NKJV vs KJV accuracy

[Thinkingstuff]

Yes. I realize that, but taken in context, the two verses I posted are speaking of the person, "Joshua" from the OT, not Jesus the Messiah. It should read "Joshua".

Yes that is true and a good point.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Actually the name Jesus and Joshua are interchangable. In hebrew Joshua is Yeshua which is also the name of Jesus. Yeshua Ha Meshiach. Or Joshua the Messiah or Jesus the Messiah...

You have skipped the intermediate step; "Jesus" does not come directly into English from Hebrew. The Anglicized name spelt J-E-S-U-S (stemming from the Latin I-E-S-U-S) comes from the Greek I-E-S-O-U-S, itself a Hellenization (not a strict transliteration) of the Hebrew name of Y-E-H-O-W-S-H-U-A (or the Hebrew-Aramaic variation Y-E-S-H-U-A). The name was spelt I-E-S-U-S in the 1611 Authorized Version (as the letter 'J' was not yet in common use).

"Yehoshua" (Strong's #3091) means 'Jehovah is salvation'. The title "Christ" meaning 'anointed' in Greek is roughly equivalent to the Hebrew "Messiah" (Anointed One). But 'Yeshua Ha Meshiach' was not His given name and does not appear in scripture. The Hebrew word mashiyach (Strong's #4899) occurs 39 times in the OT and is rendered 37 times in the KJV as "anointed", and just twice as "Messiah" (in Daniel 9:25 & 26).

 

[AntennaFarmer]

It makes perfect sense. The Bible itself gives you no reason to choose the KJV as a point of reference. In other words, you will not find one verse in the Bible that makes the KJV the point of reference.

"Reference" can be a relative value. It is perfectly acceptable to use any reference point you choose so long as it is stated. I offered a clear example to show how I intended to use the word. Perhaps you confuse "reference" with "standard". A standard should be absolute (though not always).

So, show me your standard. Is your standard Wescott & Hort or Nestle-Alland? Can you prove that their methods are Biblical? Is your standard the TR or the majority text? If yes then you are a large fellow! Now prove that version is correct from the Scriptures.

Well, it turns out that you misread me correctly. The KJV is not only my reference point but also my standard. My reasons are repeated (and expanded) below.

There are no original manuscripts. But you talk about my reading things you didn't say. You didn't read what I did say. I said "original language manuscripts." And there are many of those.

You are correct. It was entirely my fault. I should have said: "Please show me the original language manuscript that I should use as a point of reference. You can't. I know because I have looked. None of them read like my copy of Nestle-Alland."

No I don't think you grasp it. Your responses are misleading. You have no biblical basis for using the KJV as a reference point. And if you are correct that the KJV is the reference point, then most of church history has had no reference point. And I could give other reasons.

I have given you honest responses.

In the past the "received text" (used in the general sense) was the Byzantine manuscripts for the Greek speaking people, Old Latin for Latin speakers, the Vulgate for the RC & etc.. Each respective group would be expected to use that version as a reference by which to judge an innovation.

While it is obviously not true for everyone, for millions of folks the KJV is the "received text" of the Bible. That is a fact. Anyone offering an innovation (new Bible Version) must show that their Bible is either equally good or superior to the reader's received text. Since the reader is generally unable to judge the innovations fully he is left to a judgment of trust in the innovator (scholar).

The majority body of scholars have long since rejected the text on which both the KJV and the NKJV are based. If I follow the modern textual critics I must therefore reject both the KJV and the NKJV. In that case this entire thread is moot.

If, however, I reject the scholarship of the majority of textual critics then I feel quite free to also reject much of modern Biblical scholarship.

How do I make that leap? I studied "scholars" (mostly non-Baptist) who taught me the "diffusion" theory which denies the Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt. They also told me that the Bible's account of the fall of Jericho was untrue. They taught that the virgin birth was a myth. I seriously doubt, however, that you could find one of those "Bible scholars" who didn't love the revised Bible text. They tend to praise the revised original language texts for accuracy. What in their minds is the text accurate to? A myth? It is guilt by association for me. If they don't believe the Bible then I don't respect their scholarship.

So, having rejected the scholarship of the textual critics and also the scholarship of the "Bible scholars" I must fall back on the opinions of those I trust.

I trust my fellow Baptists from whom I learned about Christ. Among them were grandparents and parents and pastors. I observed their lives and believed their testimonies about Christ Jesus. They pointed to King James Version Holy Bibles and said "that is the Bible".

I can either trust the word of those I know or trust the theories of Bishop Wescott. That is my choice.

So, back to the topic: If I try to stand on the NKJV I am still assailed by the modern textual critics. I get no relief there. At the same time I can not be completely certain with the NKJV. My time and talent are not sufficient for a complete validation of the NKJV. With the KJV I have fallen back to a position I have confidence in because it was delivered to me by those I trust. Sadly, the NKJV does not offer me that assurance.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

This is the preface in my NKJV:

In the Preface to the 1611 edition, the translators of the Authorized Version, know popularly as the King James Bible, state that it was not their purpose "to make a new translation...but to make a good one better." Indebted to the earlier work of William Tyndale and others, they saw their best contribution to consist in revising and enhancing the excellence of the English versions which had sprung from the Reformation of the sixteenth century. In harmony with the purpose of the King James scholars, the translators and editors of the present work have not pursued a goal of innovation. They have perceived the Holy Bible, New King James Version, as a continuation of the labors of the earlier translators, thus unlocking for today's readers the spiritual treasures found especially in the Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures.

(bolding mine)

I don't know where biblegateway.com got their information, but here are some citations from the Preface of the New King James Bible (1982, as found in The Evangelical Parallel New Testament, edited by Kohlenberger my bold) --
In harmony with the purpose f the King James scholars, the translators and editors of the present work have not persued a goal of innovation. They have perceived the Holy Bible, New king James Version, as a continuation of the labors of the earlier translators,...

In light of these facts, and also because the New King James version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, ...

Your quotes are consistent with the preface in both copies I found in my collection. I didn't find my earliest (and most used) copy. It was probably misplaced in my last move. I believe both of the copies I found were about 1990 or so (sorry, I neglected to make a note of the copyright dates).

An interesting additional item is that one of those editions (the most recent) also has Scofield notes. The foreword of that edition goes to even greater lengths to present the NKJV as a revision of the KJV.

So then, how did we get to a "fifth revision of a historic document" from "completely new, modern translation of Scripture"*?

I guess this calls for a trip to the library.




*reference in my post #15 this thread.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi AntennaFarmer


Pastor Larry said.......

“It makes perfect sense. The Bible itself gives you no reason to choose the KJV as a point of reference. In other words, you will not find one verse in the Bible that makes the KJV the point of reference.”

Then in respons, you said.......

“So, show me your standard. Is your standard Wescott & Hort or Nestle-Alland? Can you prove that their methods are Biblical? Is your standard the TR or the majority text? If yes then you are a large fellow! Now prove that version is correct from the Scriptures.”

This was a great response. I can’t wait to see what the say!

 

[franklinmonroe]

"Reference" can be a relative value. It is perfectly acceptable to use any reference point you choose so long as it is stated...

You are correct, AF.

So, show me your standard. Is your standard Wescott & Hort or Nestle-Alland? Can you prove that their methods are Biblical? Is your standard the TR or the majority text? If yes then you are a large fellow! Now prove that version is correct from the Scriptures.

Impossible.

...None of them read like my copy of Nestle-Alland."

Nor does the AV strictly read as any edition of the TR that exisited before 1611.

While it is obviously not true for everyone, for millions of folks the KJV is the "received text" of the Bible. That is a fact. Anyone offering an innovation (new Bible Version) must show that their Bible is either equally good or superior to the reader's received text. Since the reader is generally unable to judge the innovations fully he is left to a judgment of trust in the innovator (scholar).

Yes, we all put trust in scholars.

So, having rejected the scholarship of the textual critics and also the scholarship of the "Bible scholars" I must fall back on the opinions of those I trust.

I trust my fellow Baptists from whom I learned about Christ. Among them were grandparents and parents and pastors. I observed their lives and believed their testimonies about Christ Jesus. They pointed to King James Version Holy Bibles and said "that is the Bible".

I understand. It is your right.

How do I make that leap? I studied "scholars" (mostly non-Baptist) who taught me the "diffusion" theory which denies the Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt. They also told me that the Bible's account of the fall of Jericho was untrue. They taught that the virgin birth was a myth. I seriously doubt, however, that you could find one of those "Bible scholars" who didn't love the revised Bible text. They tend to praise the revised original language texts for accuracy. What in their minds is the text accurate to? A myth? It is guilt by association for me. If they don't believe the Bible then I don't respect their scholarship.

I can either trust the word of those I know or trust the theories of Bishop Wescott. That is my choice.

That is sad; I'm sorry that you had such a bad experience. However, some unbelievers claim to reject Christianity on the basis of some individuals un-Christlike behavior; they are looking to the wrong examples. Likewise, there are many Godly men that support other Bible versions; faithful men that I believe can be trusted.

The majority body of scholars have long since rejected the text on which both the KJV and the NKJV are based. If I follow the modern textual critics I must therefore reject both the KJV and the NKJV. In that case this entire thread is moot.

Not so. The question in the topic heading is which (KJV or NKJV) is the more accurate. I understand 'accuracy' as a measure of its fidelity to the underlying text that they share (apples-to-apples).

 

[Pastor Larry]

"Reference" can be a relative value. It is perfectly acceptable to use any reference point you choose so long as it is stated.

No, it’s not.

So, show me your standard. Is your standard Wescott & Hort or Nestle-Alland? Can you prove that their methods are Biblical? Is your standard the TR or the majority text? If yes then you are a large fellow! Now prove that version is correct from the Scriptures.

My standard is the multitude of manuscripts that God has preserved. (Stilllearning said this was a great response. It wasn't. Hopefully he will continue to learn the difference.) The methods of textual criticism are many and varied. Whether you choose the methods of Erasmus, Scrivener, Westcott and Hort, Nestle-Aland, modern KJVO proponents such as yourself, or someone else, everyone practices textual criticism. You cannot avoid it. However, the testimony of Scripture is that God did not use perfect preservation for his Word. And so those who recognize that we do not have a perfect translation are the ones who are biblical.

"Please show me the original language manuscript that I should use as a point of reference. You can't. I know because I have looked. None of them read like my copy of Nestle-Alland."

First, it’s “Aland.” If you are going to drop names, at least drop them correctly. Second, the multitude of manuscripts is what God has graciously preserved and is therefore what we should use.

I have given you honest responses.

I don’t doubt that they are honest. They are also misguided in some respects.

In the past the "received text" (used in the general sense) was the Byzantine manuscripts for the Greek speaking people…While it is obviously not true for everyone, for millions of folks the KJV is the "received text" of the Bible. That is a fact.

You are confusing the meaning of “received text. The received text did not have to do with the native language, but with the parent document.

Anyone offering an innovation (new Bible Version) must show that their Bible is either equally good or superior to the reader's received text.

Modern translations have certainly passed that test beyond any reasonable doubt.

I seriously doubt, however, that you could find one of those "Bible scholars" who didn't love the revised Bible text.

This is a nonsensical argument. Millions of people who love modern versions fully accept the historicity of the Bible.

At the same time I can not be completely certain with the NKJV.

Actually you can be.

With the KJV I have fallen back to a position I have confidence in because it was delivered to me by those I trust.

But what if you trusted the wrong people? And what if (as the case actually is), that modern versions and the KJV are faithful translations of God’s word? You are failing to gratefully avail yourself of one of God’s gracious gifts to his church. But more importantly, you are threatening the faith of others by telling them they can’t trust their Bibles. And that is a far more serious charge.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi Pastor Larry

Although your response was to “AntennaFarmer”, I saw my name mentioned, so I feel that I am now open to give my response.

Yes, AntennaFarmer’s last response was a GREAT one, because of the way it was worded.
(Forcing your hand!)

Your first statement.......

“My standard is the multitude of manuscripts that God has preserved.”

I have heard this before, and it is a “copout”, for people who don’t want to believe anything.

By the way, earlier when I talked about, “Forcing your hand”, here is what I meant;
You said........

“However, the testimony of Scripture is that God did not use perfect preservation for his Word. And so those who recognize that we do not have a perfect translation are the ones who are biblical.”

In other words, God messed up, and left us without a Bible we can trust.
--------------------------------------------------
Well your god may have messed up, but my God didn’t.

 

[EdSutton]

Hi Pastor Larry

Although your response was to “AntennaFarmer”, I saw my name mentioned, so I feel that I am now open to give my response.

Yes, AntennaFarmer’s last response was a GREAT one, because of the way it was worded.
(Forcing your hand!)

Your first statement.......


I have heard this before, and it is a “copout”, for people who don’t want to believe anything.

By the way, earlier when I talked about, “Forcing your hand”, here is what I meant;
You said........

In other words, God messed up, and left us without a Bible we can trust.
--------------------------------------------------
Well your god may have messed up, but my God didn’t.

The same implied (but unstated) logic also implies that one could not 'trust' any Bible before the 1611 (or is that the 1769) KJV appeared.

Incidentally, do you 'trust' the 1611 with the Apocrypha? Or do you have to chop that out, first, before you can trust it? Remember, the 1611 [as did the 1762 (Paris), 1769 (Blayney), Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Whittingham (sp.?), Rogers, Great, Bishop's, Geneva, et al.) contained the Apocrypha. Maybe we cannot really trust any prior to the last half of the 19th Century!

Oh yeah, if one cannot trust the Vulgate today, how could one trust Wycliffe and Purvey, being as they translated from it?

Ed

 

[stilllearning]

Hello Ed

You said........

“The same implied (but unstated) logic also implies that one could not 'trust' any Bible before the 1611 (or is that the 1769) KJV.”

This response, implies that the things I said in my last response, were from a KJVO, position; But they weren't.

I was just talking from a strictly Christian perspective.
--------------------------------------------------
I believe, that as a Christian, we need to have faith in “something”(a Bible).
And the way that things were going, it seemed as though, people were saying, that “no Bible” could be trusted.

This was the point of my thread a month or so ago:
“Which Bible do you stand upon as being God’s Word”

======================================

One more thing; “To whom it may concern”

After posting my last response on this thread, I noticed that “Pastor Larry”, was a Moderator.

I have really enjoyed my time on this site, and would hope, that will be permitted to stay.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Quote Pastor Larry: "No, it’s not."
I am sorry to report that you have no future in engineering or physics.

Quote Pastor Larry: "First, it’s “Aland.” If you are going to drop names, at least drop them correctly."
I stand corrected. That was a pedantic and insulting comment. A reference to a well known and used source is not "name dropping".

Quote Pastor Larry: "I don’t doubt that they are honest. They are also misguided in some respects."
You previously called my comments "misleading".

Quote Pastor Larry: "You are confusing the meaning of “received text. The received text did not have to do with the native language, but with the parent document."
I fully qualified my comment.

Quote Pastor Larry: "But what if you trusted the wrong people?"
That is a worthless question. I trust Jesus Christ. I also trust the people who told me about Jesus. I also trust the Scriptures where I read about Christ. Why do you wish to drop a seed of doubt?

Quote Pastor Larry: "This is a nonsensical argument. Millions of people who love modern versions fully accept the historicity of the Bible."
I am sure you are correct about "millions of people". Millions more ignore Christ. An appeal to numbers argument doesn't prove anything.

 

[Amy.G]

Antenna Farmer, (maybe someday you could explain what that is :laugh: ),
One of the reasons I read the NKJV is because someone I trust recommended it to me, my pastor at the time. Does the fact that I trust him make the NKJV more accurate than the KJV? No. Yet that is your argument for the KJV being more accurate than the NKJV. I am not a scholar as anyone on this board I'm sure will gladly tell you, but I am not stupid either. What makes ANY version accurate is how closely it follows the underlying texts. The NKJV version follows the same texts as the KJV and it also follows the KJV translation, which makes it both a translation and a revision of the KJV.
I do not believe either version (yes, the KJV is a version) is more accurate than the other. They are both the word of the living God.

I noticed you did not address my post #158.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Yes, AntennaFarmer’s last response was a GREAT one, because of the way it was worded.

No, it was a bad one because it was misguided and misleading. It had absolutely no relevance.

I have heard this before, and it is a “copout”, for people who don’t want to believe anything.

I can assure you that my doctrine of bibliology is rigidly biblical, and is apparently solid than yours is. My statement is no copout at all.

By the way, earlier when I talked about, “Forcing your hand”, here is what I meant;
You said........
Quote:
“However, the testimony of Scripture is that God did not use perfect preservation for his Word. And so those who recognize that we do not have a perfect translation are the ones who are biblical.”

In other words, God messed up, and left us without a Bible we can trust.

Again, just an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. It reveals a sad state of ignorance on your part of the real issues.

Well your god may have messed up, but my God didn’t.

I am not sure who your God is, and I don't know why you don't capitalize the one true and living God who has spoken through the Bible. But if you worship a different God than I do, you need to repent and be saved.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Quote Pastor Larry: "No, it’s not."

I am sorry to report that you have no future in engineering or physics.

Not sure why are you are sorry to report that, nor what relevance it has to anything here. I don't want a future in engineering or physics.

Quote Pastor Larry: "First, it’s “Aland.” If you are going to drop names, at least drop them correctly."

I stand corrected. That was a pedantic and insulting comment. A reference to a well known and used source is not "name dropping".

It was neither pedantic nor insulting. If you are going to pretend like you know what you are talking about, then spell people's names right. It will greatly enhance your credibility.

Quote Pastor Larry: "I don’t doubt that they are honest. They are also misguided in some respects."
You previously called my comments "misleading".

Yes I did. And I did it again. I have no doubt that they are honest statements of your thinking. But your thinking is misguided and misleading.

Quote Pastor Larry: "You are confusing the meaning of “received text. The received text did not have to do with the native language, but with the parent document."

I fully qualified my comment.

But you misused it.

Quote Pastor Larry: "But what if you trusted the wrong people?"

That is a worthless question. I trust Jesus Christ. I also trust the people who told me about Jesus. I also trust the Scriptures where I read about Christ. Why do you wish to drop a seed of doubt?

It's not a worthless question. You are the one saying you trusted certain people and distrusted others. I merely asked about the outcome if you are trusting the wrong ones. I read of Christ in my NASB every day and am greatly blessed and challenged by it.

Quote Pastor Larry: "This is a nonsensical argument. Millions of people who love modern versions fully accept the historicity of the Bible."

I am sure you are correct about "millions of people". Millions more ignore Christ. An appeal to numbers argument doesn't prove anything.

But you are the one who appealed to the millions of people for whom the KJV is the received text. So your appeal to numbers doesn't prove anything.

In the end, AF, feel free to trust your KJV. You should. But do not attack the word of God in other translations.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Antenna Farmer, (maybe someday you could explain what that is :laugh: ),
One of the reasons I read the NKJV is because someone I trust recommended it to me, my pastor at the time. Does the fact that I trust him make the NKJV more accurate than the KJV? No. Yet that is your argument for the KJV being more accurate than the NKJV. I am not a scholar as anyone on this board I'm sure will gladly tell you, but I am not stupid either. What makes ANY version accurate is how closely it follows the underlying texts. The NKJV version follows the same texts as the KJV and it also follows the KJV translation, which makes it both a translation and a revision of the KJV.
I do not believe either version (yes, the KJV is a version) is more accurate than the other. They are both the word of the living God.

I noticed you did not address my post #158.

Amy.G, I think your reason for using the NKJV is a good reason. I believe I mentioned that I used the NKJV for years.

If you notice the original post in this thread said "Just exactly what is the KJO beef with the NKJV translation of the Bible? Please be specific." I don't actually have much of a problem with the NKJV. It just ain't the KJV. Most of my posts have been trying to explain why I ended up using the KJV again. I fully understand that my reasons may not be meaningful to you.

I also explained somewhere here my opinion that, while based on a good Greek text, the NKJV used some elements of modern scholarship that I disagree with.

I will go back and look for your question.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

In the end, AF, feel free to trust your KJV. You should. But do not attack the word of God in other translations.

Please show me where I attacked any Bible translation.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Pastor Larry: "It was neither pedantic nor insulting. If you are going to pretend like you know what you are talking about, then spell people's names right. It will greatly enhance your credibility."

Your manner is the definition of pedantic.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... In other words, God messed up, and left us without a Bible we can trust...

Did you read what you wrote? Who is "us"? What about the many tribes that still have no portion of the 'Bible' translated into their native tongue today (not mention the millennia of years previous)? Did God just leave these people out? Did God forget about those with little education and knowledge; upon what basis should they "trust" people bearing books of foreign words and ideas?

I would suggest that at the end of the day, we all must accept our 'Bible' with a childlike faith. I cannot prove the Bible is true. The truth of the Bible is my a priori presupposition.

Otherwise, I recommend that you cite your authority or source with the absolute explicit promise from God that we (on Earth) will always have a perfectly-preserved written-record of all His words.

 

[Askjo]

The NKJV version follows the same texts as the KJV and it also follows the KJV translation, which makes it both a translation and a revision of the KJV.

WRONG! That is not true. The KJV and the NKJV differ each other 2,000 times. The NKJV did not follow the Greek TR in the New Testament 700 times.

 

[Amy.G]

WRONG! That is not true. The KJV and the NKJV differ each other 2,000 times.

So???????????