• 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!

NKJV on Genesis 49:6

David Lamb

David Lamb

Well-Known Member
KJB1611reader said:
They used all the versions they had, there are many times they went to the Latin instead of the Hebrew.

How do we know they used hebrew in 49:6?

They knew there was a option for ox. Its in the margin.
Click to expand...
We know that they translated out of Hebrew (Greek for the New Testament) because the title page includes these words: "THE HOLY BIBLE, Containing the Old Testament, AND THE NEW: Newly Translated out of the Original tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties special Commandment." So they referred to earlier translations, but they translated from the Hebrew and Greek.
 
KJB1611reader

KJB1611reader

Member
David Lamb said:
We know that they translated out of Hebrew (Greek for the New Testament) because the title page includes these words: "THE HOLY BIBLE, Containing the Old Testament, AND THE NEW: Newly Translated out of the Original tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties special Commandment." So they referred to earlier translations, but they translated from the Hebrew and Greek.
Click to expand...

Okay, I will try to find the verses where they went to Latin not Hebrew.
 
KJB1611reader

KJB1611reader

Member
I made a mistake:

Neither did wee thinke much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrewe, Syrian, Greeke, or Latine, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdaine to revise that which we had done, and to bring backe to the anvill that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helpes as were needfull, and fearing no reproch for slownesse, nor coveting praise for expedition, wee have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the worke to that passe that you see. (From the Translators to the Reader, pp. 9-10 of Campbell’s edition)
 
L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
KJB1611reader said:
The nkjv didn't keep the KJB text and went with an alternative reading.
Click to expand...
The NKJV translated the KJV's underlying Hebrew Masoretic text. Disagreeing with the KJV translators' translation decision does not suggest that they did not follow the KJV's underlying text. The NKJV does not go with an alternative reading.

William Tyndale, in effect the primary translator of the KJV, translated the Hebrew at Genesis 49:6 as "houghed an ox." The 1535 Coverdale's Bible and 1537 Matthew’s also have "houghed an ox." In its marginal note at Genesis 49:6, the 1611 KJV has "houghed oxen" as an acceptable alternative rendering. Would David Cloud give Tyndale, Coverdale, and Rogers the benefit of the doubt and “admit that they had serious reasons for every translation they gave” (For Love of the Bible, p. 65)? Was William Grady unaware of this rendering in the KJV-only view's line of good Bibles such as Tyndale's, Coverdale's, and Matthew’s and as the acceptable alternative rendering in the 1611 KJV [see Final Authority, p. 312)?
 
L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
In the concise Hebrew dictionary in Strong's Concordance, James Strong indicated that the Hebrew word was translated "wall" in the KJV "by mistake" (p. 114). In his Exposition of Genesis, H. C. Leupold contended that this KJV rendering "is not correct" (p. 1174).

Concerning this verse in his commentary on Genesis, Peter Ruckman indicated that "the word 'ox' (Heb. Shor) is translated by the A. V. as Shur" (p. 840).

John Gill contended that Simeon and Levi "don't seem to have had proper instruments" for digging down a wall of a city, "nor a sufficient number for such work, and which would have required longer time than they used" (Exposition, I, p. 302). Benjamin Kennicott asserted that the Hebrew word “does not signify a wall, may be inferred from the history of the destruction of the Sichemites by Simeon and Levi; chapter 34:25 etc., since no such circumstance is at all mentioned as their digging down the walls of the city: which indeed could have answered no end, as they had murdered all the men and plundered the city” (State, I, p. 57). Benjamin Kennicott added that “it is more unlikely still, that old Jacob should in this solemn manner curse their passion most for doing, what (if they had done it) would have been the least part of their crime” (Ibid.).

James D. Price maintained that the Massoretic Text's reading "hamstrung an ox" was emended under the influence of three ancient Versions--Latin Vulgate, Aramaic Targum, and Syriac (Textual Emendations, pp. 18, 75; see also King James Onlyism, pp. 293, 589). KJV defender Charles Surrett asserted that “based on vowel pointing” the Hebrew supports the NKJV’s rendering “hamstrung an ox” at Genesis 49:6 (Certainty of the Words, p. 109).
 
L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
KJB1611reader said:
The nkjv is not a kjb.
Click to expand...
The NKJV does not claim to be the 1611 KJV.

The truth remains that the NKJV is a revision of the KJV in the same sense (univocally) as the KJV is a revision of the 1568 Bishops' Bible and other pre-1611 English Bibles.

Just as the KJV is both a revision and a translation, the NKJV is both a revision and a translation.
 
KJB1611reader

KJB1611reader

Member
Logos1560 said:
The NKJV does not claim to be the 1611 KJV.

The truth remains that the NKJV is a revision of the KJV in the same sense (univocally) as the KJV is a revision of the 1568 Bishops' Bible and other pre-1611 English Bibles.

Just as the KJV is both a revision and a translation, the NKJV is both a revision and a translation.
Click to expand...
No.
 
KJB1611reader

KJB1611reader

Member
I reject the Nkjv.

I am a defender of the King James Bible (the text, not the scholars or the Margins.)

I do not accept any word changes from lexicons or previous or future versions.

I accept the English text purfied in the Pure Cambridge Edition.
 
L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
KJB1611reader said:
I do not accept any word changes from lexicons or previous or future versions.

I accept the English text purfied in the Pure Cambridge Edition.
Click to expand...
The claimed Pure Cambridge Edition has some changes made to the words of the 1611 edition that were already earlier found in the 1560 Geneva Bible or the 1568 Bishops' Bible. Thus, some of the changes and revisions made to the 1611 edition of the KJV could be said to come from previous English versions.
 
KJB1611reader

KJB1611reader

Member
Logos1560 said:
The claimed Pure Cambridge Edition has some changes made to the words of the 1611 edition that were already earlier found in the 1560 Geneva Bible or the 1568 Bishops' Bible. Thus, some of the changes and revisions made to the 1611 edition of the KJV could be said to come from previous English versions.
Click to expand...

So, its not the 1769 that added it back?

Have a list of PCE changes that no other version had before?
 
C

Conan

Well-Known Member
KJB1611reader said:
I reject the Nkjv.

I am a defender of the King James Bible (the text, not the scholars or the Margins.)

I do not accept any word changes from lexicons or previous or future versions.

I accept the English text purfied in the Pure Cambridge Edition.
Click to expand...
Then you reject the 1611 KJV and are not a defender. You believe in the unauthorized changes to the true KJV and it's Translators.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top