• 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
Saved421 said:
The NKJV is a bridge to the new versions.

So, the NKJV is basically the same principle as the RSV?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you have been misinformed. You do not prove your assertions to be true.

The NKJV is not translated from the Critical Text as the RSV was. The NKJV is not basically the same principle as the RSV. It has not been proven that the makers of the NKJV consulted the RSV in any of their translation decisions.

I have found many pages of examples where the NKJV differs from the KJV that it is in agreement with the 1560 Geneva Bible or another pre-1611 English Bible.
 
L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Saved421 said:
No, Revelation last six versions were from Greek.
Click to expand...
You contradict Erasmus himself since he admitted translating those last six verses from the Latin. Have you read Erasmus' hand-written notes concerning those verses?

John Nordstrom maintained that Erasmus acknowledged in his annotations that he had translated the last six verses of Revelation 22 from the Latin Vulgate, but that the printer did not choose to print that note in the printed edition. John Nordstrom asserted: “This omission can be verified by placing side-by-side Erasmus’ hand-copied notes with the actual printed copy” (Strained by Blood, p. 74).

Jan Krans claimed that Erasmus wrote in his annotation on Revelation 22:20 the following as translated into English: “However, at the end of this book, I found some words in our versions which were lacking in the Greek copies, but we added them from the Latin” (Beyond What is Written, p. 55-56, footnote 11).
Jan Krans noted that Erasmus later “ordered the proofreaders of his second edition to supply the final words of Revelation from the Aldine edition of the Greek Bible” (p. 57). Jan Krans suggested that “it seems Erasmus never realized that the text of the New Testament in the Aldine edition is derived from his own first edition” (p. 57, footnote 16). Samuel Tregelles asserted: “Erasmus has often been blamed for using the Aldine reprint of his own first edition as if it were a distinct authority. But it appears from Erasmus’s own words, that he was not aware that such was the case” (Account of the Printed Text, p. 27).
 
Saved421

Saved421

Member
Logos1560 said:
You contradict Erasmus himself since he admitted translating those last six verses from the Latin. Have you read Erasmus' hand-written notes concerning those verses?

John Nordstrom maintained that Erasmus acknowledged in his annotations that he had translated the last six verses of Revelation 22 from the Latin Vulgate, but that the printer did not choose to print that note in the printed edition. John Nordstrom asserted: “This omission can be verified by placing side-by-side Erasmus’ hand-copied notes with the actual printed copy” (Strained by Blood, p. 74).

Jan Krans claimed that Erasmus wrote in his annotation on Revelation 22:20 the following as translated into English: “However, at the end of this book, I found some words in our versions which were lacking in the Greek copies, but we added them from the Latin” (Beyond What is Written, p. 55-56, footnote 11).
Jan Krans noted that Erasmus later “ordered the proofreaders of his second edition to supply the final words of Revelation from the Aldine edition of the Greek Bible” (p. 57). Jan Krans suggested that “it seems Erasmus never realized that the text of the New Testament in the Aldine edition is derived from his own first edition” (p. 57, footnote 16). Samuel Tregelles asserted: “Erasmus has often been blamed for using the Aldine reprint of his own first edition as if it were a distinct authority. But it appears from Erasmus’s own words, that he was not aware that such was the case” (Account of the Printed Text, p. 27).
Click to expand...
I used to believe that but by God's grace, that hath being debunked. He used some Greek text, and anyhow, there is no issue with using the Latin when the Greek is corrupted
 
Saved421

Saved421

Member
As for me, I will not be contiuning this discussion, anyway as long saved by the precious blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, then all is well.

I can't make anyone or foce anyone to believe any of this.

Have a great day!

Au revoir

Shawn
 
N

Nolan Stengel

Member
Saved421 said:
The marginal notes in the 1611 was to shew that they knew the alternatives and rejected them.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that is just silly. Have you read the preface to reader in the 1611 KJV? They explain the reason why marginal notes are included and it was not to show us that they are to be rejected.
 
L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Saved421 said:
I used to believe that but by God's grace, that hath being debunked. He used some Greek text, and anyhow, there is no issue with using the Latin when the Greek is corrupted
Click to expand...
You are wrong. You are contradicting what Erasmus himself wrote in his own notes. Erasmus is known to have had only one Greek NT manuscript for the book of Revelation, and it was one that was missing the last six verses of the book of Revelation. You are ignoring what Erasmus himself stated in his handwritten notes.
 
Last edited:
J

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Saved421 said:
I used to believe that but by God's grace, that hath being debunked. He used some Greek text, and anyhow, there is no issue with using the Latin when the Greek is corrupted
Click to expand...
Even when taken from ther Catholic Vulgate, and not taken from a Greek textual source?
 
J

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Logos1560 said:
You are wrong. You are contradicting what Erasmus himself wrote in his own notes. Erasmus is known to have had only one Greek NT manuscript for the book of Revelation, and it was one that was missing the last six verses of the book of Revelation. You are ignoring what Erasmus himself stated in his handwritten notes.
Click to expand...
How would our friend here be able to discern without any textual source credibility of Erasmus made a proper textual determination here then?
 
J

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Nolan Stengel said:
Sorry, but that is just silly. Have you read the preface to reader in the 1611 KJV? They explain the reason why marginal notes are included and it was not to show us that they are to be rejected.
Click to expand...
They were to show to us pretty much same the footnotes did in the Nkjv bible, as instances where there were legit questions as to which was really the better variant understanding ?
 
C

Conan

Well-Known Member
Saved421 said:
The marginal notes in the 1611 was to shew that they knew the alternatives and rejected them.
Click to expand...
This is a false mistake. Read the views of the 1611 King James Translators in the Preface. They say the opposite of what you said.
 
Saved421

Saved421

Member
There is no issue with using Latin, as it was based on good Latin before Jerome. Anyways, there was Greek that did show up as an manuscript with what Eramsus put.
 
L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Saved421 said:
There is no issue with using Latin, as it was based on good Latin before Jerome. Anyways, there was Greek that did show up as an manuscript with what Eramsus put.
Click to expand...
You are still misinformed. Erasmus used a printed edition of Jerome's Latin Vulgate.

Are you appealing to a post-Erasmus Greek manuscript that was made from copying the printed editions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top