-
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!
KJV Only Folks: What Bible translations should non-English speakers use?
- Thread starter MichaelNZ
- Start date
- Status
I am not KJVO, but I am TR only. So, I would recommend a Bible translated from the TR. In the person's own language of course.
So the difference between you and a KJVO would be both of you see ONLY the TR as a valid greek text to translate from , but they would see the KJV as ONLY version God honors, while as long as using TR text, it could be in Spanish/French etc the version?
Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
My Opinion....
My opinion is that the whole issue has ALWAYS been about which underlying text (Greek/Hebrew) is being used. One of the reasons (as I understand it) that most true KJV Only advocates reject the NKJV is that when doing comparative readings between the two translations,the NKJV seems to, in many places, follow the readings rendered by versions that come from the Critical Text "family" of texts. I have read the evidence and been convinced but I can't even begin to demonstrate it here for several reasons.....#1 my memory of specifics is not that good...and #2 I type very slow...(I've been working on this short post almost 10 minutes...IT TAKES ME A LONNNNG TIME TO DO THIS STUFF!:laugh
I can,however,highly recommend a very good book for source material. I did read this book and was greatly impressed by it! That is "One Book Stands Alone" by Dr.Douglas B.Stauffer and can be found at the the following website if you want to obtain a copy. He does extensive verse-by-verse comparisons in this book between the KJV,the NIV, and the NKJV to name a few as well as referencing the Greek and Hebrew.
McCowen Mills | (the publishers website)
Now...my short answer is...yes...valid translations of the Bible SHOULD be translated from the right text families. However...that is the extent of MY so-called "expertise". Somebody a whole lot smarter than me has to get it done. One of these days though I will "have the mind of Christ" Amen!
Bro.Greg
My opinion is that the whole issue has ALWAYS been about which underlying text (Greek/Hebrew) is being used. One of the reasons (as I understand it) that most true KJV Only advocates reject the NKJV is that when doing comparative readings between the two translations,the NKJV seems to, in many places, follow the readings rendered by versions that come from the Critical Text "family" of texts. I have read the evidence and been convinced but I can't even begin to demonstrate it here for several reasons.....#1 my memory of specifics is not that good...and #2 I type very slow...(I've been working on this short post almost 10 minutes...IT TAKES ME A LONNNNG TIME TO DO THIS STUFF!:laugh
I can,however,highly recommend a very good book for source material. I did read this book and was greatly impressed by it! That is "One Book Stands Alone" by Dr.Douglas B.Stauffer and can be found at the the following website if you want to obtain a copy. He does extensive verse-by-verse comparisons in this book between the KJV,the NIV, and the NKJV to name a few as well as referencing the Greek and Hebrew.McCowen Mills | (the publishers website)
Now...my short answer is...yes...valid translations of the Bible SHOULD be translated from the right text families. However...that is the extent of MY so-called "expertise". Somebody a whole lot smarter than me has to get it done. One of these days though I will "have the mind of Christ" Amen!
Bro.Greg
No. They NKJV was not translated from the Critical text. It may agree with it in some places, but that doesn't make it wrong. The only ones who claim the NKJV was translated in "some" places from the CT are from the KJVO camp.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
True Amy, just like the KJV agrees with the Critical Texts in some places.
So a Christian has legitimate reasons for them to be a KJV preferred, NONE for KJVO?
None. KJVO is ridiculous.
Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
Ahem....!
I RESPECTFULLY disagree and shall continue to do so.
As I recommended...obtain and read the book I referenced.:type:
Bro.Greg
I RESPECTFULLY disagree and shall continue to do so.
As I recommended...obtain and read the book I referenced.:type:
Bro.Greg
Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
Ahem again !
I'm used to being called names....and 12,000plus posts on the BB are not intimidating me! I love my KJV, I love my KJV, I love my KJV..............!:laugh:
Bro.Greg:smilewinkgrin:
(sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me!:tongue3
I'm used to being called names....and 12,000plus posts on the BB are not intimidating me! I love my KJV, I love my KJV, I love my KJV..............!:laugh:
Bro.Greg:smilewinkgrin:
(sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me!:tongue3
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Here we go - in what passages does the NKJV choose the CT over the Traditional Text where the KJV did not do the same?
Not translational choices, but choosing the CT to translate?
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
Let The Record Show......
Bro.Roger...let the record show that even I agree that the KJV will in many instances agree with the Critical Text BECAUSE.....even I agree that the Critical Text CONTAINS the Word of God (at least in part). Thus...there are going to be places where they agree. I just follow the camp that believes that the TR and the Westcott-Hort/Critical text don't agree with one another entirely and that the TR/Masoretic Text family is the more accurate of the two. I can't prove that personally because I'M NOT SMART ENOUGH. But...the "camp" or crowd that holds to the TR position tells me I have a mistake and error-free Bible I can depend on....and the CT, W/H, MV crowd tells me I have nothing but an imperfect translation that contains errors which requires the use of the M/V's to straighten out. I don't think God would leave His Church at the mercy of erroneous Bibles. I think God holds upholds His standard of perfection in His Word. I think I'm gonna stay with that standard...but it is not a test of fellowship with me.
God Bless You,
Bro.Greg:thumbsup:
Bro.Roger...let the record show that even I agree that the KJV will in many instances agree with the Critical Text BECAUSE.....even I agree that the Critical Text CONTAINS the Word of God (at least in part). Thus...there are going to be places where they agree. I just follow the camp that believes that the TR and the Westcott-Hort/Critical text don't agree with one another entirely and that the TR/Masoretic Text family is the more accurate of the two. I can't prove that personally because I'M NOT SMART ENOUGH. But...the "camp" or crowd that holds to the TR position tells me I have a mistake and error-free Bible I can depend on....and the CT, W/H, MV crowd tells me I have nothing but an imperfect translation that contains errors which requires the use of the M/V's to straighten out. I don't think God would leave His Church at the mercy of erroneous Bibles. I think God holds upholds His standard of perfection in His Word. I think I'm gonna stay with that standard...but it is not a test of fellowship with me.
God Bless You,
Bro.Greg:thumbsup:
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
No one really has a problem with that, but to claim that the NKJV is a Critical Text translation is simply an error.
I'm used to being called names....and 12,000plus posts on the BB are not intimidating me! I love my KJV, I love my KJV, I love my KJV..............!:laugh:
Bro.Greg:smilewinkgrin:
(sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me!:tongue3
I didn't call you names. I said KJVO is ridiculous. By that I mean the doctrine of it, not you. :love2:
And you should be intimidated. I'm tough! GRRRRRR....LOL
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
And I love my KJVI'm used to being called names....and 12,000plus posts on the BB are not intimidating me! I love my KJV, I love my KJV, I love my KJV..............!:laugh:
Bro.Greg:smilewinkgrin:
(sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me!:tongue3
Thought they had declawed you?
They tried but it didn't work. :laugh:
Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
Let Me Clarify...
I'm sorry...I wasn't clear on that...after looking back into Dr.Stauffer's book, I think I am correct in my understanding that he believes that some of the readings in the NKJV were more consistent with the rendering of the (other) Modern versions (such as the NIV) that were faithful to the Critical/Alexandrian family of texts. He doesn't say that the NKJV was translated exclusively from them and he does acknowledge that the TR renderings are predominately present. He just contends that the NKJV is NOT (exclusively) a rendering of the TR/ Masoretic family. I hope that makes more sense.....gotta go...time for prayer meeeting! God Bless you Bro.Roger !
Amy...I'll get back to ya later!:smilewinkgrin: Gotta go pray and shake off the fear!
Bro.Greg
I'm sorry...I wasn't clear on that...after looking back into Dr.Stauffer's book, I think I am correct in my understanding that he believes that some of the readings in the NKJV were more consistent with the rendering of the (other) Modern versions (such as the NIV) that were faithful to the Critical/Alexandrian family of texts. He doesn't say that the NKJV was translated exclusively from them and he does acknowledge that the TR renderings are predominately present. He just contends that the NKJV is NOT (exclusively) a rendering of the TR/ Masoretic family. I hope that makes more sense.....gotta go...time for prayer meeeting! God Bless you Bro.Roger !
Amy...I'll get back to ya later!:smilewinkgrin: Gotta go pray and shake off the fear!
Bro.Greg
:laugh:
I wanted to post what the NKJV says in the Preface regarding the texts it was translated from.
"The King James New Testament was based on the traditional text of the Greek speaking churches, first published in 1516, and later called the Textus Receptus or Received Text. Although based on the relatively few available manuscripts, these were representative of many more which existed at the time but only became known later. Because the New King James Version is the fifth revision of the historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament."
So unless the editors have told a bold faced lie, the NKJV is translated from the exact texts as the King James Bible.
- Status