• 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!

How is the KJV a Bible translation in any different sense than the NKJV is?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Why would that be a problem? The very name, King James Version, clearly expresses the recognition that it is a "version" of the Word of God. We simply believe that it is a perfectly preserved version in the English language.

The rest of my opening post indicated why that it would be a problem. My later post defining and explaining the term Bible translation also indicates why it would be a problem for human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning.

KJV-only advocates would seem to be using the term Bible translation or version univocally (with one meaning) for most Bible translations while attempting to use it equivocally (with a different meaning) concerning the KJV.

The KJV is a Bible translation/version in the same sense as each of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision is a Bible translation.

The KJV is a Bible translation/version is the same sense that the NKJV is a Bible translation/version.

The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same way that the 1560 Geneva Bible is the word of God translated into English and in the same way that the 1982 NKJV is the word of God translated into English.
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
You have not submitted any evidence to support your haughtily worded claim.
I am sorry you have such difficulty understanding rather simple sentences. Is English a second language for you?

I never mentioned any textform in the post you replied to.

Here, let me help you out. I said:
I believe all Greek textforms and all conservative English translations are preserved simply because we have them available to us today.
I have highlighted the part you seem so confused about. "ALL GREEK TEXTFORMS." That means the Alexandrian, Byantine, etc.

Then I said:
I have to believe in preservation of Scripture for we still have the scriptures, and when compared to the most ancient manuscripts and quotes by Patristics we can discern a consistancy.
In fact, many scholars believe the Early Church Fathers quote the entire New Testament in their writings.

You asked:
Are you sure about that?
So, again, yes, I am sure that most scholars believe the ECFs reproduced the entire New Testament. And as those readings agree with our present Greek manuscript evidence we can be assured we have the preserved word of God with us today.

If I can be of any additional assistance in helping you understand these facts just feel free to ask.
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
For an old man you act very juvenile. Congrats.
Yes, I can understand your being so embarrassed by your silly error of comprehension and your resulting childish need to engage in a personal attack.

But if it makes you feel better, please feel free. My shoulders are broad and I can carry the load for you.
 

SovereignGrace

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Why would that be a problem? The very name, King James Version, clearly expresses the recognition that it is a "version" of the Word of God. We simply believe that it is a perfectly preserved version in the English language.

And what evidence do you have that supports your belief that the KJV is a perfectly preserved version? Not being snarky, but I have read many posts on here over the years(since 2007), yet when asked, they say they use their faith to believe it.

From the movie El Dorado...

Milt:
You've got a lot of faith in me, don't ya Nelse?
Nelse McLeod:
Faith can move mountains, Milt. But it can't beat a faster draw. There's only three men I know with his kind of speed. One's dead. The other's me. And the third is Cole Thornton.
Cole:
There's a fourth.
Nelse McLeod:
Which one are you?
Cole:
I'm Thornton.
Nelse McLeod:
Aren't you glad you didn't try, Milt? Pick up your guns, both of you, real easy.
Cole:
Like he said, real easy.


You can say you have faith that it is perfect, but that faith does not amount to the evidence you need to provide to support you claim.
 

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Would KJV-only belief that the KJV is a translation of perfectly preserved copies possibly be based on assumptions that involve the use of fallacies such as begging the question, special pleading, and circular reasoning?
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Would KJV-only belief that the KJV is a translation of perfectly preserved copies possibly be based on assumptions that involve the use of fallacies such as begging the question, special pleading, and circular reasoning?
Would the KJVO position survive being subjected to the exact same standards they would place on other translations?
 

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
What exactly is meant by "perfectly preserved version"?

Does this refer to "jot and tittle" preservation, to exact word preservation, or to some type of vague, non-literal, dynamic-equivalent meaning preservation?

Will KJV defenders or KJV-only advocates clearly define their terms, show that they will apply the terms consistently and justly, and attempt to prove their assertions concerning the KJV to be true?

How does the KJV actually "perfectly preserve" every original-language word of Scripture?

According to the KJV translators themselves, the 1611 KJV does not provide an English rendering for every original-language word that the translators had in their underlying texts. In their 1611 marginal notes, the KJV translators admitted that they omitted translating some original-language words, and they also acknowledged that they added many words in English for which they had no original-language words of Scripture.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
What exactly is meant by "perfectly preserved version"?

Does this refer to "jot and tittle" preservation, to exact word preservation, or to some type of vague, non-literal, dynamic-equivalent meaning preservation?

Will KJV defenders or KJV-only advocates clearly define their terms, show that they will apply the terms consistently and justly, and attempt to prove their assertions concerning the KJV to be true?

How does the KJV actually "perfectly preserve" every original-language word of Scripture?

According to the KJV translators themselves, the 1611 KJV does not provide an English rendering for every original-language word that the translators had in their underlying texts. In their 1611 marginal notes, the KJV translators admitted that they omitted translating some original-language words, and they also acknowledged that they added many words in English for which they had no original-language words of Scripture.
Didn't the Kjv use 5 different TR texts, and also have some varients coming in from the Latin Vulgate?
 

atpollard

Well-Known Member
Didn't the Kjv use 5 different TR texts, and also have some varients coming in from the Latin Vulgate?

From Wikipedia, so use with caution:


New Testament
For their New Testament, the translators chiefly used the 1598 and 1588/89 Greek editions of Theodore Beza,[135] which also present Beza's Latin version of the Greek and Stephanus's edition of the Latin Vulgate. Both of these versions were extensively referred to, as the translators conducted all discussions amongst themselves in Latin. F.H.A. Scrivener identifies 190 readings where the Authorized Version translators depart from Beza's Greek text, generally in maintaining the wording of the Bishop's Bible and other earlier English translations.[136] In about half of these instances, the Authorized Version translators appear to follow the earlier 1550 Greek Textus Receptus of Stephanus. For the other half, Scrivener was usually able to find corresponding Greek readings in the editions of Erasmus, or in the Complutensian Polyglot. However, in several dozen readings he notes that no printed Greek text corresponds to the English of the Authorized Version, which in these places derives directly from the Vulgate.[137] For example, at John 10:16, the Authorized Version reads "one fold" (as did the Bishops' Bible, and the 16th century vernacular versions produced in Geneva), following the Latin Vulgate "unum ovile", whereas Tyndale had agreed more closely with the Greek, "one flocke" (μία ποίμνη). The Authorized Version New Testament owes much more to the Vulgate than does the Old Testament; still, at least 80% of the text is unaltered from Tyndale's translation.[138]
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

From Wikipedia, so use with caution:


New Testament
For their New Testament, the translators chiefly used the 1598 and 1588/89 Greek editions of Theodore Beza,[135] which also present Beza's Latin version of the Greek and Stephanus's edition of the Latin Vulgate. Both of these versions were extensively referred to, as the translators conducted all discussions amongst themselves in Latin. F.H.A. Scrivener identifies 190 readings where the Authorized Version translators depart from Beza's Greek text, generally in maintaining the wording of the Bishop's Bible and other earlier English translations.[136] In about half of these instances, the Authorized Version translators appear to follow the earlier 1550 Greek Textus Receptus of Stephanus. For the other half, Scrivener was usually able to find corresponding Greek readings in the editions of Erasmus, or in the Complutensian Polyglot. However, in several dozen readings he notes that no printed Greek text corresponds to the English of the Authorized Version, which in these places derives directly from the Vulgate.[137] For example, at John 10:16, the Authorized Version reads "one fold" (as did the Bishops' Bible, and the 16th century vernacular versions produced in Geneva), following the Latin Vulgate "unum ovile", whereas Tyndale had agreed more closely with the Greek, "one flocke" (μία ποίμνη). The Authorized Version New Testament owes much more to the Vulgate than does the Old Testament; still, at least 80% of the text is unaltered from Tyndale's translation.[138]
Si they seemed to have actually followed the way the Critical text editors did, by pulling together and complied from a mixture of sources what they regarded as representing the originals the best.
 

atpollard

Well-Known Member
So they seemed to have actually followed the way the Critical text editors did, by pulling together and complied from a mixture of sources what they regarded as representing the originals the best.
Yeah, I don't think they did bad for what they had. Obviously more manuscripts have been discovered, so a few minor edits along the way are probably justified. The biggest possible criticism is that they used secondary sources (someone had already compiled the Greek manuscript they used from multiple original manuscripts) so they were relying on the accuracy of others before even starting. I admit to knowing too little about Greek scholarship to know if this is potentially a big deal, or if this is less than a molehill.

The only 'bad' point to the KJV is the learning curve for the archaic language for a new Christian. One of it's best features is it has a good cadence for reading out loud. (Both in my opinion).
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yeah, I don't think they did bad for what they had. Obviously more manuscripts have been discovered, so a few minor edits along the way are probably justified. The biggest possible criticism is that they used secondary sources (someone had already compiled the Greek manuscript they used from multiple original manuscripts) so they were relying on the accuracy of others before even starting. I admit to knowing too little about Greek scholarship to know if this is potentially a big deal, or if this is less than a molehill.

The only 'bad' point to the KJV is the learning curve for the archaic language for a new Christian. One of it's best features is it has a good cadence for reading out loud. (Both in my opinion).
The Kjv was the most influential english version ever done, and is still a good version to use, but it does not have that "magical quality: that the KJVO have assigned to it!
 

David Kent

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I am not KJV only but I use it because I like it.

Our church uses the NIV which I think is a very bad version, not a translation.

You cannot have an accurate translation in English without the thee and thou, etc.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I am not KJV only but I use it because I like it.

Our church uses the NIV which I think is a very bad version, not a translation.

You cannot have an accurate translation in English without the thee and thou, etc.
I think that you can, see the updated Nas.Nkjv/Esv for examples!
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Our church uses the NIV which I think is a very bad version, not a translation.
"Very bad"? Really? On what basis? Why do you continue at your assembly if the preaching text is the NIV then?

How can you possibly say it's "not a translation"? Of course it is. s Your statement is as absurd as saying the KJV is not a translation.
You cannot have an accurate translation in English without the thee and thou, etc.
You have got to be putting us all on!
 

atpollard

Well-Known Member
"Very bad"? Really? On what basis? Why do you continue at your assembly if the preaching text is the NIV then?

How can you possibly say it's "not a translation"? Of course it is. s Your statement is as absurd as saying the KJV is not a translation.

You have got to be putting us all on!
While I don't agree with his rhetoric (there is some hyperbole involved) David Kent does make a valid point. The Old English of the KJV distinguishes between things like '"you" (just one person) and "you" (multiple people) ... the equivalent to "I" vs "We" ... in a way that Modern English does not. [Except in the South where we say "you" and "y'all", but I have not seen a 'Southern Bell' Translation of scripture.]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top