Featured Do KJVO accept the modern Kjv, and yet not the Nkjv?

KJV-only advocates do not accept any post-1611 English Bible translation as legitimately being the word of God translated into English in the same sense that they claim for the KJV.

They do not accept the 1962 Children's Version by Jay Green, the 1962 Teenage Version by Jay Green, the 1967 New Scofield, the 1970 KJII New Testament, the 1971 KJII by Jay Green, the 1990 Modern KJV by Jay Green, the Literal Translation in the Interlinear Bible by Jay Green, the 1994 KJ21 [21st Century KJV], the 1998 Third Millennium Bible, or the 2000 KJ2000 edited by Robert Couric.

Some KJV-only advocates will not even accept modern-spelling editions of the KJV, even claiming that some editions of the KJV are counterfeit.

 

Speaking only for myself, I do not accept the "NKJV" for various reasons;

One of which are the footnotes.
I don't have any use for translations of God's word that have them, including the Reformation-era ones.

Another reason I do not accept the NKJV is because it doesn't follow the TR Greek faithfully...and to me, that's not good enough.
An example of this can be found in Acts of the Apostles 3:26:

" To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one [of you] from your iniquities.” ( Acts of the Apostles 3:26, NKJV )
" Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities." ( Acts of the Apostles 3:26, AV ).

The Greek word that corresponds to the highlighted word in the text is, "παῖς" and is transliterated into English as " pais"...
It means "boy" or "son"...not "servant" which would be " διάκονος", transliterated as " diakonos" and means " deacon", "servant" or "minister".

Also in the above comparison, the NKJV puts "of you" into italics, while I don't see the Greek warranting it here:
https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/act3.pdf

To me, it should read the same, if not closely, to the AV if it were following the TR exactly.
The results of this difference changes the wording and context from "every one of you", which was the group Peter was speaking to on the day of Pentecost, to the less-defined and broader "everyone".


As for accepting or rejecting Green's or other versions of the "KJV", I'm unable to speak to that since I have not researched or read them, except in small readings.

 

Dave, certainly you have heard that the real 1611 and all following editions have footnotes. Footnotes are part of the KJV. To reject them is to reject the KJV.

 

KJV-only advocates claim that the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision were based on the same Greek text as the KJV is. Yet there are more significant textual differences and a greater number of textual differences between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV than any that KJV-only advocates claim to find between the KJV and the NKJV. Does that suggest that KJV-only allegations against the NKJV are based on use of unjust divers measures/standards?

How was the KJV completely faithful to the TR text by borrowing many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament translated from an edition of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome?

 

I have no idea where or why you make this connection...
As a person can reject the "trimmings" without rejecting the text.

For example, the Bible I use everyday does not have footnotes at the bottom of each page like the NKJV does.
It doesn't try to fill my head with added information about "variant readings", doubts the translators might have had about the veracity of the words on the page ( or in the TR that they were translating from ), or anything even remotely approaching "textual criticism" as found here in 1 John 5 of the NKJV:

Footnotes:

1. 1 John 5:4 M your
2. 1 John 5:7 NU, M omit the words from in heaven (v. 7) through on earth (v. 8). Only 4 or 5 very late mss. contain these words in Greek.
3. 1 John 5:9 NU God, that
4. 1 John 5:12 Or the life
5. 1 John 5:13 NU omits the rest of v. 13.
6. 1 John 5:18 guards
7. 1 John 5:18 NU him

Mine is a 1976 Thomas Nelson printing with a very few markers in the body of the text that point to other passages like a chain reference, it has a concordance at the back ( which I never use ) and a few "helpers" on the margin... which I also ignore because the editor seemed to be "hit and miss" about the word definitions that they tried to "help".

I also read it without paying any attention to the italics.

As it stands...
If it were possible for me to do so, I'd take an AV from a relatively late printing ( 50 to 75 years ago ) and delete all the things that were added by men...
I'd completely remove the chapter and verse distinctions, plus the punctuation marks that were put there over the centuries, and there would be nothing to look at except the words of each letter.

However, to avoid the "wall of text" that's left,
I might put in some paragraphs division where the subjects change.

That would be all, and that would be just fine with me.

 

Dave,
If you don't mind my asking, why do you keep pursuing this line of questioning with me?
Even if I were to say "yes", it could not be conclusively proven... so it's best that we don't even try to figure that out, isn't it?

I've already told you that when I hold an AV in my hand, I hold the word of God, in English, in my hands.
Mainly because of its quality of translation and because of its faithfulness to the TR and to the Ben Chayyim, I consider it to be superior to any of the ones that came before it, in English.

I also consider it to be superior to anything that I've seen so far, that claims to use the TR as its textual base in the Greek.

But when I hold an ESV in my hands, for example, what I have is not near as faithful and reliable as my AV...
Not even close.
Because of the use of the "Critical Text" as its Greek base, I will not use anything in English that makes use of it, I will not quote from it, nor will I consider that translation to be the unadulterated word of God...
For any reason.

I hope that helps to clarify my position.


This is my final reply in this thread.
Thank you for the privilege of answering your questions, my friend, and I wish you well, as always.

 

That would be an invalid or bogus reason. There are editions of the NKJV without any footnotes. I have a copy of one.

The 1611 KJV was made with some textual footnotes or marginal notes, which were intended to instruct believers against arrogant presumption or assumption. Some additional textual notes were added in the 1762 or 1769 editions of the KJV. There was also an edition of the KJV's NT printed in the 1800's that had thousands of textual notes from three Greek manuscripts that KJV-only advocates condemn. I have a copy of it.

 

Apparently the KJV Translators themselves, as well as their Translation disagrees with you. From the preface of The King James Version.

The Translators to the Reader

Reasons Moving Us To Set Diversity of Senses in the Margin, where there is Great Probability for Each
Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest
the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point. For though, whatsoever things are necessary are manifest, as S. Chrysostom saith, and as S. Augustine, In those things that are plainly set down in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concern Faith, Hope, and Charity. Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from loathing of them for their every-where plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God's spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve, to resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case
altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est dubitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis, it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain. There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, 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 as 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. Therefore as S. Augustine saith
that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. We know that Sixtus Quintus expressly forbiddeth, that any variety of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margin, (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we think he hath not all of his own side his favorers, for this conceit. They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other. If they were sure that their high Priest had all laws shut up in his breast, as Paul the Second bragged, and that he were as free from error by special privilege, as the Dictators of Rome were made by law inviolable, it were another matter; then his word were an Oracle, his opinion a decision. But the eyes of the world are now open, God be thanked, and have been a great while, they find that he is subject to the same affections and infirmities that others be, that his skin is penetrable, and therefore so much as he proveth, not as much as he claimeth, they grant and embrace

 

I have two Bibles that have very minimal intrusions into the text. One is a Bearing Precious Seed wide-margin KJV. There are neither notes, center references, commentary, maps, concordance, nor any of these things many Bible have. It does have "The Epistle Dedicatory" and a table of contents in the front, as well as chapters and verses. I would also be glad if they did not include the "self-pronouncing" markings, or the headings at the top of each page (e.g. Exodus 18, Jethro's wise counsel). If the print were a bit crisper that would be great, too, but overall I like it very much. This is my primary use Bible. For reading I also have a Holman KJV Reader's Bible. It has paragraph format instead of columns, and does not have chapters or verses. It does have the self-pronouncing markings, and I think maps in the back. Hardback rather than leather.

 

Examples of Bibles without verse numbers. The first one William Tyndale 1536, the second William Tyndale 1526.