King James Version Bible vs. Modern english bible

[Martin Marprelate]

You agree with an incorrect assertion. The facts about the high regard for the Apocrypha in the Church of England at the time of the making of the KJV is not used "to bash the KJV" as that poster alleged.

I think you'll find it is.

One point of bringing up additional historical facts is to show the KJV-only use of unjust measures or double standards in their selective misuse of some information while they avoid or dismiss other facts. KJV-only advocates attempt to smear and attack other Bible translations for having the Apocrypha while they avoid some of the facts concerning it and the KJV.

Perhaps you would like to show me where on this thread the 'KJV-only advocates' have 'smeared and attacked other Bible translations for having the Apocrypha'? You seem to be getting your retaliation in first.

I am decidedly not KJV-only (or KJV-preferred); a Bible translation needs to be in reasonably up-to-date language so that people can understand it. But I do get a bit weary when everybody dumps on the KJV every time it is mentioned.

 

[HankD]

The inclusion of the Apocrypha showed that the KJV translators were not "inspired" men.

I know of one KJVO person who realized the error of "double inspiration" and came to his senses.
That was here on the BB years ago - I forget his moniker.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

So, what's your opinion of the MEV, which is supposed to be the KJV in modern English?

It's a poor translation in my opinion. for example, they used the word "reward" rather than "rearward" which are two completely different things.

 

[Logos1560]

It's a poor translation in my opinion. for example, they used the word "reward" rather than "rearward" which are two completely different things.

Did you compare it to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages or to the KJV before you judged it as being "a poor translation"?

Many editions of the KJV have "rereward" instead of "rearward."

At Isaiah 58:8, a few editions of the KJV have used "reward" where other KJV editions have "rereward" or "rearward."

Isaiah 58:8

reward (1984 AMG) (2011, 2012, 2015, 2016 Barbour)

rearward [2005, 2011 Cambridge] (1841 Thomas) (1850 AFBS) (1853, 1855, 1858, 1888, 1954, 1956, 1957, 1963, 1971, 1984, 1988, 2004, 2008 ABS) (WMCRB) (1991 AMG) (2006 PENG)

rereward (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

 

[Yeshua1]

You fail to prove your assertions to be true. You have not demonstrated that the NKJV translators take any more liberty in their translating than the Church of England makers of the KJV also took.

I am still looking to see the evidence from the KJVO people as to why they consider the NKJV to not be the real updated Kjv for us today!

 

[Yeshua1]

It's a poor translation in my opinion. for example, they used the word "reward" rather than "rearward" which are two completely different things.

What about the Nas /Nkjv versions, as both use also formal translation philosophy?

 

[rlvaughn]

I am still looking to see the evidence from the KJVO people as to why they consider the NKJV to not be the real updated Kjv for us today!

Possibly the chief objection is that it is not consistently what it purports to be, and a number of times prefers the Critical Text readings over the Received Text.

 

[rlvaughn]

Many editions of the KJV have "rereward" instead of "rearward."

At Isaiah 58:8, a few editions of the KJV have used "reward" where other KJV editions have "rereward" or "rearward."

Rereward and rearward are simply variant spellings of the same word. Reward is a different word -- at least as far as I know it does not carry the same meaning as rearward in its semantic range.

 

[rsr]

Where do these lapses occur? The ones I've seen as "evidence" are almost always a matter of translation preference, not of underlying text. These lists, BTW, seem to have no problem with the NKJV's rendering of Revelation, where the TR departs from both the Majority Text and the Critical Text.

The problem with the NKJV is that it does not render some words or phrases exactly as the KJV does and it references other renderings in its footnotes. There are some places (more in the OT, than NT, IMO) where the NKJV perhaps fumbles a rendering, but all translations (including the KJV) do that.

 

[rlvaughn]

Where do these lapses occur?

Here is one that I would say is textual and not translational, an issue of singular in one underlying text plural in the other.

Revelation 6:11 (NKJV) Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were,was completed.
11 καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς ἑκάστῳ στολὴ λευκὴ καὶ ἐρρέθη αὐτοῖς ἵνα ἀναπαύσονται ἔτι χρόνον μικρόν, ἕως πληρωθῶσιν καὶ οἱ σύνδουλοι αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτῶν οἱ μέλλοντες ἀποκτέννεσθαι ὡς καὶ αὐτοί. (Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, NA28th edition)
11 καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς ἑκάστῳ στολὴ λευκή, καὶ ἐρρέθη αὐτοῖς ἵνα ἀναπαύσονται ἔτι χρόνον μικρόν, ἕως πληρωθῶσιν καὶ οἱ σύνδουλοι αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτῶν οἱ μέλλοντες ἀποκτέννεσθαι ὡς καὶ αὐτοί. (based on Novum Testamentum Graece, Nestle-Aland 26th edition and The Greek New Testament, 3rd edition, UBS)

Revelation 6:11 (AKJV) And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.
11 καὶ ἐδόθησαν ἑκάστοις στολαὶ λευκαὶ, καὶ ἐρρέθη αὐτοῖς ἵνα ἀναπαύσωνται ἔτι χρόνον μικρόν ἕως οὗ πληρωσονται καὶ οἱ σύνδουλοι αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτῶν οἱ μέλλοντες ἀποκτείνεσθαι ὡς καὶ αὐτοί (Stephanus 1550 at Bible Hub)
11 και εδοθησαν εκαστοις στολαι λευκαι και ερρεθη αυτοις ινα αναπαυσωνται ετι χρονον μικρον εως ου πληρωσονται και οι συνδουλοι αυτων και οι αδελφοι αυτων οι μελλοντες αποκτεινεσθαι ως και αυτοι (Scriveners Textus Receptus 1894)

Now it may just be me, but the difference in meaning seems like six of one and a half dozen of the other. But that makes it all the more curious to me that they would default to the critical text, just cause?

My earliest experience with the NKJV (that I remember) was in a Sunday night Bible study. My uncle read a text from the NKJV and I was reading along in the KJV. I didn't write the text down, and I have long since forgotten where it was (but maybe Gospel of John). What he read either inserted or removed a negative (like "no" "not") making it mean the opposite from what I was reading in the KJV. I thought perhaps he misread it, and asked to look at it after class. He had not read it and the verses said opposite things. I would be pleased if I could find it again (but I'm not all that worried about it). Perhaps it was a typographical error in his particular printing of the NKJV. Those things do happen. But, if not, I cannot understand how it could have been a mere difference in translation. I have no time for continued looking up of verses in the NKJV that might be "critical-text preferred," but I have little doubt that if it was preferred in two cases that it was preferred in more. I also don't disagree with you that some of the supposed cases are mere translational differences.

 

[rsr]

My suspicion is that the different translation is not the adherence to any underlying text but a simple grammatical construct. The NKJV translators (I suspect like myself) may be punctilious on grammatical number agreement in English. This is a vanishing construct, I know, because them is increasingly a singular in contemporary usage (and in earlier English). My guess is that the translators thought that each saint was given one robe.

In the alternative, robes can be plural or singular in English. Either way, it may not demonstrate a particular textual choice but perhaps a translational choice and one based, rightly or wrongly, on what the word should mean in modern usage.

 

[rlvaughn]

Perhaps so. I wouldn't look at robes plural in the Greek and translate it as singular (then again, I wouldn't be invited to). While robes might be plural or singular in English, I don't think robe is ever plural. Without actually asking whoever translated this verse, we could each go round and round with our opinions and be none the wiser.

Nevertheless, an opinion was what Yeshua1 asked for.

 

[rsr]

With that I can agree. It just seems to me that those who would stand or fall on either translation are straining at a gnat or straining out a gnat.

 

[robycop3]

There's simply no authority from GOD supporting the KJVO myth, even in the KJV itself. That fact alone makes the man-made KJVO myth just that - a myth, and false.

 

[Yeshua1]

Possibly the chief objection is that it is not consistently what it purports to be, and a number of times prefers the Critical Text readings over the Received Text.

My understanding is that the translators used the TR text as their main source, but did also indicate in footnotes/margins where the MT/CT also had a viable option

 

[Yeshua1]

With that I can agree. It just seems to me that those who would stand or fall on either translation are straining at a gnat or straining out a gnat.

Those who are against the Nkjv really are swallowing whales and straining on gnats!

 

[Logos1560]

Possibly the chief objection is that it is not consistently what it purports to be

That objection has not been demonstrated to be based on consistent, just measures. The NKJV is as consistently what it purports to be as the KJV is what it purports to be.

a number of times prefers the Critical Text readings over the Received Text.

Those who make this objection have not soundly proven it to be true. The number of claimed textual variations between the KJV and the NKJV are not any more significant or greater in number than the actual textual variations between the KJV and the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision.

KJV-only authors have claimed that the Geneva Bible and the KJV are made from the same underlying Greek texts, and yet there would be greater significant differences between the 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1611 KJV than between the 1611 KJV and the 1982 NKJV.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8

I am aware of what Daniel Wallace says on this, however, he like many others are simply restating the run-of-the-mill statements on this passage, that really have not much to say on the more important grammatical matters, which I have dealt with at length. The text and context is far more important than the number of manuscripts for a reading. For example, in Colossians 2:2, there are no less than 14 variant readings in the manuscript evidence! For the passage of the woman taken in adultery in John's Gospel, the oldest surviving Greek manuscript to contain the passage, is of the the 6th century A.D.. Yet, about 150 years earlier, Jerome says that this passage was present in "many Greek and Latin manuscripts", which Augustine knows of! Wallace followed Metzger, who was a rank Liberal!

 

[Rippon]

there would be greater significant differences between the 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1611 KJV than between the 1611 KJV and the 1982 NKJV.

That is a fascinating fact.

 

[Rippon]

Wallace followed Metzger, who was a rank Liberal!

Metzger was a godly Christian scholar who doesn't deserve abuse by a plebeian.

Dr. Wallace has plenty of expertise of his own. He's not a little child following anyone.