God forbid.
-
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!
Is “God Forbid” a Mistranslation in the KJV?
- Thread starter Alan Gross
- Start date
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
Tell this to someone 18 years old.
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
God forbid.
"God forbid", is a prayer to God, in the Word of God, including the Subject, "God", by the formal equivalence of continuous translational invariance and contextual symmetry (and was around, in writing, many moons before having had any misplaced confusion with dynamic equivalence.)
I read the thread. I'm not placing it anywhere, BTW. It isn't a hill I would die upon either way.
There are other passages and issues that would concern me more, of I were interested in debating one translation of God's Word against another.
But I'm not.
I was just making a tongue in cheek post to @Deacon
It's worth ignoring
You did not demonstrate any one of my statements that you quoted not to be true. You seek to dismiss and avoid the truth or you close your eyes to it.
Instead of accepting the truth, you choose to deceive yourself by believing claims for the KJV that are not true and believing accusations against the NKJV that are not unjust, based on divers measures [double standards].
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
I read the thread. I'm not placing it anywhere, BTW. It isn't a hill I would die upon either way.
There are other passages and issues that would concern me more, of I were interested in debating one translation of God's Word against another.
But I'm not.
I was just making a tongue in cheek post to @Deacon
It's worth ignoring
Nah, it's all good. I love it. Thanks.
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
This is not all your fault.
I chose to post in a forum where I'm a little bound, where I'd rather not be, i.e.,
"9. Certain terms are off limits in this forum.
"For example:
One makes as much sense as the other.
Anyway, I am a #2, despite the potential for the mistaken identity of a #3-5, etc.
But, for the sake of being sure to keep arguing with you, it drives me nuts, I also have to admit, with what Google calls the "fallacy of circular argument, known as petitio principii (“begging the question”), that occurs when the premises presume, openly or covertly, the very conclusion that is to be demonstrated."
Oh, well. Too bad for me.
And, even though you didn't mean to state that that way, (or maybe there was a footnote I missed that calls it into question?), directly observing the specific NKJV is not what you want, I don't think.
Especially, not with its dreaded footnotes!
I chose to post in a forum where I'm a little bound, where I'd rather not be, i.e.,
"9. Certain terms are off limits in this forum.
"For example:
- "The KJVO crowd will not not refer to the Modern Versions as "perversions," "satanic," "devil's bibles," etc...nor call those that use them "Bible correctors," "Bible doubters," etc."
One makes as much sense as the other.
Anyway, I am a #2, despite the potential for the mistaken identity of a #3-5, etc.
But, for the sake of being sure to keep arguing with you, it drives me nuts, I also have to admit, with what Google calls the "fallacy of circular argument, known as petitio principii (“begging the question”), that occurs when the premises presume, openly or covertly, the very conclusion that is to be demonstrated."
Oh, well. Too bad for me.
And, even though you didn't mean to state that that way, (or maybe there was a footnote I missed that calls it into question?), directly observing the specific NKJV is not what you want, I don't think.
Especially, not with its dreaded footnotes!
They would not be "dreaded footnotes" according to the KJV translators in their 1611 preface. The 1611 edition itself had a few of those same kind of textual footnotes. Evidently you do not apply the same exact measures/standards to the textual notes in the 1611 edition of the KJV. The presence of one such textual note in the 1611 KJV or in any other editions of the KJV would condemn the KJV-only view for its inconsistency, hypocrisy, or unjust divers measures when it strongly blasts the NKJV and other translations for the same-type notes.
God has not given me a spirit of fear of actual facts concerning Greek New Testament manuscripts.
Alan, do your allegations against the NKJV clearly demonstrate that you do not approach the NKJV with the same attitude with which you would approach the 1560 Geneva Bible or the 1611 KJV?
You seem to approach the NKJV as a Bible critic instead as a serious, seeking reader of a Bible translation. Evidently, you may come to inspect a mirror [the NKJV] (perhaps using a magnifying glass) instead of coming to see yourself in this mirror of the Scriptures translated into present-day English in the NKJV. Do you only look inconsistently and critically at this mirror and refuse to look in it? Would you read the NKJV as the word of God translated into English and with a willingness to obey and apply the scriptural truths in its verses to your own life? Because you may come to the NKJV solely as a critic or because you may read against it, you may be unable to see that it would belong in the same family or line of Bible translations as the Geneva Bible and the KJV.
Perhaps your own KJV-only bias could prevent you from being able to see the places where the Geneva Bible and the NKJV more accurately translates the same underlying original-language texts of Scripture than the KJV does.
You seem to approach the NKJV as a Bible critic instead as a serious, seeking reader of a Bible translation. Evidently, you may come to inspect a mirror [the NKJV] (perhaps using a magnifying glass) instead of coming to see yourself in this mirror of the Scriptures translated into present-day English in the NKJV. Do you only look inconsistently and critically at this mirror and refuse to look in it? Would you read the NKJV as the word of God translated into English and with a willingness to obey and apply the scriptural truths in its verses to your own life? Because you may come to the NKJV solely as a critic or because you may read against it, you may be unable to see that it would belong in the same family or line of Bible translations as the Geneva Bible and the KJV.
Perhaps your own KJV-only bias could prevent you from being able to see the places where the Geneva Bible and the NKJV more accurately translates the same underlying original-language texts of Scripture than the KJV does.
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
Your castigation and disenfranchisement of presumed KJVO-types is nothing compared to the castigation and disenfranchisement the Bible has received from the NKJV revisionists.
I'm sorry, I thought everyone would know or could find out.
I fall into another hornets nest of flailing swatting defenders of the direction certain versions have taken, as if there was something at stake, every day.
And there is.
Absolute delusion instead of overwhelming, but possibly recoverable, delusion.
"...NKJV's adherence to the Majority Text (which has ties to the Textus Receptus) is accused of violating the spirit of open scholarship and open inquiry, and to ascribe a level of perfection to the documents available to the 17th century scholars that they would not have claimed for them.
"However, not all textual critics agree that the earliest manuscripts are the most accurate. Alternative readings based on other texts do appear as footnotes in the New King James Version, and unlike other translations (such as the New International Version), the NKJV does not contain value comments like "the best manuscripts add, etc." Instead, the footnotes simply state which manuscript sets do not contain the passage (similar to the approach previously taken by the New World Translation) of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
"However, this is unlikely to placate those who feel that the "Johannine Comma" (at 1 John 5:7), for example, is not a legitimate portion of scripture and should not be treated as such. The NKJV holds to a loose stance for the Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text, but incorporates other corrupt manuscripts in its footnotes and follows corrupt definitions from other versions, which in doing so, reveals their belief that the KJV is in error in 1000’s of places.
"The Hebrew Text that the NKJV is translated from is slightly different from the Masoretic text used by the KJV. The KJV is primarily translated from the Bomberg edition (1524-25) of the Masoretic text prepared by Jacob ben Chayyim.
"The NKJV uses the 1967/77 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica, with frequent comparisons made with the Bomberg edition of 1525.
"In addition the NKJV consulted, the LXX or Septuagint Greek Old Testament, the Latin Vulgate a variety of ancient versions of the Hebrew Scriptures, as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls (NKJV preface, p.vi)."
from: New King James Version - Textus Receptus
So, the NKJV is truly, at best,
"A bridge translation to Westcott and Hort", which this article goes on to discuss.
I'm sorry, I thought everyone would know or could find out.
I fall into another hornets nest of flailing swatting defenders of the direction certain versions have taken, as if there was something at stake, every day.
And there is.
Absolute delusion instead of overwhelming, but possibly recoverable, delusion.
"...NKJV's adherence to the Majority Text (which has ties to the Textus Receptus) is accused of violating the spirit of open scholarship and open inquiry, and to ascribe a level of perfection to the documents available to the 17th century scholars that they would not have claimed for them.
"However, not all textual critics agree that the earliest manuscripts are the most accurate. Alternative readings based on other texts do appear as footnotes in the New King James Version, and unlike other translations (such as the New International Version), the NKJV does not contain value comments like "the best manuscripts add, etc." Instead, the footnotes simply state which manuscript sets do not contain the passage (similar to the approach previously taken by the New World Translation) of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
"However, this is unlikely to placate those who feel that the "Johannine Comma" (at 1 John 5:7), for example, is not a legitimate portion of scripture and should not be treated as such. The NKJV holds to a loose stance for the Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text, but incorporates other corrupt manuscripts in its footnotes and follows corrupt definitions from other versions, which in doing so, reveals their belief that the KJV is in error in 1000’s of places.
"The Hebrew Text that the NKJV is translated from is slightly different from the Masoretic text used by the KJV. The KJV is primarily translated from the Bomberg edition (1524-25) of the Masoretic text prepared by Jacob ben Chayyim.
"The NKJV uses the 1967/77 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica, with frequent comparisons made with the Bomberg edition of 1525.
"In addition the NKJV consulted, the LXX or Septuagint Greek Old Testament, the Latin Vulgate a variety of ancient versions of the Hebrew Scriptures, as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls (NKJV preface, p.vi)."
from: New King James Version - Textus Receptus
So, the NKJV is truly, at best,
"A bridge translation to Westcott and Hort", which this article goes on to discuss.
You choose to believe biased, deluded, erroneous KJV-only articles. You choose to believe false accusations and delusions concerning the NKJV. Your eyes are closed to the truth as you choose to deceive yourself or choose to allow yourself to be deceived by KJV-only sources. Your favored article appeals to the guilt-by-association fallacy and other false arguments.
According to that type erroneous reasoning, the KJV would be a bridge translation to Roman Catholic Bibles since it borrowed many, many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament translated from Jerome's Latin Vulgate.
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
‘Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honour’
The wisdom that I seek to present is the wisdom from God above which is without partiality (James 3:17). It is God's wisdom and truth that teaches me the scripturally-based points that I have presented. My appeal is to scriptural truth consistently and justly applied. It is the just application of scriptural truths that reveals the problems with human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching.
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
See, where you say, "a few of those same kind of textual footnotes".
"Those same kind of textual footnotes"
wouldn't refer to the same "kind" of subject-matter, would they?
If not, then the following is even more bizarre than it already is:
You see what you are saying,
"The presence of one such textual note"
(of any "kind" of subject matter (?),
"in the 1611 KJV or in any other editions of the KJV"
= (?)
"would condemn the KJV-only view
for its inconsistency, hypocrisy, or unjust divers measures" (?)
That's pretty incredible.
Heavy condemnation. Several.
Then, you double down on "the same-type notes";
"it strongly blasts the NKJV
and other translations for the same-type notes"
"Same-type" as to what? The fact that there is a footnote?
You do say, just "one" counts
as inconsistency, hypocrisy, or unjust divers measures, to you.
So, no matter what "kind" of subject matter, the quality OR the quantity?
That's consistent, non-hypocritical, or just measures?
Wild.
Are you sure?
"actual facts concerning Greek New Testament manuscripts"
Are you? Sure?
I've seen (above, for one example)
what you consider my "same attitude".
You miss my entire point, however.
The "same attitude" (regardless of what it is)
"with which you would approach the 1560 Geneva Bible
or the 1611 KJV" has precious little to do
with my insistence that the approach toward comparison includes:
1. the intent of the translation, (& vs the stated intent),
2. the texts (which we just mentioned a little,
of which you may stick with the Geneva, KJV, and NKJV being from the same texts, which you say over and over, and is a deal killer),
3. the translators,
4. the translators' attitude and philosophy,
5. the publishing and revision committees
and their attitude and philosophy,
6. the resulting product,
7. Future additions, corrections, omissions,
editions, revisions, etc., (if you want 7, altogether.)
Right now, as I said, we're on #2, comparing the texts.
The footnotes would have to do with #2, too, as well as, #4 & 5, I suppose.
So, we talked about them a second.
"your own KJV-only bias". I am KJV-only, in the sense Dr. Bob advised me to identify myself as a #2, while you lump me into a #3,4,&5, which is inconsistent, hypocrisy, or unjust divers measures.
Yuk, yuk, yuk, yuk, yuk, yuk.
"the NKJV more accurately translates the same underlying original-language texts of Scripture than the KJV does" Does it really?
What about that?
If so, it is not an issue.
Other than if you're saying the KJV sucks and is a liar, etc.
No issue, at all.
con't
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
I do not see "God forbid" as a "dynamic equivalent rendering."
You do.
I see it for what it is.
An invocation.
"God forbid", is a prayer to God, in the Word of God, including the Subject, "God", indicating the prayer's recoil of abhorrence by the formal equivalence of continuous translational invariance and contextual symmetry (and was around, in writing, many moons before having had any misplaced confusion with dynamic equivalence.)
The word is taken straight from the original language prayer, in this case, to Divinity, "God", and transported directly into English, as "God forbid", not changing a thing, except its position, which is only before different readers, is all.
from: Is “God Forbid” a Mistranslation in the KJV?
“God forbid” or “May it not be” in Romans 3:4, et al.? - KJV Today
"Μη γενοιτο is a prayer."
"Contrary to what many critics believe, the idiom, “God forbid” did not originate in English.
"It is an idiom of biblical Hebrew origin, first introduced in 1 Samuel 24:6: “The LORD forbid that I should do this thing….” (ESV, NIV).
"Thus the idiom has biblical precedent and is legitimate.
"The charge, however, is that the word “God (θεός)” is not in the Greek "μη γενοιτο" in Romans 3:4 and elsewhere.
"The Greek literally says “become (optative) not.”
"However, the verb in the optative mood expresses a strong negative wish in the strongest of terms, even invoking a "prayer":
"The voluntative optative seems to be used this way in the language of prayer.
"Again, as with μη γενοιτο, it is largely a carry-over from Attic even though its meaning has changed.
"This is not due to any substantive change in syntax, but is rather due to a change in theological perspective.
"Prayers offered to the semi-gods of ancient Athens could expect to be haggled over, rebuffed, and left unanswered.
"But the God of the NT was bigger than that.
"The prayers offered to him depend on his sovereignty and goodness.
"Thus, although the form of much prayer language in the NT has the tinge of remote possibility when it is offered to the God who raised Jesus Christ from the dead, its meaning often moves into the realm of expectation.
"If uncertainty is part of the package, it is not due to questions of God's ability, but simply to the petitioner's humility before the transcendent one." (Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics at 481).
"Daniel Wallace in no uncertain terms acknowledges that μη γενοιτο is a language of prayer carried over from Attic Greek.
"Whereas the Athenians directed the plea "μη γενοιτο" to their pagan gods, the writers of the New Testament direct this same prayer phrase to God.
"Thus when a New Testament writer says "μη γενοιτο," the implied subject is God.
"God" is made explicit, but not added.
The KJV translators did not add "God" in translating μη γενοιτο, but merely made explicit the subject that was implicit in Greek. Such a practice is so common in translation that it is never an issue. [End of comments from KJV Today article]
The proper force of this Greek phrase 'me genoito' is to express a negative in the strongest of possible terms.
"The English expression "God forbid" perfectly and accurately conveys the force of this thought, whereas such phases as "may it not be" come across as prissy and effeminate.
Mr. Kutilek chides our AV because "God" is not literally found in the text.
In spite of all his learning, he has little understanding of how languages work and exalts his opinion above any bible version out there today.
God forbid. No issue here.
How about, "no", the Truth doesn't always follow in the same set of tracks, otherwise we couldn't have different words representing the same thing, or any form of translation from the original, at all.
I see is a plain 'ol formal equivalence, as much as they did (in a hundred versions that translated it "God forbid", a thousand years, I means, a thousand times.)
Not so. Unmitigated categorical denunciation.
"KJVOnlyism is a false teaching." Yes, it is.
KJVOnly #2 Only (with more qualifications,
I am intent on writing into a swore statement of belief).
"use their false sources" What have I quoted that is false? or what is at their sites that is false, apart from their KJVOnlyism, which is a false teaching?
Btw, I'd like to see something posted onto the entire internet in the last 6-months more God-honoring than my thread, Is “God Forbid” a Mistranslation in the KJV?
Show me.
con't
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
KJV-only.
KJV-only reasoning.
You wouldn't be able to post any Dr. Peter Ruckmanism, that is from me.
I condemn, as spurious, the Occult versions, if that is what you want to know.
"your own stated claims in your posts measure up to what constitutes being KJV-only. Some of your own statements in your posts clearly display KJV-only reasoning/teaching" Name one?
Yes, I do, by the seven criteria, above.
"You have not proven from Scripture that God was any more involved in the making of the KJV than God was also involved in the making of the NKJV."
In your favor, they include I John 5:6-8 in the NKJV. God, I would believe and I appreciate that.
"6 This is He who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7 For there are three that bear witness https://biblehub.com/nkjv/1_john/5.htm#footnotesin heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one."
I do not appreciate their footnote, which is an astounding falsehood.
b. 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.
from: I John 5:7
"George Travis documented 31 Greek manuscripts that bore witness to I John 5:7 - (Letters to Edward George Gibbon, Esq. Forgotten Books, p. 285)
"One must never think there are only 9 (or 4 or 5(?) Greek manuscripts that contain the passage."
"The same Holy Spirit"
Ecclesiastes: ‘Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savor: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honor’ (10.1), is a witness against the NKJV.
"...while using the Received Text, it contains in its marginal references variant readings from these defective Alexandrian manuscripts.
"When examined, these marginal readings are seen to cast doubt on such fundamental doctrines as;
"the Eternal Generation of the Son,
John 1.18 – ‘the only begotten Son’
becomes ‘the only begotten God’
"the Union of Christ’s Deity and Humanity,
1 Corinthians 15.47 – omission of ‘the Lord’;
"the Incarnation,
1 Timothy 3.16 – ‘God’ changed to ‘Who’;
"the Blood Atonement,
Colossians 1.14 – ‘through his blood’ is left out;
"and the Eternal Conscious Punishment of the Wicked in Hell,
Mark 9.46 – omission of ‘Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched’
"Here is a clear case of what the Scripture refers to in Ecclesiastes."
Where was The Holy Spirit when they translated these verses and cut out the Deity mentioned, the Blood, and Hell?
We're talking about my criteria listed, as #6, the resulting product, now.
What do you think about all this?
I never hear these issues addressed.
Yeah, no issue.
"the same original-language texts", if we do, but I see them as having been quite different, despite what they claim.
If you hold to this, we have a disagreement, we must agree to disagree about.
The accurate term KJV-only does not equate to Ruckmanism. It can be a bogus attempt to deny being KJV-only by merely attempting to equate KJV-onlyism with Ruckmanism since those two different terms do not have the same meaning.
The accurate term KJV-only has to do with a person's beliefs and claims concerning the KJV. It does not have to do with their beliefs and claims concerning Peter Ruckman.
Someone can disagree with Peter Ruckman and still be very much KJV-only. For example, D. A. Waite strongly condemns some claims of Peter Ruckman, but he still advocates a KJV-only view. He is an example of a person who incorrectly tried to associate the accurate term KJV-only with Ruckmanism.
Some KJV defenders strongly object to being identified accurately as KJV-only even though they clearly have made exclusive claims for only one English Bible translation--the KJV. For one example, D. A. Waite has clearly made some exclusive "only" claims for the KJV that would provide valid, sound, convincing evidence for considering his position to be a form of “KJV-only” view. D. A. Waite claimed: "There are no good translations except the King James Bible" (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 129). Waite asserted: "The King James Bible is the only accurate English translation in existence today" (p. 47). Waite declared: "If you use any other version than the King James Bible you are tampering with the Words of God" (p. 136). Waite claimed: "The King James Bible is always superior to all others in the English language" (p. 80). Waite declared: “I believe that the King James Bible is the only one that English speaking Christians ought to use” (p. 5). Waite wrote: "The only valid Bible is the King James Bible" (p. 131). Waite asserted: “I believe that one translation should be set up as a standard. The translation of the King James Bible is a standard” (p. 23). Waite claimed: “Loyalty to Christ and His Words are measured by what version you use” (p. 133). Waite declared: “It is my firm conviction that anyone who does not use the King James Bible to preach from, teach from, or study from has something defective in that individual’s knowledge of the Scriptures” (p. 144). In another book, Waite stated: “I am one of the Christians who contend that only the King James Bible gives us the Words of God in English” (Fundamental Deception, p. 33). Waite maintained that the KJV "is the only acceptable translation from the preserved Hebrew and Greek texts" and "is the only true Bible in the English language" (Fuzzy Facts, pp. 8-9). Waite asserted that the KJV “is the only accurate translation” or “the only accurate, faithful, and true translation” (Critical Answer to James Price’s, pp. 5, 41, 131). Waite wrote: “The King James Bible, because of its accurate translation of those Words [Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek], can honestly and truly be called God’s Words kept intact in English” (p. 109). Waite asserted: "I do not say that the King James Bible is 'fallible' or 'errant.' I don't believe that there are any translation errors in the King James Bible” (Fuzzy Facts, p. 44). Waite declared: “I have said many times before, and I believe, that there are no ‘translational errors’ In the King James Bible” (Critical Answer to Michael Sproul’s, p. 42). When Waite himself directly contended that the KJV “is ’God’s Word kept intact’” and that “intact” means “not touched” and “nothing harms or defiles it,” he would seem to be in effect or in practice trying to claim or at least imply perfection for the translating in the KJV (Defending the KJB, p. 1). Waite asserted: “The KING JAMES BIBLE is the Word of God in English, and the other versions are not” (p. 52).
Regardless of his own direct statements making exclusive only claims for the KJV, D. A. Waite asserted: “I do not go along with that ‘KJV-Only’ term” (Critical Answer to Michael Sproul’s, p. 13), and he declared: “I am not a ‘KJV-only’ advocate” (p. 69).. Waite alleged that KJV-only is “a slanderous smear term” (p. 13), but he failed to prove his allegation to be true. Is it not clear that Waite’s very own stated exclusive, only claims for the KJV would demonstrate that the term can be properly, accurately, truthfully, and honestly applied to Waite’s own stated views? It would not be at all slanderous or libelous to apply the accurate, defined term KJV-only to Waite’s own exclusive only claims for the KJV. According to his own statements, Waite does appear to use “only” in the literal sense of “no other” or “solely and exclusively” concerning English Bible translations. Does Waite in effect attempt to ignore and avoid a definition of KJV as being an English Bible translation when he indicated a definition of the term KJV-only that was a definition for the word “only”—“no other, solely, exclusively” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 138)? Waite’s definition could be considered a partial and incomplete one since it does not soundly and accurately define KJV-only reasoning/teaching and what constitutes it according to those who use the term. Waite failed to demonstrate that he defines the term according to the meaning intended by those who use the term soundly and accurately.
Does D. A. Waite [and some other KJV-only advocates] in effect try to have it both ways by making exclusive only claims for the KJV while trying to deny holding any form of a KJV-only view? As an old saying goes: “If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.” Likewise, if it looks like KJV-onlyism, walks like KJV-onlyism, and quacks or talks like KJV-onlyism, it is KJV-onlyism.
D. A. Waite seeks to maintain that the term KJV-only should apply only to Peter Ruckman and his followers. Waite tried to suggest that the “KJV-only camp” is “the Peter Ruckman camp” (Critical Answer to Michael Sproul’s, p. 100). Waite contended that KJV-only “is a term for the Ruckmanites” (p. 67). Waite alleged that “Ruckman does not believe the Bible should be in Spanish, English, Russian, French, or any other language” (Critical Answer to James Price’s, p. 9). Waite claimed: “The Ruckman position’s ‘only’ is ‘only’ in English (no Spanish, no Italian, no French” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 20). Waite’s factually incorrect claims would misrepresent and distort what Ruckman has actually written.
According to a just application of Waite’s incomplete definition, Peter Ruckman would not be KJV-only since Ruckman does not claim that the word of God is only in the English KJV and does not claim that all Bible translations in other languages are not the word of God. Peter Ruckman asserted: “There is nothing wrong with a missionary using the Diodati translation in Italy instead of the Authorized Version. There is nothing wrong with a missionary using the Olivetan version in France instead of the Authorized Version, and there is nothing wrong with a missionary in Germany using Luther’s version instead of the Authorized Version” (Bible Babel, p. 2). Peter Ruckman recommended “Valera’s Spanish version” and “Martin Luther's German version" (Scholarship Only Controversy, p. 1). In his commentary on the book of Revelation, Peter Ruckman wrote: “Martin Luther’s German Bible is the same text as the King James, 1611” (p. 80). Ruckman wrote: “Martin’s German Bible is the German King James Bible. It is the equivalent of the ‘King’s English,’ and so all affirm” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 146). Ruckman wrote: “God produced a German Textus Receptus for the Continent” (p. 230). Ruckman asserted: “Never hesitate to correct any Greek text with the text of the ‘Reichstext’” (Monarch of the Books, p. 19). Perhaps D. A, Waite attempted to define the accurate term KJV-only too narrowly or tried to misrepresent or distort its meaning. Someone can be strongly anti-Ruckman and still be KJV-only. Perhaps Waite should have been more careful with the truth since it is clear that he made some misleading or incorrect claims that misrepresented Ruckman’s own stated views.
Last edited:
I have a hardback copy of the NKJV that has no textual notes. It may be a pew Bible edition. If someone wanted to read the NKJV without its textual notes, they could do so.
I have a copy of a reprint of a 1672 edition of the KJV that has the marginal notes of the 1560 Geneva Bible.
I have a copy of the 1869 edition of the KJV’s N. T. that had hundreds of textual marginal notes from Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Alexandrinus.
Would it be sound and correct to condemn the text of the KJV's NT because of all the textual marginal notes in this 1869 edition of the KJV? Should the KJV be condemned because it was printed with a margin which references variant readings from these Alexandrian manuscripts?
I have a KJV/NKJV Parallel Bible that has the textual notes of the NKJV. Should the KJV be condemned because of these textual notes that are printed with it?
I have a copy of a reprint of a 1672 edition of the KJV that has the marginal notes of the 1560 Geneva Bible.
I have a copy of the 1869 edition of the KJV’s N. T. that had hundreds of textual marginal notes from Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Alexandrinus.
Would it be sound and correct to condemn the text of the KJV's NT because of all the textual marginal notes in this 1869 edition of the KJV? Should the KJV be condemned because it was printed with a margin which references variant readings from these Alexandrian manuscripts?
I have a KJV/NKJV Parallel Bible that has the textual notes of the NKJV. Should the KJV be condemned because of these textual notes that are printed with it?
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
"God forbid!"
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
"Perfectly natural, perfectly normal."