to its makers.

Are you saying that the makers of the KJV cannot be trusted when they could not make up their mind what God really said?

The 1611 edition had thousands of acceptable alternative renderings and literal renderings of original-language words.
Click to expand...
 
Alan Gross

Alan Gross

Well-Known Member
What generally speaking are you talking about
and what specifically am I talking about?

Logos1560 said:
Your presumptive accusation is misleading and not true.

Providing the textual readings of the Critical Text is not the same thing as casting doubt.

In the 1611 preface, this is stated: “doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident; so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption.”
Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:
You seem to display a fear of the presenting of all the facts--the truth.

God does not give believers a spirit of fear of the truth as you seem to advocate.

The Scriptures do not teach that presenting facts harms or undermines sound faith in God. According to the Scriptures, God does not give believers a spirit of fear or the spirit of bondage to fear (2 Tim. 1:7, Rom. 8:15). God gives a sound mind (2 Tim. 1:7) so that believers who accept and believe sound Bible doctrine should not be harmed by truth. Believers are not led by the Spirit of truth to fear truth (Rom. 8:14-15).
Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:
That may be your biased, subjective opinion, but you fail to prove it to be true. You fail to prove any dishonesty on the part of the NKJV translators. The makers of the KJV could be said to have made unnecessary changes to the pre-1611 word of God in English. The makers of the KJV noted in their marginal notes that many of their renderings were not the literal ones.

Would you suggest that the Church of England makers of the KJV used illegitimate sources when they borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament made from an edition of Jerome's Latin Vulgate or when they made use of an edition of the Greek Septuagint, the Syriac Peshitta, Jerome's Latin Vulgate, etc. in making emendations to the Hebrew Masoretic Text?

You fail to apply the same measures/standards justly as you seem to use unscriptural divers measures.
Click to expand...
 
Alan Gross

Alan Gross

Well-Known Member
What generally speaking are you talking about
and what specifically am I talking about?

Logos1560 said:
Are you now acknowledging that your earlier quoted accusation of 1,200 times ignoring the Textus Receptus is bogus and false?
Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:
Only eight claimed or alleged [not proven] departures would be a huge difference from your favorably quoted 1,2000 in a post in the other thread.

The KJV itself could be considered to have eight departures from the Textus Receptus to follow Jerome's Latin Vulgate.

KJV defender Edward F. Hills pointed out: "Sometimes the King James translators forsook the printed Greek text and united with the earlier English versions in following the Latin Vulgate" (Believing Bible Study, p. 207). In his preface to a Norton Critical Edition of the KJV’s New Testament, Austin Busch affirmed: “There are a few places where they [the KJV translators] seem to follow the Vulgate” (p. xxvi).

Doug Kutilek asserted: "In at least 60 places, the KJV translators abandoned all then-existing printed editions of the Greek New Testament, choosing instead to follow precisely the reading in the Latin Vulgate version" (Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus, p. 4).
Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:
You keep making accusations that you do not prove to be true.

Hebrew OT scholar Dr. James D. Price listed "82 justifiable emendations to the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament made by the King James translators" and listed "146 unjustifiable emendations made by them" (King James Onlyism: A New Sect, p. 561).
The 146 unjustifiable emendations are listed in Appendix I-2, pp. 573-590.

In those 146 places, the NKJV is following or being faithful to the Hebrew Masoretic text while it is the KJV that departed from it.

You reveal again that you do not apply the same exact measures/standards consistently and justly; therefore, your judgments are unrighteous.
Click to expand...
 
L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Alan Gross said:
What generally speaking are you talking about
and what specifically am I talking about?
Click to expand...

You have been presented with verifiable specifics that conflict with your unproven over-generalized accusations. You avoid and try to dismiss what I specifically presented. You have to read my posts to learn what I am specifically talking about.

You have not proven your accusations against the NKJV to be true.

There are likely more differences between the 1862 Young's Literal Translation and the 1611 KJV than there are between the 1611 KJV and the 1982 NKJV that is a genuine revision of the KJV.

The 1862 Young's Literal Translation of the Bible at Romans 8:16 stated: "The Spirit himself doth testify with our spirit, that we are children of God" which agrees with the NKJV "The Spirit Himself."

The 1862 Young's Literal Translation agrees with the NKJV at 2 Peter 1:1 as it has "the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ."

The 1862 Young's Literal Translation agrees with the NKJV at Titus 2:13 as it has "the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ."

At 1 Corinthians 1:18, the 1862 Young's Literal Translation has "and to us--those being saved" similar to the NKJV "to us who are being saved."

At 1 Corinthians 15:2, the 1862 Young's Literal Translation begins the verse as "through which also ye are being saved" while the NKJV has "by which also you are saved."
 
L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Here is clear compelling proof that the differences between the KJV and the NKJV do not all come from modern English Bibles as some incorrectly allege. Many pages of examples could be given where the NKJV is in agreement with the 1560 Geneva Bible or another pre-1611 English Bible. Here are some examples from the first ten chapters of 2 Kings.

2 Kings 1:2 fell through the lattice (Geneva, NKJV) fell down through a lattice (KJV)
2 Kings 1:3 no God in Israel (Geneva, NKJV) not a God in Israel (KJV)
2 Kings 1:4 the bed (Geneva, NKJV) that bed (KJV)
2 Kings 1:4 So Elijah departed (Geneva, NKJV) And Elijah departed (KJV)
2 Kings 1:5 returned (Geneva, NKJV) turned back (KJV)
2 Kings 1:6 return (Geneva, NKJV) turn again (KJV)
2 Kings 1:6 no God in Israel (Geneva, NKJV) not a God in Israel (KJV)
2 Kings 1:16 Because (Geneva, NKJV) Forasmuch as (KJV)
2 Kings 2:2 Then Elijah (Geneva, NKJV) And Elijah (KJV)
2 Kings 2:2 to Elisha (Geneva, NKJV) unto Elisha (KJV)
2 Kings 2:2 But Elisha said (Geneva, NKJV) And Elisha said unto him (KJV)
2 Kings 2:3 came out (Geneva, NKJV) came forth (KJV)
2 Kings 2:22 word of Elisha (Geneva, NKJV) saying of Elisha (KJV)
2 Kings 2:25 out of the forest (Geneva) out of the wood (KJV) out of the woods (NKJV)
2 Kings 3:8 Then (Geneva, NKJV) And (KJV)
2 Kings 3:18 small thing (Geneva) light thing (KJV) simple matter (NKJV)
2 Kings 3:25 destroyed (Geneva, NKJV) beat down (KJV)
2 Kings 4:14 no son (Geneva, NKJV) no child (KJV)
2 Kings 4:38 Elisha returned (Geneva, NKJV) Elisha came again (KJV)
2 Kings 4:38 famine (Geneva, NKJV) dearth (KJV)
2 Kings 4:42 Then (Geneva, NKJV) And (KJV)
2 Kings 4:43 servant (Geneva, NKJV) servitor (KJV)
2 Kings 4:43 Give it unto the people (Geneva) Give the people (KJV) Give it to the people (NKJV)
2 Kings 4:44 left over (Geneva, NKJV) left thereof (KJV)
2 Kings 5:1 in the sight of his lord (Geneva) with his master (KJV) in the eyes of his master (NKJV)
2 Kings 5:1 but a leper (Geneva, NKJV) but he was a leper (KJV)
2 Kings 5:9 Then Naaman (Geneva, NKJV) So Naaman (KJV)
2 Kings 5:12 Abanah (Geneva, NKJV) Abana (KJV)
2 Kings 5:17 load of this earth (Geneva) burden of earth (KJV) loads of earth (NKJV)
2 Kings 6:1 too little (Geneva) too strait (KJV) too small (NKJV)
2 Kings 6:2 Go (Geneva, NKJV) Go ye (KJV)
2 Kings 7:3 Now there were (Geneva, NKJV) And there were (KJV)
2 Kings 7:6 had caused (Geneva, NKJV) had made (KJV)
2 Kings 7:6 great army (Geneva, NKJV) great host (KJV)
2 Kings 7:7 their lives (Geneva, NKJV) their life (KJV)
2 Kings 8:7 Then Elisha (Geneva, NKJV) And Elisha (KJV)
2 Kings 8:10 to him (Geneva, NKJV) unto him (KJV)
2 Kings 8:16 Now in (Geneva, NKJV) And in (KJV)
2 Kings 8:19 for ever (Geneva) alway (KJV) forever (NKJV)
2 Kings 8:21 went to Zair (Geneva, NKJV) went over to Zair (KJV)
2 Kings 8:27 like the house (Geneva, NKJV) as did the house (KJV)
2 Kings 9:5 army (Geneva, NKJV) host (KJV)
2 Kings 9:5 a message (Geneva, NKJV) an errand (KJV)
2 Kings 9:21 Then Joram (Geneva, NKJV) And Joram (KJV)
2 Kings 9:23 Then Joram (Geneva, NKJV) And Joram (KJV)
2 Kings 9:27 pursued (Geneva, NKJV) followed (KJV)
2 Kings 10:4 could not stand (Geneva, NKJV) stood not (KJV)
2 Kings 10:17 the word (Geneva, NKJV) the saying (KJV)
2 Kings 10:18 Then Jehu (Geneva, NKJV) And Jehu (KJV)
 
L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Here are more examples from the rest of 2 Kings:

2 Kings 11:11 right side (Geneva, NKJV) right corner (KJV)
2 Kings 11:19 took the captains (Geneva, NKJV) took the rulers (KJV)
2 Kings 12:7 the temple (Geneva, NKJV) the house (KJV)
2 Kings 12:11 paid it out (Geneva, NKJV) laid it out (KJV)
2 Kings 13:2 did evil (Geneva, NKJV) did that which was evil (KJV)
2 Kings 13:5 a deliverer (Geneva, NKJV) a saviour (KJV)
2 Kings 13:15 Take a bow (Geneva, NKJV) Take bow (KJV)
2 Kings 13:19 angry (Geneva, NKJV) wroth (KJV)
2 Kings 14:24 did evil (Geneva, NKJV) did that which was evil (KJV)
2 Kings 15:5 in an house apart (Geneva) in a several house (KJV) in an isolated house (NKJV)
2 Kings 15:10 killed him (Geneva, NKJV) slew him (KJV)
2 Kings 15:18 did evil (Geneva, NKJV) did that which was evil (KJV)
2 Kings 15:25 in his stead (Geneva) in his room (KJV) in his place (NKJV)
2 Kings 17:10 upon every (Geneva) in every (KJV) on every (NKJV)
2 Kings 17:13 Turn from your evil ways (Geneva, NKJV) Turn ye from your evil ways (KJV)
2 Kings 17:14 Nevertheless (Geneva, NKJV) Notwithstanding (KJV)
2 Kings 17:17 witchcraft (Geneva, NKJV) divination (KJV)
2 Kings 17:40 obeyed not (Geneva) did not hearken (KJV) did not obey (NKJV)
2 Kings 18:8 watchtower (Geneva, NKJV) tower of the watchmen (KJV)
2 Kings 18:23 give (Geneva, NKJV) deliver (KJV)
2 Kings 19:27 dwelling (Geneva) abode (KJV) dwelling place (NKJV)
2 Kings 19:37 the temple (Geneva, NKJV) the house (KJV)
2 Kings 19:37 land of Ararat (Geneva, NKJV) land of Armenia (KJV)
2 Kings 21:2 did evil (Geneva, NKJV) did that which was evil (KJV)
2 Kings 21:7 all the tribes (Geneva, NKJV) all tribes (KJV)
2 Kings 21:20 did evil (Geneva, NKJV) did that which was evil (KJV)
2 Kings 22:2 all the ways (Geneva, NKJV) all the way (KJV)
2 Kings 22:7 they deal (Geneva, NKJV) they dealt (KJV)
2 Kings 22:9 So Shaphan (Geneva, NKJV) And Shaphan (KJV)
2 Kings 22:13 obeyed (Geneva, NKJV) hearkened unto (KJV)
2 Kings 22:16 and on (Geneva, NKJV) and upon (KJV)
2 Kings 22:18 who sent (Geneva, NKJV) which sent (KJV)
2 Kings 22:20 thee to (Geneva) thee unto (KJV) you to (NKJV)
2 Kings 23:21 Then the king (Geneva, NKJV) And the king (KJV)
2 Kings 23:32 did evil (Geneva, NKJV) did that which was evil (KJV)
2 Kings 23:37 did evil (Geneva, NKJV) did that which was evil (KJV)
2 Kings 24:9 did evil (Geneva, NKJV) did that which was evil (KJV)
2 Kings 25:8 to Jerusalem (Geneva, NKJV) unto Jerusalem (KJV)
2 Kings 25:15 basins (Geneva, NKJV) bowls (KJV)
 
Alan Gross

Alan Gross

Well-Known Member
What is your specifc explaination for all this?

Logos1560 said:
the differences between the KJV and the NKJV
do not all come from modern English Bibles
Click to expand...

Actually, "the difference between the KJV and the NKJV",
in this instance, has The NKJV as being different from The KJV
and all previous English Bibles in the Lineage of Divine Preservation,
and yet now, The NKJV is vitually identical to The New World Translation.

And all The Sister-Translations of the Jehovah's Witness'
New World Translation have essentially the exact same wording
for Matthew 28:19, as The New World Translation,
including The New King James Version.

The JEHOVAH'S WITNESS' New World Translation is based on:

Hort-Westcott – Critical Text;

"πορευθεντες ουν μαθητευσατε παντα τα εθνη βαπτιζοντες αυτους εις το ονομα του πατρος και του υιου και του αγιου πνευματος"

The New World Translation;
(NWT): "Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son
and of the holy spirit,"

The Sister-Translations;
(1881 RV) Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost:

(1901 ASV) Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:

(AMP) Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations [help the people to learn of Me, believe in Me, and obey My words], baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

(CSB) Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

(CEB) Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

(CEV) Go to the people of all nations and make them my disciples. Baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,

(ERV) So go and make followers of all people in the world. Baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

(ESV) Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

(GNT) Go, then, to all peoples everywhere and make them my disciples: baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,

(HCSB) Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

(JB PHILLIPS) But Jesus came and spoke these words to them, “All power in Heaven and on earth has been given to me. You, then, are to go and make disciples of all the nations and baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Teach them to observe all that I have commanded you and, remember, I am with you always, even to the end of the world.”

(LEB) Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

(LB) Therefore go and make disciples in all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

(NABRE) Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,

(NASV) Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

(NCV) So go and make followers of all people in the world. Baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

(NET) Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

(NIRV) So you must go and make disciples of all nations. Baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

(NIV) Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

(NKJV) "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"

(NLV) Go and make followers of all the nations. Baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

(NLT) Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

(NRSV) Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

(RSV) Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

(TLV) Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, immersing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Ruach ha-Kodesh,

(VOICE) Go out and make disciples in all the nations. Ceremonially wash them through baptism in the name of the triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

(WEB) Go, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

While, contending for "the Faith once delivered to the saints",
and holding to the Twin Bible Doctrines of The Divine Inspiration
and Providential Preservation of the Scriptures, all of the previous
English Bible versions over the last 642 years have essentially the exact same wording for Matthew 28:19, as The King James Version,

(although they also reflect the same difference in The Modern Versions'
departure from The Faith, which agrees with The New World Translation).

The King James Version is based on
The Textus Receptus – Traditional Text;

"πορευθεντες ουν μαθητευσατε παντα τα εθνη βαπτιζοντες αυτους εις το ονομα του πατρος και του υιου και του αγιου πνευματος"

Matthew 28:19;

The King James Version;
(KJV); "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

(1611 KJV) Goe ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them
in the Name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghost:

Webster's Bible 1833 Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Bishops Bible 1568 Go ye therfore, & teache all nations, baptizing them
in the name of the father, and of the sonne, and of the holye ghost:

Geneva Bible 1560 Go therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them
in the Name of the Father, and the Sonne, and the holy Ghost,

The Great Bible 1539 Go ye therfore, & teach all nacions, baptising them
in the name of the father, & of the sonne, & of the holy goost:

Matthew's Bible 1537 Go therfore & teache all nacyons, baptisyng them
in the name of the father, and the sonne, & the holye ghoste.

Coverdale Bible 1535 Go ye youre waye therfore, and teach all nacions, and baptyse them in the name of the father, and of the sonne, and of the holy goost:

Tyndale Bible 1534 Go therfore and teache all nacions baptysinge them
in the name of the father and the sonne and the holy goost:

Wycliffe Bible 1382 Therfor go ye, and teche alle folkis, baptisynge hem
in the name of the Fadir, and of the Sone, and of the Hooli Goost;

con't: further comment and questions:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top