Thus proving what? That the KJV is the standard instead of the original manuscripts?
Every time we try to make one version the "standard" to the exclusion of all others, we are going to have this inane argument.
-
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 Was Not So Easy To Read Before 1900
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
- Status
Thus proving what? That the KJV is the standard instead of the original manuscripts?
Every time we try to make one version the "standard" to the exclusion of all others, we are going to have this inane argument.
Johathan01
New Member
What's the argument?
Johathan01
New Member
If you examine the other versions closely you will see the change in Doctrine or how the deity of Christ becomes questionable. Where His name is even left out in some verses. How do you go from Son (KJV) to Servant (NKJV)?
One example I gave was where the KJV says we have salvation when we accept Christ. The other versions including the NKJV, says who are being saved. That is, one is not saved the moment they repent and ask Jesus into their hearts as their Lord and Savior, but rather that its an ongoing process. This is also what the RCC believes, that salvation is a process.
It seems that a lot of Christians don't want to hear it. Therefore will not examine the facts.
It really is time to put this nonsense to bed. The NKJV uses exactly the same text throughout as the KJV. Whether you think that's a good thing or a bad thing is another matter, but it's the same text.
This is nothing to do with the text; it is a translation choice. Pais can mean a 'boy,' a 'child,' a 'son' or a 'servant.' The KJV translates it 'son' only three times (John 4:51; Acts 3:13, 26) and 'servant' ten times including Matt 12:18 which clearly refers to the Lord Jesus. The usual word for 'Son' when speaking of our Lord is huios. Since Christ was both a Son and a Servant when on earth, either rendering is acceptable.
Once again, this is a translation choice. The word is deisidaimonesterous, the comparative of deisidaimon. It can mean 'much given to reverence' or, in a bad sense, 'superstition.' The choice is yours but it is nothing to do with the text. My own opinion is that the NKJV is better here.
Here the KJV is clearly at fault. The Greek word sozomenois is in the Present Tense, denoting continuing action- 'Are being saved.' Had it been 'are saved' it would have been in the Aorist Tense.
Once again, this is nothing to do with the texts. The Critical Text is identical to the Received Text in all these examples. These other translations just happen to agree with the NKJV at these particular points.
Just remember: you can hate the NKJV and criticize it as much as you like; that is your prerogative, but the textual basis is exactly the same as the KJV.
Steve
Last edited by a moderator:
BTW, how do you get a Greek font on this board?
Steve
Steve
Johathan01
New Member
Can you show me my error? Opinions are a dime a dozen, but if you have proof let's discuss it. Let's discuss these modern versions which you say are not in error and how they differ from each other by literally thousands of words, and entire verses are omitted. All these bible versions came about in this generation and none agree with each other.
Do you know what text most modern versions come from? It is not the same as the KJV. They come from the Alexandrian text. Relying much upon the Sinattic and Vaticantus which are riddled with alterations, and were tossed out or hidden for centuries. Why is that?
Since you believe only the original manuscripts were the standard, does this mean you do not believe the Holy Bible IS the inerrant and infallible word of God?
Johathan01
New Member
Guess you need to do more research. The NKJV uses the Stuttgart Edition of the Biblia Hebraica. The KJV uses the Masoretic Hebrew text, which is the one transmitted by Jewish scribes from the time of Ezra up to at least the 5th Century AD.
The translators of the NKJV were not committed to the Received Text and the KJV. Nor did they solely follow the Masoretic Hebrew text in the OT. They made many erroneous departures from the KJV, and their footnotes are based on the Nestle-United Bible Society
I could go on and on, but the bottom line is people repeat what others tell them. I challenge you to do some thorough research.
franklinmonroe
Active Member
The textual differences between these two critical MT editions results in exactly how many translational differences in English?
Last edited by a moderator:
I could easily be persuaded to join a campaign to promote the Received Text, and I would gladly give financial support to a new Bible translation using that text if it is felt that the N.K.J.V. is not good enough. What I will not do is try to foist a 500 year-old translation with archaic language on the churches; firstly, because it’s a lost cause, and secondly because even if it succeeded it would be a retrograde step. The A.V. (KJV) shares one feature with every other translation: it was made by fallible, sinful men. Infallibility does not rest with the translators, it rests in the original Greek and Hebrew texts. That is why it is helpful to have someone who knows those languages in every congregation. The A.V. falls short on three counts:-
1. The English language, like every other, has changed over the past four hundred years. Words alter their meanings over time. In 2Thes 2:7, the A.V. translates, ‘Only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.’ The word ‘let’ in the 17th Century, meant to restrain or hinder; today, of course, it means ‘allow.’ Therefore the verse means the exact opposite of what the A.V. says it means. The N.I.V. (and other modern versions) translate correctly, ‘But the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way.’
2. Some of the language in the A.V. is scarcely comprehensible even allowing for the archaic language. Consider Ezek 41:7. ‘And there was an enlarging, and a winding about still upward to the side chambers; for the winding about of the house went still upward round about the house: therefore the breadth of the house was still upward, and so increased from the lowest chamber to the highest by the midst.’ This may be a word-for-word translation, but what on earth does it mean? A translation that is so literal that no one can understand it is of limited use.
3. Supporters of the A.V. make great play on the fact that some modern translations omit references to the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, as indeed they do (except the N.K.J.V.). The most frequently cited verse is 1Tim 3:16, though there are several others. Less well known is that there are two places where all the modern translations affirm the deity of our Lord, but the A.V. does not.
Titus 2:13, A.V. Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’
Titus 2:13, N.I.V. ‘While we wait for the blessed hope- the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ’ (other modern versions are similar).
2Peter 1:1b, A.V. ‘…..To them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’
2Peter 1:1b, N.I.V. ‘….To those who through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ have obtained a faith as precious as ours’ (other modern versions are similar).
The only modern translation that supports the A.V. in these two texts is the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses! Just in case it might be thought that the A.V. is right in these instances, let the reader look at 2Peter 1:11. Here the A.V. rightly translates, ‘….our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.’ Yet the Greek construction here is exactly the same as in 1:1. I have no doubt that all the translators of the A.V. were staunch Trinitarians, but it ill behoves A.V. supporters to sneer at the N.I.V. while the A.V. contains such serious errors.
There is also another place where the A.V. finds itself in agreement with the J.W.s. In John 1:32, it denies the personality of the Holy Spirit, referring to Him as ‘it.’ If a new Bible version appeared today with a similar error in it, the supporters of the Affirmation would be the first to pillory both the version and its translators .
Let me be clear once again. I am not saying that the A.V. is a bad translation or that it is worse than the N.I.V. The N.I.V. falls short on numerous occasions. What I am saying is that the question of Bible translations should not be made an excuse for separation. Let discussion continue by all means, but in a spirit of love while we contend for the Gospel of Christ. I repeat, if the N.K.J.V. is not acceptable, let us have a new version based on the traditional texts, produced by a Christian organization. I can think of no one better to do it that the Trinitarian Bible Society. There is a Spanish Bible version, the Reina Valera, that is even older than the A.V., and based upon the same texts. Yet this version has been regularly updated as the Spanish language has changed. Revisions were made in 1909, in 1960, and now I understand that the T.B.S. is undertaking a new revision. Quite right! If the A.V. had been carefully revised every 50 years or so, there might not have been the need for the plethora of new versions.
From my blog http://marprelate.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/affirmation-2010-a-reluctant-critique/
Steve
1. The English language, like every other, has changed over the past four hundred years. Words alter their meanings over time. In 2Thes 2:7, the A.V. translates, ‘Only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.’ The word ‘let’ in the 17th Century, meant to restrain or hinder; today, of course, it means ‘allow.’ Therefore the verse means the exact opposite of what the A.V. says it means. The N.I.V. (and other modern versions) translate correctly, ‘But the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way.’
2. Some of the language in the A.V. is scarcely comprehensible even allowing for the archaic language. Consider Ezek 41:7. ‘And there was an enlarging, and a winding about still upward to the side chambers; for the winding about of the house went still upward round about the house: therefore the breadth of the house was still upward, and so increased from the lowest chamber to the highest by the midst.’ This may be a word-for-word translation, but what on earth does it mean? A translation that is so literal that no one can understand it is of limited use.
3. Supporters of the A.V. make great play on the fact that some modern translations omit references to the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, as indeed they do (except the N.K.J.V.). The most frequently cited verse is 1Tim 3:16, though there are several others. Less well known is that there are two places where all the modern translations affirm the deity of our Lord, but the A.V. does not.
Titus 2:13, A.V. Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’
Titus 2:13, N.I.V. ‘While we wait for the blessed hope- the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ’ (other modern versions are similar).
2Peter 1:1b, A.V. ‘…..To them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’
2Peter 1:1b, N.I.V. ‘….To those who through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ have obtained a faith as precious as ours’ (other modern versions are similar).
The only modern translation that supports the A.V. in these two texts is the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses! Just in case it might be thought that the A.V. is right in these instances, let the reader look at 2Peter 1:11. Here the A.V. rightly translates, ‘….our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.’ Yet the Greek construction here is exactly the same as in 1:1. I have no doubt that all the translators of the A.V. were staunch Trinitarians, but it ill behoves A.V. supporters to sneer at the N.I.V. while the A.V. contains such serious errors.
There is also another place where the A.V. finds itself in agreement with the J.W.s. In John 1:32, it denies the personality of the Holy Spirit, referring to Him as ‘it.’ If a new Bible version appeared today with a similar error in it, the supporters of the Affirmation would be the first to pillory both the version and its translators .
Let me be clear once again. I am not saying that the A.V. is a bad translation or that it is worse than the N.I.V. The N.I.V. falls short on numerous occasions. What I am saying is that the question of Bible translations should not be made an excuse for separation. Let discussion continue by all means, but in a spirit of love while we contend for the Gospel of Christ. I repeat, if the N.K.J.V. is not acceptable, let us have a new version based on the traditional texts, produced by a Christian organization. I can think of no one better to do it that the Trinitarian Bible Society. There is a Spanish Bible version, the Reina Valera, that is even older than the A.V., and based upon the same texts. Yet this version has been regularly updated as the Spanish language has changed. Revisions were made in 1909, in 1960, and now I understand that the T.B.S. is undertaking a new revision. Quite right! If the A.V. had been carefully revised every 50 years or so, there might not have been the need for the plethora of new versions.
From my blog http://marprelate.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/affirmation-2010-a-reluctant-critique/
Steve
You need to do more research yourself. You are not as well-informed as you assume. The NKJV is based on the same original language texts as the KJV. Here is firsthand evidence that you ignore. Concerning the NKJV, James D. Price, who was executive editor for the NKJV's Old Testament, observed: “Constant reference was made to the printed edition of the Hebrew Bible used by the translators of 1611, the second Bomberg edition edited by Jacob ben Chayyim. In those few places where the Bomberg text differed from the Stuttgart edition, the Bomberg reading was followed” (King James Onlyism, p. 307).
Thus, while the NKJV made use of a slightly different printed edition of the Hebrew text, they still followed and translated from the same text as the KJV since the NKJV translators followed the Bomberg reading in the few places where the edition they used differed from the Bomberg. The KJV does not agree 100% with the Bomberg edition since the KJV differs from it in some places.
Slightly edited to reflect the truth.
Rom 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. [NIV]
Rom. 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. [KJV]
Phillipians 2:6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, [NIV]
Phillipians 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: [KJV]
Are there more?
Johathan01
New Member
As fellow Baptists, I am not sure why we are having this argument. Have you actually compared the NKJV with the KJV from cover to cover or do you just repeat what you read and hear?
I am familiar with James Price who has admitted that he is not committed to the Received Text.and that the NKJV translators did not solely follow the Masoretic Hebrew text in the OT of the NKJV but that they introduced textual changes. In fact, the NKJV ignores the Receptus over 1,200 times and makes over 100,000 translation changes. Now these are facts, not opinions and if you choose to ignore that then that is your prerogative. But to come on a public forum giving false information without doing the research is just plain wrong.
Let me ask you something: If the NKJV is from the same exact texts as the KJV then we would expect to find only changes from the archaic or Kings James English to modern English correct? How is it that these two versions disagree in whole verses.? That there are many omissions in the NKJV?
Example: 2 Corinthians 2:17 "For we are not as many which corrupt the word of God" KJV
"peddling the word of God" NKJV
Now corrupt and peddling are 2 very different words with different meanings.
Titus 3:10 "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject" KJV
"Reject a divisive man" NKJV
Heretic and divisive are two very different words
There are other examples. Both translations can't be correct. If one is right, the other has to be wrong.
You are wrong. Just learn that, move on and you will be much the wiser for it.
I sat where you sat many years ago and I wish I had had someone to tell me the truth back then instead of wallowing in my ignorance as I did for so many years. KJVO is wrong. Period.
Get that through your thick skull, enjoy using your KJV or whichever version you settle upon, and serve the Lord with all of your heart.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Still have not seen one instance where th NKJV chose a CT rendering over the TR.
If there are 1200 surely one can be shown here.
If there are 1200 surely one can be shown here.
Johathan01
New Member
You and others on here believe that the NKJV is based upon the same Hebrew and Greek texts used by the KJV translators. However,this claim is not true and can be easily documented by comparing the wording of the NKJV with the NIV, NASV, RSV and other versions whose translators admittedly used other Hebrew and Greek texts.
You have yet to prove that it wasn't!
- Status