Featured Is the NKJV a better overall translation than the Geneva Bible?

James D. Price explained that the real reason for this choice of rendering in the book of Acts in the NKJV is that the translators thought that in this context Peter was alluding to Isaiah 52:13, which identifies Christ as the Servant of the LORD (False Witness, p. 25).

This same Greek word found at Acts 4:27 and 30 was also used of Jesus at Matthew 12:18a where it was translated "servant" in the 1560 Geneva Bible and in the KJV. However, it was translated "child" in Wycliffe's, 1534 Tyndale's, Matthew's, Great, and Bishops' Bibles and as "son" in 1526 Tyndale's. Why is this difference supposedly important in Acts 4:27 and 30 but unimportant in Matthew 12:18? Why would the use of servant be wrong at Acts 4:27 and 30 if it is not wrong at Isaiah 52:13? Would you suggest that the Geneva Bible is wrong at Isaiah 52:13 and Matthew 12:18?

The Companion Bible has this note for "child" at Acts 4:27: "child=servant, Greek pais, as in v. 25" (p. 1585). The 1657 English edition of The Dutch Annotations has the following note for "thy holy child Jesus" at Acts 4:27: "or servant, minister, See Acts 3:13, 26, see also Matthew 8:6 compared with Luke 7:2 and here verse 25." Concerning Acts 3:13, A. T. Robertson noted: "This phrase occurs in Isaiah 42:1; 52:13 about the Messiah except the name 'Jesus' which Peter adds" (Word Pictures, III, p. 43). Concerning Acts 3:13 in his 1851 commentary as edited by Alvah Hovey in the American Baptist Publication Society's American Commentary on the N. T., Horatio Hackett (1808-1875) wrote: "pais, not son=huios, but servant=Heb. ebhedh, which was one of the prophetic appellations of the Messiah, especially in the second part of Isaiah. (See Matt. 12:18, as compared with Isa. 42:1). The term occurs again in this sense in v. 26; 4:27, 30" (pp. 59-60). Concerning Acts 4:27, John Gill noted: "Unless the word should rather be rendered servant, as it is in verse 25 and which is a character that belongs to Christ, and is often given him as Mediator, who, as such, is God's righteous servant" (Exposition, VIII, p. 176).

 

Do those translations really do what you suggest at Acts 22:16? Do you know whether or not the Greek New Testament from which the Geneva Bible was translated has a Greek preposition for "in" for the one at the Geneva Bible before "calling on the name of the Lord"? Perhaps you misinterpret the renderings in the KJV and NKJV at Acts 22:16 or misrepresent them in order to try to aid your unproven opinions concerning the Geneva Bible.

Do you possibly use double standards in your accusations against the KJV and the NKJV compared to your positive claims for the Geneva Bible? Would you ignore other verses in the Geneva Bible which might be considered supportive of baptismal regeneration?

Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, 1537 Matthew's, 1538 Coverdale's Duoglott, 1539 Great, and 1568 Bishops' Bibles have "in water" at Matthew 3:11. The 1560 Geneva Bible has "baptize you with water" before its unusual rendering '"to amendment of life" at Matthew 3:11 while the KJV has "baptize you with water" before "unto repentance." The 1842 revision of the KJV began Matthew 3:11 as follows: “I indeed immerse you in water.”

S. E. Anderson observed: "The KJV of Matthew 3:11 reads, "I baptize you with water," but the Greek has it, "I immerse you in water" (Biblical Baptist Beliefs, p. 17). Henry Burrage also noted: "In those passages in our English version [KJV] where we find the words 'with water,' as in Matt. 3:11, 'I indeed baptize you with water,' the Greek has 'in water'" (Jenkens, Baptist Doctrines, p. 153). Concerning this verse in his commentary on Matthew, John Broadus has this comment: “With--rather, in water is the proper rendering of the preposition and case here employed” (p. 48).

Concerning this verse in the KJV, John Christian noted: “You must remember this is the Episcopalian translation of King James. The original Greek has, they shall be baptized ‘in water’” (Immersion, p. 51). He concluded: “The literal meaning of the passage is in water and not with water” (p. 52).

 

Perhaps your posts indicate that you are concerned with what men think in their translation decisions as your posts may reveal that you in effect show partiality to one group of English Bible translators.

Merely comparing English translations is being concerning with what men thought as it would ignore the actual exact specific words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles.

If Peter under inspiration was alluding to Isaiah 52 in his sermon, the NKJV rendering would be more accurate and more faithful to Peter's intended meaning.

 

Here is an example that shows that KJV defenders do not give the NKJV translators the same latitude as they do the KJV translators or that they do not apply consistently and justly the same measures/standards to the making of the Geneva Bible and the KJV as they do to the making of the NKJV.

Concerning 1 Chronicles 6:28 in the NKJV, Malcolm Watts claimed: “(Vashni), the name of Samuel’s firstborn son, is changed to Joel after the Septuagint, Syriac, and Arabic. He appears to be called both names (see verse 33 and 1 Samuel 8:2), but there is no textual justification for the other name being included here” (NKJV: A Critique, p. 2). D. A. Waite listed this rendering in the NKJV as a dynamic equivalency and claimed that it came from a non-Masoretic text (NKJV compared to KJV, p. 36).

Concerning this verse, E. W. Bullinger asserted: “Here there is an Ellipsis of the name of the firstborn: while the [Hebrew] word, Vashni, when otherwise pointed means ‘and the second’ so that the verse reads, ‘And the sons of Samuel; the firstborn [Joel] and the second Abiah. This agrees with the Syriac Version’” (Figures of Speech, p. 5). Bullinger added: “’Joel’ is supplied from verse 33 (see also 1 Sam. 8:2, and the note in Ginsburg’s edition of the Hebrew Bible)” (Ibid.). Bullinger maintained that “Vashni is not a proper name, but means ‘the second’” (p. 104 note). The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia also noted: “The explanation of this is that in 1 Chronicles 6:28 the word taken as a proper name is really ‘and second’” (Vol. 5, p. 3046).

Is there actually no sound justification to supply words in italics when there is a use of a Hebrew figure of speech such as an Ellipsis that omits a word or words since the KJV translators do the same thing in several other verses? One example would be at 2 Kings 25:3 where the makers of the KJV added two words in italics to supply words omitted in an Ellipsis [“And on the ninth day of the fourth month”]. Bullinger noted: “The Hebrew reads, ‘and on the ninth month.’ But the Ellipsis is correctly supplied from Jeremiah 52:6” (Figures of Speech, p. 20). Would D. A. Waite consider the places where the KJV supplies words omitted in an Ellipsis dynamic equivalent renderings?

Do KJV defenders also ignore the evidence that there are places where the KJV translators may have amended the traditional Hebrew Masoretic text using other textual sources and readings in other verses in the same manner that they allege concerning the NKJV? At 1 Chronicles 9:41, the KJV translators amended the Masoretic Text by adding "and Ahaz" in italics perhaps because these words are found in the Latin Vulgate, Syriac Version, and 1 Chronicles 8:35. Robert Girdlestone maintained that the A. V. “does not hesitate to use these” [“conjectural emendations based on the analogy of similar cases existing in the ‘repeated passages’”], and he gave as one case when the A. V. “inserts the words ‘and Ahaz’ into the text of 1 Chronicles 9:41 on the strength of chapter 8:35” (Foundation, p. 190). The word “garrisons” in italics at 1 Chronicles 18:6 may be supplied from 2 Samuel 8:6. Again the KJV translators in effect altered the Masoretic Text by adding "the first" in italics at 1 Chronicles 24:23 perhaps influenced by the example of the Latin Vulgate and 1 Chronicles 23:19 when these words were not in the Masoretic text. At 2 Chronicles 35:11 in the KJV, the Masoretic Text reading "sprinkled" is amended to "sprinkled the blood" in agreement with the LXX, Latin Vulgate, and Syriac Versions. The KJV put the Keri marginal reading [“into the middle court”] in the text at 2 Kings 20:4 and put the Masoretic textual reading in its 1611 marginal note: “or, city.“ At 2 Samuel 5:8, the clause “he shall be chief and captain” is added from 1 Chronicles 11:6. The words “his hand” at 2 Samuel 6:6 may be borrowed from 1 Chronicles 13:9. At 2 Samuel 8:3, the KJV "follows the Keri" [the marginal reading] instead of the textual reading of the Masoretic Text by inserting "Euphrates" (Ginsburg, Introduction, p. 310). Ginsburg maintained that the KJV followed the example of the Latin Vulgate by inserting "mine eye" at 1 Samuel 24:10 (p. 291). At 2 Samuel 8:4, the word “chariots” in “a thousand chariots” is likely added from 1 Chronicles 18:4. The added words in italics [“he lift up his spear”] at 2 Samuel 23:8 may come from 1 Chronicles 11:11. At Numbers 20:26, the words in italics [“unto his people”] may be added from Numbers 20:24. “Thorns” in italics at Judges 2:8 may be taken from Joshua 23:13.

Does this example of 1 Chronicles 6:28 demonstrate clearly that KJV defenders do not give the same latitude to the NKJV translators that they in effect give to the translators of the Geneva Bible and the KJV?