-
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.
- Thread starter Alan Gross
- Start date
You can believe your human non-scriptural opinion, but that does not make it true. You may be deceiving yourself by believing non-true opinions concerning the KJV.
The KJV itself teaches again believing that words added by men [which would include many words added by the KJV translators] are inspired words of God given to the prophets and apostles.
The KJV is not a literal, every word translation as it omits giving any English rendering for many original-language words of Scripture.
Does the KJV have an English word for every word in its underlying Hebrew text at 1 Kings 17:16? At this verse, the 1540 edition of the Great Bible has “by the hand of Elia” while the 1560 Geneva Bible has “by the hand of Eliah.” The 1602 edition of the Bishops’ Bible, which was the starting English text for the makers of the KJV, has “by the hand of Elias.” The 1611 KJV differs from these pre-1611 English Bibles with its rendering “by Elijah.” The marginal note in the 1611 edition of the KJV acknowledged that its underlying Hebrew text has a Hebrew noun that would mean “hand” in English. This 1611 marginal note stated: “Heb. by the hand of.” How is this giving no English rendering for this Hebrew noun meaning “hand” in the 1611 KJV the most accurate rendering of it?
KJV-only author David Daniels asserted: “First and foremost, we want every word that God said” (51 Reasons, p. 38). Emanuel Rodriguez declared: “In order for a Bible to be correct it must have every word of God accurately translated in the receptor language” (God’s Bible, p. 15). In his criteria for translating, H. D. Williams wrote: “Under no circumstance should words be added, subtracted, or changed in other ways” (Word-for-Word Translating, p. 230). Ken Matto asked: “How can anyone build their faith on what is omitted in the Bible?” (Modern Version, p. 190). Gary Miller asserted that KJV translators “made sure to clearly translate each and every word” (Why the KJB, p. 18). Michael Hollner declared: “Every Word of God means every single word, no exceptions” (King James Only, p. 173). Charles Keesee asserted: “I believe we need every word of God” (Subtle Apostasy, p. 81). Charles Keesee asserted: “If God inspired a word to be written down and your Bible does not contain it, then your Bible has an error” (p. 31). Would a consistent, just application of these statements by KJV-only authors suggest that the KJV has an error at 1 Kings 17:16 since it omitted giving any English word for the Hebrew noun meaning “hand”?
Along with three pre-1611 English Bibles, at least three post-1611 English Bibles have an English rendering for this Hebrew noun in their text. The 1860’s Young’s Literal Translation rendered it “by the hand of Elijah.” The 1986 Literal Translation in Jay Green’s Interlinear Bible also translated it as “by the hand of Elijah.” Likewise, the 2020 Literal Standard Bible rendered it “by the hand of Elijah.” Glenn David Bauscher’s 2018 English translation of the Peshitta Bible translated it as “by the agency of Elyah.” It was clearly possible to translate this Hebrew noun into English. Is the God-breathed Hebrew word for “hand” missing in this verse in the KJV according to a consistent, just application of some KJV-only assertions? This verse along with many others would demonstrate that KJV-only advocates do not apply their very own assertions demanding a Bible that has every word to the KJV itself.
Here is an example that demonstrates that the Malcolm Watts' and D. A. Waite's accusations against the NKJV are not reliable.
In the KJV-only view’s pure stream of Bible, there is a slight difference in rendering at this verse between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the 1611 KJV. At 2 Samuel 22:3, the 1535 Coverdale’s, 1537 Matthew’s Bible, the 1540 Great Bible, the 1560 Geneva Bible, and the 1568 Bishops’ Bible all begin the verse with the clause: “God is my strength.” The 1611 KJV begins the verse with “The God of my rock.”
One reason for listing this example is to demonstrate that KJV-only authors do not apply the same measures/standards to the pre-1611 English Bibles that they inconsistently attempt to apply to post-1611 English Bibles. D. A. Waite contended that the NKJV rendering “strength” at 2 Samuel 22:3 “changes noun” (NKJV Compared to KJV, p. 11). Waite had asserted that these renderings from the NKJV that he listed in his booklet were “not faithfulness in translation,” “not accuracy in translation,” “not reliability in translation,” and “diabolical dynamic equivalency” (pp xi-xv). Would D. A. Waite also claim that the five places in the KJV where the same Hebrew word is translated as strength (Ps. 18:2, Ps. 19:14, Ps. 73:26, Ps. 144:1, Isa. 26:4) were examples of inaccurate dynamic equivalencies? Waite claimed that “the King James Bible translators did not use dynamic equivalency” (Foes of the KJB Refuted, p. 62). According to a consistent application of Waite’s own measures and examples for claiming use of dynamic equivalency in the NKJV, the KJV translators did also use it. Either Waite’s allegation against the NKJV would be incorrect or else his claim that the KJV translators did not use dynamic equivalency would be incorrect. Malcolm Watts claimed that the “the God of my rock” at 2 Samuel 22:3 “is wrongly rendered ‘the God of my strength’” in the NKJV (NKJV: A Critique, p. 3). Would Malcolm Watts assert that the KJV translators wrongly rendered this Hebrew word as “strength” five times? At Isaiah 26:4 where the KJV translators rendered this Hebrew word along with another Hebrew word as “everlasting strength,” they put the following as a marginal note: “Heb. the rock of ages.”
On the other hand, D. A. Waite also declared: “The Hebrew and Greek words have 4 or 5 different meanings each, and the King James Bible translators have selected at least one of those meanings” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 125). Waite claimed: “There is an equivalent Word from the Hebrew or Greek to the English. There may be 4 or 5 words that may be equivalent” (p. 126). Waite declared: “I don’t count synonyms as being different. Synonyms are acceptable” (Ibid.). Gail Riplinger wrote: “Synonyms can be substituted; these provide the Bible’s built-in dictionary” (In Awe, p. 168). Herb Evans asserted that "the King James Bible is rich in synonyms (purposely according to its translators)" (The Flaming Torch, July/August/September, 2001, p. 21). Concerning variation within KJV editions, Jack McElroy claimed: “The Lord allows his pure word to be presented in the English text in different ways” (Which Bible, p. 172). KJV-only author Charles Keesee asserted: “It is also important to allow for a range of translations to be possible. A word can be translated in multiple ways and you may prefer one over another, but as long as the translation of the word falls in the range of possibilities it is not an error” (Subtle Apostasy, p. 236). It seems that D. A. Waite forgot or neglected his own assertions about equivalent synonyms when he made his accusations against the NKJV’s rendering at 2 Samuel 22:3. Actual documented evidence reveals that KJV-only advocates do not grant other English Bibles the same amount of leeway in selecting a rendering from the range of possible translations that they inconsistently grant to the KJV.
In the KJV-only view’s pure stream of Bible, there is a slight difference in rendering at this verse between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the 1611 KJV. At 2 Samuel 22:3, the 1535 Coverdale’s, 1537 Matthew’s Bible, the 1540 Great Bible, the 1560 Geneva Bible, and the 1568 Bishops’ Bible all begin the verse with the clause: “God is my strength.” The 1611 KJV begins the verse with “The God of my rock.”
One reason for listing this example is to demonstrate that KJV-only authors do not apply the same measures/standards to the pre-1611 English Bibles that they inconsistently attempt to apply to post-1611 English Bibles. D. A. Waite contended that the NKJV rendering “strength” at 2 Samuel 22:3 “changes noun” (NKJV Compared to KJV, p. 11). Waite had asserted that these renderings from the NKJV that he listed in his booklet were “not faithfulness in translation,” “not accuracy in translation,” “not reliability in translation,” and “diabolical dynamic equivalency” (pp xi-xv). Would D. A. Waite also claim that the five places in the KJV where the same Hebrew word is translated as strength (Ps. 18:2, Ps. 19:14, Ps. 73:26, Ps. 144:1, Isa. 26:4) were examples of inaccurate dynamic equivalencies? Waite claimed that “the King James Bible translators did not use dynamic equivalency” (Foes of the KJB Refuted, p. 62). According to a consistent application of Waite’s own measures and examples for claiming use of dynamic equivalency in the NKJV, the KJV translators did also use it. Either Waite’s allegation against the NKJV would be incorrect or else his claim that the KJV translators did not use dynamic equivalency would be incorrect. Malcolm Watts claimed that the “the God of my rock” at 2 Samuel 22:3 “is wrongly rendered ‘the God of my strength’” in the NKJV (NKJV: A Critique, p. 3). Would Malcolm Watts assert that the KJV translators wrongly rendered this Hebrew word as “strength” five times? At Isaiah 26:4 where the KJV translators rendered this Hebrew word along with another Hebrew word as “everlasting strength,” they put the following as a marginal note: “Heb. the rock of ages.”
On the other hand, D. A. Waite also declared: “The Hebrew and Greek words have 4 or 5 different meanings each, and the King James Bible translators have selected at least one of those meanings” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 125). Waite claimed: “There is an equivalent Word from the Hebrew or Greek to the English. There may be 4 or 5 words that may be equivalent” (p. 126). Waite declared: “I don’t count synonyms as being different. Synonyms are acceptable” (Ibid.). Gail Riplinger wrote: “Synonyms can be substituted; these provide the Bible’s built-in dictionary” (In Awe, p. 168). Herb Evans asserted that "the King James Bible is rich in synonyms (purposely according to its translators)" (The Flaming Torch, July/August/September, 2001, p. 21). Concerning variation within KJV editions, Jack McElroy claimed: “The Lord allows his pure word to be presented in the English text in different ways” (Which Bible, p. 172). KJV-only author Charles Keesee asserted: “It is also important to allow for a range of translations to be possible. A word can be translated in multiple ways and you may prefer one over another, but as long as the translation of the word falls in the range of possibilities it is not an error” (Subtle Apostasy, p. 236). It seems that D. A. Waite forgot or neglected his own assertions about equivalent synonyms when he made his accusations against the NKJV’s rendering at 2 Samuel 22:3. Actual documented evidence reveals that KJV-only advocates do not grant other English Bibles the same amount of leeway in selecting a rendering from the range of possible translations that they inconsistently grant to the KJV.
So Eramus and 1611 transpired were inspired by the Holy Spirit to always chose the right perfect way to render the Hebrew and Greek texts into their English?
Why would they include any variant alterative readings IF they had really claimed perfect inerrant translation as KJVO claim?
Think that the TBS society would do very well to appoint their own "acceptable" scholars to revised and update the kjv into 21 century grammar and syntax and vocab, and then would actually have their rea'l"Nkjv" Since they have resisted, shows not reallys serious about updating Kjv, as seen as "forever perfect
Saved421
Member
Saved421
Member
No, italics are inspired and clearly vindicated by cross refrences.
Also, that's how Language works, and some italics mean minor readings.
Shawn
That is not what the KJV Translators said at all. You are in error, and the 1611 KJV Translators prove it in Their Preface to the KJV.