Is the KJV shown proper respect by avoiding the truth?

[Logos1560]

Typical KJV-only allegations against the NKJV would clearly demonstrate that many KJV-only advocates or KJV defenders do not approach the NKJV with the same attitude with which they would approach the Geneva Bible or the KJV. They seem to approach the NKJV as a Bible critic instead as a serious, seeking reader of a Bible translation.

Evidently, KJV-only advocates come to inspect a mirror [the NKJV] (perhaps using a magnifying glass) instead of coming to see themselves in this mirror of the Scriptures translated into present-day English in the NKJV. Do they only look inconsistently and critically at this mirror and refuse to look in it? Would they 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 their own lives? Because they may come to the NKJV solely as a critic or because they may read against it, they may be unable to see that it would belong in the same family of Bible translations as the Geneva Bible and the KJV. They do not respect, accept, or believe the NKJV as a good Bible translation which can communicate to them the words of God in English. Could KJV-only advocates suppose that they see errors in the NKJV because they had already assumed that they are there or because they have been told that they were there?

Perhaps their own KJV-only bias could prevent them 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.

Could rejection of consistent truth and actual facts and refusal to apply just measures/standards keep them from being able to see that the NKJV would be clearly a better overall English translation than the Geneva Bible which KJV-only authors have praised?

KJV-only advocates will inconsistently accuse others of being critics while they themselves may act as subjective, intemperate, extreme critics of Bible translations such as the NKJV.

 

[Logos1560]

Which one would that be?

The NKJV is one example.

 

[Jerome]

A faithful and modern English translation in present-day English has been produced....the NKJV

Which other MVs are faithful?
Which ones aren't? Be specific.

 

[Dave G]

The NKJV is one example.

I've read from it and I disagree... as it appears to mix in Critical Text readings in various places and does not stick strictly to the TR, as I see it.

I done the research very thoroughly on this subject for over two decades now...
To me, it has nothing to do with personal bias, and has everything to do with these last days and Satan's very short time before the Lord comes again.

In addition, this will be my final reply in this thread.

You all know where I stand, despite the seeming continued desire to change my mind.
I respect all of you, but in some areas we will simply have to disagree.

Again, may God bless you.

 

[Logos1560]

The KJV may have all the same type human shortcomings as the present English Bible translations have.

Perhaps, but we doubt it.
Many of us see something a bit more serious at work now, than what was at work in the making of Bible translations then.

You may doubt it because of erroneous, human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching.

Because of your bias and assumptions, you may jump to wrong opinions concerning the making of English Bible translations today.

 

[Logos1560]

I've read from it and I disagree... as it appears to mix in Critical Text readings in various places and does not stick strictly to the TR, as I see it.
.

It has not been soundly proven that the NKJV mixes in Critical Text readings in various places.

You may be jumping to the incorrect opinion that some differences in translation are textual when they are not.

The truth is that there would be far fewer possible textual variations between the KJV and the NKJV than there would be between the Geneva Bible and the KJV.

 

[rlvaughn]

It has not been soundly proven that the NKJV mixes in Critical Text readings in various places.

Mark Ward, author of Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible, in an exchange with Kent Brandenburg, admitted to six difficulties.

There are six places in the NT—Luke 1:35; Col 3:17; Jude 3; and now 2 Cor 13:14; 4:14; 2 John 1:7—that Kent has brought to my attention, places in which I cannot square the rendering in front of me with the generally literal approach of the NKJV translators and with Scrivener’s text at the same time.

Ward believed five of those could be explained by NKJV following another TR, except for one instance:

2 John 1:7 – I checked all the editions of the TR that I had access to: Eramus 1516, Erasmus 1519, Complutense 15-whatever-you-want-to-call-it, Elzevir 1624, Stephanus 1550, Beza 1598. I hold out a little hope that the reading occurs in a TR I don’t have access to, or that someone with greater Greek knowledge than my own could explain how the NKJV is a possible rendering of Scrivener. But I can’t honestly say that I can see it. All the TRs I have say, “Many deceivers have entered into the world,” while the NKJV (and the CT) say, “Many deceivers have gone out into the world.”

The entire post by Mark is HERE. Kent's post is HERE.

 

[Yeshua1]

Which one would that be?

Many, Nkjv, Nas, Esv, to name a few!

 

[Yeshua1]

It has not been soundly proven that the NKJV mixes in Critical Text readings in various places.

You may be jumping to the incorrect opinion that some differences in translation are textual when they are not.

The truth is that there would be far fewer possible textual variations between the KJV and the NKJV than there would be between the Geneva Bible and the KJV.

The Nkjv would be the Kjv updated for modern English grammar and vocabulary!

 

[Yeshua1]

Mark Ward, author of Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible, in an exchange with Kent Brandenburg, admitted to six difficulties. Ward believed five of those could be explained by NKJV following another TR, except for one. The entire post by Mark is HERE. Kent's post is HERE.

The Kjv is neither perfect nor only valid translation!

 

[Yeshua1]

Which other MVs are faithful?
Which ones aren't? Be specific.

Believe that He holds to the TR/MT text as being the real textual source to use, so no Critical Greek text versions would pass!

 

[Jerome]

Believe that He holds to the TR/MT text as being the real textual source to use, so no Critical Greek text versions would pass!

I asked for specifics, which translations (name them) are not faithful?

 

[Yeshua1]

I asked for specifics, which translations (name them) are not faithful?

I would guess that he would hold to modern versions not in the KJV tradition!

 

[Logos1560]

KJV-only authors themselves have maintained that the New Testaments of the Geneva Bible and the KJV are both translated from the Received Text or from the same basic Greek texts. On the other hand, KJV-only advocates attempt inconsistently to suggest that the New Testaments of the KJV and the NKJV are not translated from the same Greek texts.

Are consistent, just measures being used in KJV-only assertions concerning the underlying New Testament text of both the Geneva Bible and of the NKJV? Do KJV-only advocates admit and acknowledge the KJV translators' borrowing renderings from the 1582 Rheims New Testament, not a TR-based source, and do they acknowledge the influence of the Latin Vulgate on the KJV translators' translation decisions? Are some KJV-only advocates ignoring the actual amount of textual variation in the twenty to thirty differing printed editions of the Textus Receptus? Do they acknowledge the great amount of variation that they in effect permit the KJV translators in their translation decisions and do they permit the NKJV translators the same amount of latitude?

KJV-only author William Grady acknowledged that the KJV “was not a direct translation of any one edition of the Textus Receptus, but rather embodied an eclectic text (i.e., constructed from several sources)” (Given by Inspiration, p. 292).

If the Geneva Bible could have any textual differences and still be asserted by KJV-only authors to be translated from the same Greek NT text as the KJV, why could the same not be true concerning the NKJV? It is fair, reasonable, and scriptural to ask that the same just measures be applied consistently.

In their own assertions concerning the Geneva Bible, would KJV-only advocates overlook or ignore actual textual differences, including some that are significant, between the Geneva Bible and the KJV? The marginal notes in the 1611 edition of the KJV pointed out some of these textual differences so those should not be too hard to find. Other examples can be found by comparing the Geneva Bible and the KJV in places where the varying Textus Receptus editions are pointed out to have differed. Surely, any actual textual differences between the Geneva Bible and the KJV would be relevant facts to be considered that do not seem to have been considered by KJV-only authors.

 

[Logos1560]

Possible and Actual Textual Differences between the 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1611 KJV in the Gospel of Matthew

Matthew 1:11 "Jacim. And Jacim begat" [these words in 1560 Geneva Bible are not in the 1611 KJV] [see also 1611 edition's marginal note]

Matthew 1:20

Joseph the son of David, [1560 Geneva Bible]

Joseph, thou son of David, [1611 KJV] [“thou”--possible Luther’s German Bible influence]

David Norton asserted: “The most obvious sign of Luther is ‘thou son of David’, which has no warrant in the Greek” (KJB: A Short History, p. 36). Norton claimed: “The retention of Coverdale’s (and Luther’s) ‘thou son of David’ might be carelessness. It is untrue to the Greek” (p. 39).

Matthew 2:11
found [1560 Geneva Bible] [Stephanus, Beza] (see Backus, The Reformed Roots of the English NT, pp. 45-46)

saw [1611 KJV] [Complutensian]

Matthew 4:10

Avoid Satan [1560 Geneva Bible] [Latin Vulgate]

Get thee hence, Satan [1611 KJV] [Beza]

Matthew 4:12

John was delivered up [1560 Geneva Bible] [Vulgate] (see Backus, p. 48)

John was cast into prison [1611 KJV] [Beza]

Matthew 5:21

said unto them [1560 Geneva Bible]

said by them [1611 KJV] [Beza] [see 1611 marginal note]

Matthew 5:21

shall be culpable of judgment [1560 Geneva Bible] [early Beza]

shall be in danger of the judgment [1611 KJV] [later Beza]

Matthew 5:27

said to them [1560 Geneva Bible]

said by them [1611 KJV]


Matthew 5:29

right eye cause thee to offend [1560 Geneva Bible] [Beza] (see Backus, p. 51)

right eye offend thee [1611 KJV] [possible Vulgate] [see 1611 marginal note]

Matthew 5:30

right hand make thee to offend [1560 Geneva Bible]

right hand offend thee [1611 KJV]

Matthew 5:33

said to them [1560 Geneva Bible]

said by them [1611 KJV]


Matthew 5:47

what singular thing do ye [1560 Geneva Bible] (see Backus, p. 52)

what do ye more than others [1611 KJV] [Beza]

Matthew 6:34

for the morrow shall care for itself [1560 Geneva Bible] [Vulgate] (Backus, p. 54)

for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself [1611 KJV] [Beza]

Matthew 8:18

to go over the water [1560 Geneva Bible]

to depart unto the other side [1611 KJV]


Matthew 8:23

into the ship [1560 Geneva Bible] [Stephanus]

into a ship [1611 KJV]


Matthew 9:4

But when Jesus saw their thoughts [1560 Geneva Bible]

And Jesus knowing their thoughts [1611 KJV]


Matthew 9:26

And this [1560 Geneva Bible]

And the [1611 KJV] [see 1611 marginal note]


Matthew 10:9

Possess not gold [1560 Geneva Bible] [Latin Vulgate] (see Backus, p. 58)

Provide neither gold [1611 KJV] [Beza]



Matthew 10:18

in witness to them [1560 Geneva Bible]

for a testimony against them [1611 KJV] [Beza]

Matthew 11:28

I will ease you [1560 Geneva Bible] [Latin Vulgate]

I will give you rest [1611 KJV] [Beza]

Matthew 14:2

great works are wrought by him [1560 Geneva Bible] (see Backus, pp. 59-60)

mighty works do shew forth themselves in him [1611 KJV] [see 1611 margin]

Matthew 18:19

Again, verily, I say unto you [1560 Geneva Bible] (see Backus, p. 61)

Again I say unto you [1611 KJV]

Matthew 18:26

and besought him [1560 Geneva Bible] (see Backus, p. 62)

and worshipped him [1611 KJV] [Beza] [see 1611 marginal note]

Matthew 21:32

were not moved with repentance afterward [1560 Geneva Bible]

repented not afterward [1611 KJV]

Matthew 26:15

And said [1560 Geneva Bible]

And said unto them [1611 KJV] [Latin Vulgate] [“unto them” in italics in later KJV’s]

Matthew 26:26
and when he had given thanks [1560 Geneva Bible] (see Backus, pp. 64-65)
and blessed it [1611 KJV] [see 1611 marginal note]

 

[Yeshua1]

KJV-only authors themselves have maintained that the New Testaments of the Geneva Bible and the KJV are both translated from the Received Text or from the same basic Greek texts. On the other hand, KJV-only advocates attempt inconsistently to suggest that the New Testaments of the KJV and the NKJV are not translated from the same Greek texts.

Are consistent, just measures being used in KJV-only assertions concerning the underlying New Testament text of both the Geneva Bible and of the NKJV? Do KJV-only advocates admit and acknowledge the KJV translators' borrowing renderings from the 1582 Rheims New Testament, not a TR-based source, and do they acknowledge the influence of the Latin Vulgate on the KJV translators' translation decisions? Are some KJV-only advocates ignoring the actual amount of textual variation in the twenty to thirty differing printed editions of the Textus Receptus? Do they acknowledge the great amount of variation that they in effect permit the KJV translators in their translation decisions and do they permit the NKJV translators the same amount of latitude?

KJV-only author William Grady acknowledged that the KJV “was not a direct translation of any one edition of the Textus Receptus, but rather embodied an eclectic text (i.e., constructed from several sources)” (Given by Inspiration, p. 292).

If the Geneva Bible could have any textual differences and still be asserted by KJV-only authors to be translated from the same Greek NT text as the KJV, why could the same not be true concerning the NKJV? It is fair, reasonable, and scriptural to ask that the same just measures be applied consistently.

In their own assertions concerning the Geneva Bible, would KJVle for same reasons as do Nkjv?-only advocates overlook or ignore actual textual differences, including some that are significant, between the Geneva Bible and the KJV? The marginal notes in the 1611 edition of the KJV pointed out some of these textual differences so those should not be too hard to find. Other examples can be found by comparing the Geneva Bible and the KJV in places where the varying Textus Receptus editions are pointed out to have differed. Surely, any actual textual differences between the Geneva Bible and the KJV would be relevant facts to be considered that do not seem to have been considered by KJV-only authors.

Would they object to the New Geneva Bible for same reasons do the Nkjv?

 

[Yeshua1]

Possible and Actual Textual Differences between the 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1611 KJV in the Gospel of Matthew

Matthew 1:11 "Jacim. And Jacim begat" [these words in 1560 Geneva Bible are not in the 1611 KJV] [see also 1611 edition's marginal note]

Matthew 1:20

Joseph the son of David, [1560 Geneva Bible]

Joseph, thou son of David, [1611 KJV] [“thou”--possible Luther’s German Bible influence]

David Norton asserted: “The most obvious sign of Luther is ‘thou son of David’, which has no warrant in the Greek” (KJB: A Short History, p. 36). Norton claimed: “The retention of Coverdale’s (and Luther’s) ‘thou son of David’ might be carelessness. It is untrue to the Greek” (p. 39).

Matthew 2:11
found [1560 Geneva Bible] [Stephanus, Beza] (see Backus, The Reformed Roots of the English NT, pp. 45-46)

saw [1611 KJV] [Complutensian]

Matthew 4:10

Avoid Satan [1560 Geneva Bible] [Latin Vulgate]

Get thee hence, Satan [1611 KJV] [Beza]

Matthew 4:12

John was delivered up [1560 Geneva Bible] [Vulgate] (see Backus, p. 48)

John was cast into prison [1611 KJV] [Beza]

Matthew 5:21

said unto them [1560 Geneva Bible]

said by them [1611 KJV] [Beza] [see 1611 marginal note]

Matthew 5:21

shall be culpable of judgment [1560 Geneva Bible] [early Beza]

shall be in danger of the judgment [1611 KJV] [later Beza]

Matthew 5:27

said to them [1560 Geneva Bible]

said by them [1611 KJV]


Matthew 5:29

right eye cause thee to offend [1560 Geneva Bible] [Beza] (see Backus, p. 51)

right eye offend thee [1611 KJV] [possible Vulgate] [see 1611 marginal note]

Matthew 5:30

right hand make thee to offend [1560 Geneva Bible]

right hand offend thee [1611 KJV]

Matthew 5:33

said to them [1560 Geneva Bible]

said by them [1611 KJV]


Matthew 5:47

what singular thing do ye [1560 Geneva Bible] (see Backus, p. 52)

what do ye more than others [1611 KJV] [Beza]

Matthew 6:34

for the morrow shall care for itself [1560 Geneva Bible] [Vulgate] (Backus, p. 54)

for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself [1611 KJV] [Beza]

Matthew 8:18

to go over the water [1560 Geneva Bible]

to depart unto the other side [1611 KJV]


Matthew 8:23

into the ship [1560 Geneva Bible] [Stephanus]

into a ship [1611 KJV]


Matthew 9:4

But when Jesus saw their thoughts [1560 Geneva Bible]

And Jesus knowing their thoughts [1611 KJV]


Matthew 9:26

And this [1560 Geneva Bible]

And the [1611 KJV] [see 1611 marginal note]


Matthew 10:9

Possess not gold [1560 Geneva Bible] [Latin Vulgate] (see Backus, p. 58)

Provide neither gold [1611 KJV] [Beza]



Matthew 10:18

in witness to them [1560 Geneva Bible]

for a testimony against them [1611 KJV] [Beza]

Matthew 11:28

I will ease you [1560 Geneva Bible] [Latin Vulgate]

I will give you rest [1611 KJV] [Beza]

Matthew 14:2

great works are wrought by him [1560 Geneva Bible] (see Backus, pp. 59-60)

mighty works do shew forth themselves in him [1611 KJV] [see 1611 margin]

Matthew 18:19

Again, verily, I say unto you [1560 Geneva Bible] (see Backus, p. 61)

Again I say unto you [1611 KJV]

Matthew 18:26

and besought him [1560 Geneva Bible] (see Backus, p. 62)

and worshipped him [1611 KJV] [Beza] [see 1611 marginal note]

Matthew 21:32

were not moved with repentance afterward [1560 Geneva Bible]

repented not afterward [1611 KJV]

Matthew 26:15

And said [1560 Geneva Bible]

And said unto them [1611 KJV] [Latin Vulgate] [“unt yse, and if using Vulgate, was not A tual right TR text then here too them” in italics in later KJV’s]

Matthew 26:26
and when he had given thanks [1560 Geneva Bible] (see Backus, pp. 64-65)
and blessed it [1611 KJV] [see 1611 marginal note]

Which would the actual correct TR text to use, and since Vulgate was used also, was that a perfect translation then also?

 

[Baptist4life]

Serious question........ If the KJVO topic went away completely, what would Logos do with himself all day? Either his fingers are worn out from typing all that stuff, or he's the "copy and paste" King!

Enough already, for Pete's sake.

 

[Yeshua1]

Serious question........ If the KJVO topic went away completely, what would Logos do with himself all day? Either his fingers are worn out from typing all that stuff, or he's the "copy and paste" King!

Enough already, for Pete's sake.

IF KJVO was eliminated out of the Body of Christ, would be good!

 

[tyndale1946]

IF KJVO was eliminated out of the Body of Christ, would be good!

I was going to respond to this OP but as always when this subject comes up, its much ado about nothing... Brother Glen