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

[Jordan Kurecki]

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.]

I believe it goes even further, “thou” and “ye” are always subjects, while “thee” and “you” are always objects.

 

[Rob_BW]

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.]

I heartily agree with all that you've said.

The question I see, then, is, if modern English has dropped the usage of these words, aren't there ways to convey the meaning using modern English?

Granted, it may require more than one English word per Greek word, which some find objectionable.

 

[TCassidy]

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

The KJV does help the reader understand the pronouns a lot better than the newer translations that use the generic "you."

The case and number of the pronouns can be easily identified in Greek, and the "thee, thou, thy, thine, ye, you" etc. of the KJV help to identify the case and number of the pronouns in English, which brings that often very valuable information from Greek into English.

There have been some suggestions put forth on a means to bring that information into the newer translations but so far none have been taken seriously.

The ASV of 1901 continued to use the old pronoun forms but it never really caught on with the bible reading public. But the updated ASV, the WEB, uses the generic "you."

Helpful things to remember.

“T” pronouns are singular (and always 2nd person)
Thou = subject form
Thee = object form
“Thy” & “Thine” show possession

“Y” pronouns are plural (and always 2nd-person)
Ye = Subject form
You = object form
“Your(s)” shows possession

 

[Logos1560]

I believe it goes even further, “thou” and “ye” are always subjects, while “thee” and “you” are always objects.

Was the pronoun "you" always used as objects in the 1611 edition of the KJV since later editors/printers changed a number of its uses of "you" to "ye" in later editions?

Genesis 9:4
shall you not eat (1611 London)
shall ye not eat (1660 London) [1760 Cambridge, 1769 Oxford]

Can you demonstrate that "you" is always used as an object at Genesis 45:8 in most KJV editions?

Genesis 45:8 [see Matt. 10:20, Mark 13:11--it is not ye that speak; Ps. 55:13] [you sent not--1560 Geneva; it was not ye that sent--1602 Bishops]

it was not ye that sent (1675 Oxford) (1660 London) (1809 Dublin)

it was not you that sent (1715, 1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629 Cambridge, DKJB]

 

[Yeshua1]

But not letter perfect agreement. Even among the Majority/Byzantine textform there are variants.

I believe all Greek textforms and all conservative English translations are preserved simply because we have them available to us today. I prefer the Byzantine textform and English bibles translated from that text form (KJV, NKJV, WEB, EMTV, etc.) based on my understanding of transmissional probability.

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.

His definition of scripture being preserved seems to be we have in the text behind the Kjv 100 % agreement with the originals!

 

[Yeshua1]

The KJV does help the reader understand the pronouns a lot better than the newer translations that use the generic "you."

The case and number of the pronouns can be easily identified in Greek, and the "thee, thou, thy, thine, ye, you" etc. of the KJV help to identify the case and number of the pronouns in English, which brings that often very valuable information from Greek into English.

There have been some suggestions put forth on a means to bring that information into the newer translations but so far none have been taken seriously.

The ASV of 1901 continued to use the old pronoun forms but it never really caught on with the bible reading public. But the updated ASV, the WEB, uses the generic "you."

Helpful things to remember.

“T” pronouns are singular (and always 2nd person)
Thou = subject form
Thee = object form
“Thy” & “Thine” show possession

“Y” pronouns are plural (and always 2nd-person)
Ye = Subject form
You = object form
“Your(s)” shows possession

What about the 1977 Nas, as mine still has the thee and thous in it?

 

[Yeshua1]

Can you name and identify the actual specific "perfectly preserved copies" from which the KJV was directly translated?

They used several different versions of the TR, and even brought in some from the latin Vulgate, so was the Vulgate also perfect?

 

[Dave G]

His definition of scripture being preserved seems to be we have in the text behind the Kjv 100 % agreement with the originals!

My definition as well.


Y1,
I can't help this, I have to do it....

Here's a comparison for you to see from the NASB:

" Have this attitude [e]in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be [f]grasped,
7 but [g]emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, [and] being made in the likeness of men.
8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death [h]on a cross." ( Phillippians 2:5-8, NASB )


" Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." ( Philippians 2:5-8, AV )

Do you see the differences?
It's because of the manuscript differences that you see the translation differences.


Now, which passage glorifies Jesus Christ as God, and which one calls Him a liar and a pretender?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

In excess of 30% of the Americans who read a Bible, read the KJV with less than 20% reading the NIV Bible and all other versions being in the single digit percentages.

Why would the Holy Spirit guide nearly a third of all of Christ's disciples to read a multiple century old translation if it were not specially 'blessed' by God?

Perhaps the Holy Spirit has guided almost 70% of American Christians not to read the KJV.

 

[atpollard]

Perhaps the Holy Spirit has guided almost 70% of American Christians not to read the KJV.

A valid interpretation of the data.
Although it would then also point to the HS not having a strong translation preference.

 

[Yeshua1]

My definition as well.


Y1,
I can't help this, I have to do it....

Here's a comparison for you to see from the NASB:

" Have this attitude [e]in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be [f]grasped,
7 but [g]emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, [and] being made in the likeness of men.
8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death [h]on a cross." ( Phillippians 2:5-8, NASB )


" Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." ( Philippians 2:5-8, AV )

Do you see the differences?
It's because of the manuscript differences that you see the translation differences.


Now, which passage glorifies Jesus Christ as God, and which one calls Him a liar and a pretender?

there is NO Greek source text 100% accurate to the originals, and there are no English translations perfect, without any errors/mistakes in them.
One can use the Nas/Nkjv/Esv among others, and there are NO watering down of doctrines to be found in any of them.

 

[rsr]

Y1,
I can't help this, I have to do it....

Here's a comparison for you to see from the NASB:

...

Do you see the differences?
It's because of the manuscript differences that you see the translation differences.


Now, which passage glorifies Jesus Christ as God, and which one calls Him a liar and a pretender?

Except that they aren't manuscript differences; they're translational differences.

 

[Yeshua1]

Except that they aren't manuscript differences; they're translational differences.

And i would suspect that many Greek scholars would actually see the Nas as being more formal/literal in those passages!

 

[Yeshua1]

My definition as well.


Y1,
I can't help this, I have to do it....

Here's a comparison for you to see from the NASB:

" Have this attitude [e]in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be [f]grasped,
7 but [g]emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, [and] being made in the likeness of men.
8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death [h]on a cross." ( Phillippians 2:5-8, NASB )


" Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." ( Philippians 2:5-8, AV )

Do you see the differences?
It's because of the manuscript differences that you see the translation differences.


Now, which passage glorifies Jesus Christ as God, and which one calls Him a liar and a pretender?

Both Translations honor and glorify God though!

 

[Dave G]

Except that they aren't manuscript differences; they're translational differences.

You've seen the CT versus the TR in the Greek?

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

My definition as well.


Y1,
I can't help this, I have to do it....

Here's a comparison for you to see from the NASB:

" Have this attitude [e]in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be [f]grasped,
7 but [g]emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, [and] being made in the likeness of men.
8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death [h]on a cross." ( Phillippians 2:5-8, NASB )


" Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." ( Philippians 2:5-8, AV )

Do you see the differences?
It's because of the manuscript differences that you see the translation differences.


Now, which passage glorifies Jesus Christ as God, and which one calls Him a liar and a pretender?

The differences are in fact translation differences. I believe the Nasb translation is not nearly as accurate as the KJV.

 

[Dave G]

The differences are in fact translation differences. I believe the Nasb translation is not nearly as accurate as the KJV.

To me, a fairly bad attempt at translation then, if the NASB committee ended up with "did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped" ( which means that Jesus thought that equality with God was out of His reach ) instead of " thought it not robbery to be equal with God" ( which means that He thought that it was not stealing from God's glory to consider Himself equal with God ).

Comparing most of the newer English translations, I find the same or a similar rendering of the NASB in nearly all of them, except the NKJV and a very few others )...which makes Jesus out to be a liar and a pretender when compared to passages in the Gospels which clearly show Him as being God in the flesh.


Here's the same passage in the ESV, which I've shortened to just verse 6:

" who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped," ( Philippians 2:6, ESV )


Now let's add some other translations:

" Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;" ( Philippians 2:6, NIV )
" who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage." ( Philippians 2:6, HSB ( Holman ) )

" who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped," ( Philippians 2:6, RSV )

" who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped. " ( Philippians 2:6, ASV-1901 )



So how it is not a manuscript problem?

 

[Dave G]

Both Translations honor and glorify God though!

Perhaps in some areas, Y1, but to me, it's been gradually eroding ( over the past 150 years or so ) in most of the more modern translations since the ASV was translated.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

To me, a fairly bad attempt at translation then, if the NASB committee ended up with "did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped" ( which means that Jesus thought that equality with God was out of His reach ) instead of " thought it not robbery to be equal with God" ( which means that He thought that it was not stealing from God's glory to consider Himself equal with God ).

Comparing most of the newer English translations, I find the same or a similar rendering of the NASB in nearly all of them, except the NKJV and a very few others )...which makes Jesus out to be a liar and a pretender when compared to passages in the Gospels which clearly show Him as being God in the flesh.


Here's the same passage in the ESV, which I've shortened to just verse 6:

" who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped," ( Philippians 2:6, ESV )


Now let's add some other translations:

" Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;" ( Philippians 2:6, NIV )
" who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage." ( Philippians 2:6, HSB ( Holman ) )

" who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped," ( Philippians 2:6, RSV )

" who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped. " ( Philippians 2:6, ASV-1901 )



So how it is not a manuscript problem?

I am KJO and use to often say the same thing. But looking at the NASB and ESV honestly it seems to be saying that Jesus did not consider equality with God to be grasped, because he already is God. You don’t have to grasp at something that you already have. I prefer the KJV because it’s more clear.

For example, Lebron James does not consider professional basketball status as something to be grasped.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

So how it is not a manuscript problem?

It's not a manuscript problem SFAIK. It's a question of how to translate the Greek word harpagmos. It occurs only here (Phil 2:6) in the NT so it has been hard to know how best to translate it. It was known from the verb harpazo that it has to do with robbery,grasping, seizing or holding, hence the different translations. My rather ancient Liddell & Scott Lexicon gives 'robbery.'

Recently, however, some bright chap has analysed all its appearances in Greek literature and shown that it means something held to one's advantage, like a 'get out of jail free' card in Monopoly. It pains me to say it, but only the NIV 2011 (being the most recent translation) gets it more or less right.

As usual, I am open to correction by those whose knowledge of Greek is either better or more up-to-date than mine.