Re: Men who like the KJV, but not the NKJV ...

[Logos1560]

This video will show you differences between the KJV and NKJV where the NKJV will often lean towards the Egyptian readings as do all other modern translations.

The NKJV does not often lean towards the so-called "Egyptian" readings. This allegation is misleading and bogus. The NKJV is based on the same Hebrew and Greek texts as the KJV is. KJV-only advocates make false reports against the NKJV.

The KJV likely made more use of a non-Textus Receptus source [the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament translated from an edition of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome] than any non-Textus Receptus source supposedly used in the making of the NKJV.

 

[Logos1560]

In an example of a specific KJV-only accusation concerning the NKJV, Raymond Blanton protested that "mansions" at John 14:2 was replaced with "dwelling places" in the NKJV (Perilous Times, October, 1994, p. 5). James Son claimed: "For the most part, the modern translations substitute the word 'rooms' and the words 'dwelling places' for the word 'mansions'" (New Athenians, p. 215).

Kent Rabe claimed that the Spanish Reina-Valera differs from the Greek Received Text at John 14:2 by changing "mansions" to "dwelling places" (Double Exposure, p. 35). Three early pre-1611 English Bibles from the Greek Received Text have this same rendering "dwelling places" as an edition of the NKJV is claimed to have had while the 1535 Coverdale's Bible and 1538 Coverdale's Duoglott have "dwellings." The 1543 Spanish Enzinas also has "moradas" [dwelling] at John 14:2. Luther's German Bible has "Wonungn" [dwellings] at John 14:2. Concerning this verse, Martin Luther wrote: “First of all, they should know of the many abodes for them with the Father” (Luther’s Works, Vol. 24, p. 26). Wycliffe’s Bible has “dwellings” at John 14:2. At this verse, the 1657 English edition of The Dutch Annotations has "In my Father's house [That is, in heaven] are many dwellings [or abidings, or abiding places]." The KJV translators themselves rendered this same Greek word as "abode" at John 14:23. Would the KJV’s own rendering at John 14:23 provide support for use of the same rendering at John 14:2? Would Gail Riplinger claim that “abode” was the KJV’s perfect built-in definition for its rendering mansion?

Ken Barker noted: "The word 'mansions' in King James's day had the idea of 'manse,' which was a dwelling" (Accuracy Defined & Illustrated, p. 91). In 1604, Robert Cawdrey defined mansion as “an abiding place” (Table Alphabetical). In his 1828 Dictionary, Noah Webster gave the first definition of mansion as "any place of residence; a house; a habitation." He then listed the usage of "mansion" at John 14:2 as an example of this definition.

Waite's Defined KJB gave the following definition for mansion: "resting, abiding, or dwelling places" (p. 1418). David Cloud’s Concise KJB Dictionary has this meaning: “an abode” (p. 58). The Liberty Annotated Study Bible gave the following note for mansions: "Lit. dwellings" (p. 1639). Green's Concise Lexicon defined the Greek word used at John 14:2 and 23 as "an abode, dwelling" (p. 85). A Bible Word List in the back of the Cambridge Standard Text Edition of the KJV defined mansions as “resting places, abiding places.“

The rendering "mansions" likely came from the Latin Vulgate rendering in this verse: mansiones. Perhaps unaware of the likely source of this word and its meaning in the 1600's, James Son claimed that "Mansions is the exact word that the Lord wants us to have" (New Athenians, p. 216).

Do many present-day readers of the KJV understand the meaning of the word "mansions" as it was used in the 1500’s and 1611 or do they read another meaning into this word?

 

[Logos1560]

Robert Sanderson (19 September 1587 – 29 January 1663)
Dr. Robert Sanderson developed a dear friendship with Dr. Richard Kilbie (Kilby, Kilbye), an older English scholar and priest, rector of Lincoln College and Regius Professor of Hebrew, who served in the "First Oxford Company" charged by James I of England with translating the latter part of the Old Testament for the King James Version of the Bible.

The following incident is recorded by Isaak Walton in his “Life of Dr. Robert Sanderson”:

• , for that word, for which he offered to that poor congregation three reasons why it ought to have been translated as he said; he and others had considered all them, and found thirteen more considerable reasons why it was translated as now printed;[1]”

KJV-only advocates are quick to believe and repeat this second-hand story said to involve KJV translator Richard Kilby. The claimed "thirteen reasons" are not listed and given so readers can see if they are actually "more considerable" than the "three reasons."

Joanna Weinberg maintained that KJV translator Richard Kilby was “dubbed ‘a walking Pagnini,’ a reference to the Dominican Santas Pagnini, author of the most authoritative, and frequently consulted, Hebrew-Latin dictionary” (Feingold, Labourers, p. 163). Do KJV-only authors ever acknowledge that Richard Kilby and other KJV translators made use of a Hebrew-Latin lexicon made by a Roman Catholic Jesuit Santas Pagnini?

According to the guilt-by-association fallacy that KJV-only advocates use against the NKJV, the KJV could be associated with a Roman Catholic Jesuit. The same fallacy that KJV-only advocates use against the NKJV was also used against the Lord Jesus Christ when it was said that Jesus was a friend of sinners.

 

[Logos1560]

This video will show you differences between the KJV and NKJV where the NKJV will often lean towards the Egyptian readings as do all other modern translations.

That unreliable KJV-only video depends upon use of fallacies such as guilt-by-association and upon use of unjust divers measures [double standards], which are an abomination to the LORD.

 

[robycop3]

Re: Men who like the KJV, but not the NKJV ...

I've often heard that many men who like the KJV are averse to using the NKJV.

Does anyone here have an explanation for this?

I'm curious, and I know the men here can probably enlighten me as to why this is the case.

The MAIN KJVO explanation is...IT AINT THE KJV!

 

[George Antonios]

The NKJV does not often lean towards the so-called "Egyptian" readings. This allegation is misleading and bogus.

Only I demonstrated it in the video. So deal with the facts presented please. I was careful to say "lean".

he NKJV is based on the same Hebrew and Greek texts as the KJV is.

I acknowledged that in the thread. No sense just repeating it as if I hadn't unless you missed one of my posts.

The KJV likely made more use of a non-Textus Receptus source [the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament translated from an edition of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome] than any non-Textus Receptus source supposedly used in the making of the NKJV.

Give facts. For example:

ISBE: "A few [emphasis mine] Latinisms were even adopted by the translators of the King James Version from the Catholic Douai-Rheims version, such as upbraideth not, bridleth his tongue, at his own charges, and others."

Ken Barker noted: "The word 'mansions' in King James's day had the idea of 'manse,' which was a dwelling" (Accuracy Defined & Illustrated, p. 91). In 1604, Robert Cawdrey defined mansion as “an abiding place” (Table Alphabetical). In his 1828 Dictionary, Noah Webster gave the first definition of mansion as "any place of residence; a house; a habitation." He then listed the usage of "mansion" at John 14:2 as an example of this definition.

Do many present-day readers of the KJV understand the meaning of the word "mansions" as it was used in the 1500’s and 1611 or do they read another meaning into this word?

But that's not the full story. As of the mid-14th century the word mansion already had the sense of "chief residence of a lord," (OED) and the translators would have been aware of that.

 

[JesusFan]

The MAIN KJVO explanation is...IT AINT THE KJV!

which kjv, 1611, 1769. 1873 etc?

 

[robycop3]

which kjv, 1611, 1769. 1873 etc?

None-Most KJVOs say, "If it aint the KJV, it aint a valid Bible translation." "Long as it's the KJV, any revision.it's valid & no other is."

 

[Logos1560]

Only I demonstrated it in the video. So deal with the facts presented please. I was careful to say "lean".

Because you assume and claim that you demonstrated it does not prove that you actually did. What KJV-only advocates may claim to be "facts" sometimes does not measure up to being actual facts.

Biased KJV-only advocates tend to assume and claim way too much from too little information or too few examples.

As already soundly noted, the same exact measures/standards are not applied to the process of the making of the KJV or to the translation decisions in the KJV that are inconsistently and thus unjustly applied to the process of the making of the NKJV or its translation decisions.

 

[Logos1560]

Only I demonstrated it in the video. So deal with the facts presented please. I was careful to say "lean".

Perhaps you close your eyes to the fact that you start with unproven KJV-only premises or non-true KJV-only premises so you may be unable to evaluate facts objectively. You are already biased against the NKJV which may determine what you subjectively and selectively consider to be facts.

The video may mislead and deceive some so that they may accept blindly its biased, non-objective conclusions or inconsistent, unjust allegations, but it is not convincing to those who examine all the facts relating to Bible translations.

 

[Logos1560]

The video does not consider and present the fact that the NKJV is in agreement with the 1560 Geneva Bible, which is praised by KJV-only advocates, in many places where it differs from the KJV. In order to try to condemn and smear the NKJV, KJV-only advocates in effect condemn and attack part of the English foundation for the KJV.

Here are a few examples from four New Testament books.

Titus 1:8 one that loveth goodness (Geneva) lover of good men (KJV) lover of what is good (NKJV)
Titus 1:12 always (Geneva, NKJV) alway (KJV)
Titus 2:2 love (Geneva, NKJV) charity (KJV)
Titus 3:3 in times past (Geneva) sometimes (KJV) once (NKJV)
Titus 3:13 lack nothing (Geneva, NKJV) nothing be wanting (KJV)

Philemon 1:7 hearts (Geneva, NKJV) bowels (KJV)

Heb. 3:1 Therefore (Geneva, NKJV) Wherefore (KJV)
Heb. 3:6 whose house we are (Geneva, NKJV) whose house are we (KJV)
Heb. 3:9 Where (Geneva, NKJV) When (KJV)
Heb. 3:18 obeyed not (Geneva) believed not (KJV) did not obey (NKJV)
Heb. 4:2 word that they heard (Geneva) word preached (KJV) word which they heard (NKJV)
Heb. 4:7 appointed (Geneva) limiteth (KJV) designates (NKJV)
Heb. 4:11 disobedience (Geneva, NKJV) unbelief (KJV)
Heb. 4:12 lively (Geneva) quick (KJV) living (NKJV)
Heb. 4:13 open (Geneva, NKJV) opened (KJV)
Heb. 6:6 If they fall (Geneva, NKJV) If they shall fall (KJV)
Heb. 6:6 crucify again (Geneva, NKJV) crucify … afresh (KJV)
Heb. 6:8 near (Geneva, NKJV) nigh (KJV)
Heb. 7:19 near (Geneva, NKJV) nigh (KJV)
Heb. 8:1 sitteth (Geneva) is set (KJV) is seated (NKJV)
Heb. 8:4 seeing there are priests (Geneva) seeing that there are priests (KJV) since there are priests (NKJV)
Heb. 8:10 be their God (Geneva, NKJV) be to them a God (KJV)
Heb. 9:6 the service (Geneva) the service of God (KJV) the services (NKJV)
Heb. 10:4 of bulls and goats (Geneva, NKJV) of bulls and of goats (KJV)
Heb. 10:7 Then I said (Geneva, NKJV) Then said I (KJV)
Heb. 10:13 tarrieth (Geneva) expecting (KJV) waiting (NKJV)
Heb. 10:23 hope (Geneva, NKJV) faith (KJV)
Heb. 10:33 Partly while you (Geneva, NKJV) Partly whilst ye (KJV)
Heb. 11:5 taken away (Geneva, NKJV) translated (KJV)
Heb. 11:7 household (Geneva, NKJV) house (KJV)
Heb. 11:9 tents (Geneva, NKJV) tabernacles (KJV)
Heb. 12:28 shaken (Geneva, NKJV) moved (KJV)
Heb. 13:4 among all (Geneva, NKJV) in all (KJV)
Heb. 13:16 distribute (Geneva) communicate (KJV) share (NKJV)
Heb. 13:24 Know that (Geneva, NKJV) Know this, that (KJV)

James 1:3 Knowing that (Geneva, NKJV) Knowing this, that (KJV)
James 1:4 lacking nothing (Geneva, NKJV) wanting nothing (KJV)
James 1:5 reproached no man (Geneva) upbraideth not (KJV) without reproach (NKJV)
James 2:6 the rich oppress (Geneva, NKJV) rich men oppress (KJV)
James 3:4 rudder (Geneva, NKJV) helm (KJV)
James 3:12 olives (Geneva, NKJV) olive berries (KJV)
James 4:4 maketh himself the enemy (Geneva) is the enemy (KJV) makes himself an enemy (NKJV)
James 4:6 to the humble (Geneva, NKJV) unto the humble (KJV)
James 4:8 near (Geneva, NKJV) nigh (KJV)
James 4:10 will lift (Geneva, NKJV) shall lift (KJV)
James 5:11 count them blessed (Geneva, NKJV) count them happy (KJV)
James 5:11 and merciful (Geneva, NKJV) and of tender mercy (KJV)

 

[Logos1560]

Would KJV-only advocates suggest that the 1560 Geneva Bible leans toward so-called "Egyptian" renderings?

Acts 1:3 presented (Geneva, NKJV) shewed (KJV)
Acts 1:3 that he had suffered (Geneva) his passion (KJV) His suffering (NKJV)
Acts 1:4 he commanded (Geneva) commanded (KJV) He commanded (NKJV)
Acts 1:4 but to wait (Geneva, NKJV) but wait (KJV)
Acts 1:19 their own language (Geneva, NKJV) their proper tongue (KJV)
Acts 1:20 charge (Geneva) bishopric (KJV) office (NKJV)
Acts 1:22 be made (Geneva) be ordained (KJV) become (NKJV)
Acts 1:23 presented (Geneva) appointed (KJV) proposed (NKJV)
Acts 1:28 on Matthias (Geneva, NKJV) upon Matthias (KJV)
Acts 2:8 language (Geneva, NKJV) tongue (KJV)
Acts 2:13 They are full (Geneva, NKJV) These men are full (KJV)
Acts 2:15 since it is (Geneva, NKJV) seeing it is (KJV)
Acts 2:25 David saith (Geneva) David speaketh (KJV) David says (NKJV)
Acts 2:34 sit at (Geneva, NKJV) sit thou on (KJV)
Acts 3:12 So when Peter (Geneva, NKJV) And when Peter (KJV)
Acts 3:12 or godliness (Geneva, NKJV) or holiness (KJV)
Acts 3:17 I know (Geneva, NKJV) I wot (KJV)
Acts 3:18 thus fulfilled (Geneva, NKJV) so fulfilled (KJV)
Acts 3:23 shall be (Geneva, NKJV) shall come to pass (KJV)
Acts 3:25 to Abraham (Geneva, NKJV) unto Abraham (KJV)
Acts 3:26 your iniquities (Geneva, NKJV) his iniquities (KJV)
Acts 4:2 in Jesus Name (Geneva) through Jesus (KJV) in Jesus (NKJV)
Acts 4:18 So they (Geneva, NKJV) And they (KJV)
Acts 4:28 to do (Geneva, NKJV) For to do (KJV)
Acts 5:16 were all healed (Geneva, NKJV) were healed every one (KJV)
Acts 5:21 all the elders (Geneva, NKJV) all the senate (KJV)
Acts 5:35 Men of Israel (Geneva, NKJV) Ye men of Israel (KJV)
Acts 5:41 So they (Geneva, NKJV) And they (KJV)
Acts 6:11 against Moses and God (Geneva, NKJV) against Moses and against God (KJV)
Acts 7:6 But God (Geneva, NKJV) And God (KJV)
Acts 7:11 famine (Geneva, NKJV) dearth (KJV)
Acts 7:17 near (Geneva, NKJV) nigh (KJV)
Acts 7:20 acceptable unto God (Geneva) exceeding fair (KJV) well pleasing to God (NKJV)
Acts 7:25 that God (Geneva, NKJV) how that God (KJV)
Acts 7:38 congregation (Geneva, NKJV) church (KJV)
Acts 7:40 know not (Geneva) wot not (KJV) do not know (NKJV)
Acts 8:1 to his death (Geneva, NKJV) unto his death (KJV)
Acts 8:7 with a loud (Geneva, NKJV) with loud (KJV)
Acts 8:23 For I see (Geneva, NKJV) For I perceive (KJV)
Acts 8:27 to worship (Geneva, NKJV) for to worship (KJV)
Acts 9:8 from the ground (Geneva, NKJV) from the earth (KJV)
Acts 9:9 ate nor drank (Geneva, NKJV) did eat nor drink (KJV)
Acts 9:16 how many things (Geneva, NKJV) how great things (KJV)
Acts 9:22 the Christ (Geneva, NKJV) very Christ (KJV)
Acts 9:25 through the wall (Geneva, NKJV) by the wall (KJV)
Acts 9:38 near (Geneva, NKJV) nigh (KJV)
Acts 10:2 household (Geneva, NKJV) house (KJV)
Acts 10:9 near (Geneva, NKJV) nigh (KJV)
Acts 11:1 Now the (Geneva, NKJV) And the (KJV)
Acts 11:25 to seek (Geneva, NKJV) for to seek (KJV)
Acts 11:26 first called Christians (Geneva, NKJV) called Christians first (KJV)
Acts 11:28 famine (Geneva, NKJV) dearth (KJV)
Acts 12:4 the passover (Geneva, NKJV) Easter (KJV)
Acts 12:9 knew not (Geneva) wist not (KJV) did not know (KJV)
Acts 13:10 straight ways (Geneva, NKJV) right ways (KJV)
Acts 13:16 hearken (Geneva) give audience (KJV) listen (KJV)
Acts 13:20 about four (Geneva, NKJV) about the space of four (KJV)
Acts 13:22 will do (Geneva, NKJV) shall fulfill (KJV)
Acts 13:35 wilt not (Geneva) shalt no (KJV) will not (NKJV)
Acts 13:36 with his fathers (Geneva, NKJV) unto his fathers (KJV)
Acts 14:8 had never walked (Geneva, NKJV) never had walked (KJV)
Acts 14:14 But when (Geneva, NKJV) Which when (KJV)
Acts 14:15 O men (Geneva) Sirs (KJV) Men (NKJV)
Acts 14:23 in whom (Geneva, NKJV) on whom (KJV)
Acts 14:25 to Attalia (Geneva, NKJV) into Attalia (KJV)
Acts 14:26 commended (Geneva, NKJV) recommended (KJV)
Acts 15:3 sent (Geneva, NKJV) brought (KJV)
Acts 15:7 know that (Geneva, NKJV) know how that (KJV)
Acts 15:23 and the brethren (Geneva, NKJV) and brethren (KJV)
Acts 15:25 to us (Geneva, NKJV) unto us (KJV)
Acts 15:29 from things (Geneva, NKJV) from meats (KJV)
Acts 15:40 commended (Geneva, NKJV) recommended (KJV)
Acts 16:4 to keep (Geneva, NKJV) for to keep (KJV)
Acts 16:10 to preach (Geneva, NKJV) for to preach (KJV)
Acts 16:14 things which Paul spake (Geneva) things which were spoken of Paul (KJV)
things spoken by Paul (NKJV)

Acts 16:22 them to be beaten with rods (Geneva, NKJV) to beat them (KJV)
Acts 16:31 household (Geneva, NKJV) house (KJV)
Acts 16:34 household (Geneva, NKJV) house (KJV)
Acts 17:4 joined in company (Geneva) consorted (KJV) joined (NKJV)
Acts 17:6 But when they (Geneva, NKJV) And when they (KJV)
Acts 17:26 to dwell (Geneva, NKJV) for to dwell (KJV)
Acts 17:34 among whom (Geneva) among the which (KJV) among them (NKJV)
Acts 18:5 the Christ (Geneva, NKJV) Christ (KJV)
Acts 18:28 the Christ (Geneva, NKJV) Christ (KJV)
Acts 19:28 Now when they (Geneva, NKJV) And when they (KJV)
Acts 19:33 to the people (Geneva, NKJV) unto the people (KJV)
Acts 20:1 to go (Geneva, NKJV) for to go (KJV)
Acts 20:9 overcome with sleep (Geneva) sunk down with sleep (KJV) overcome by sleep (NKJV)
Acts 20:10 But Paul (Geneva, NKJV) And Paul (KJV)
Acts 20:13 Then we (Geneva, NKJV) And we (KJV)
Acts 20:28 whereof (Geneva) over the which (KJV) among which (NKJV)
Acts 21:38 the Egyptian (Geneva, NKJV) that Egyptian (KJV)
Acts 22:2 he said (Geneva, NKJV) he saith (KJV)
Acts 22:6 as I journeyed (Geneva, NKJV) as I made my journey (KJV)
Acts 22:6 near (Geneva, NKJV) nigh (KJV)
Acts 22:8 to me (Geneva, NKJV) unto me (KJV)
Acts 22:17 Syrtes (Geneva) quicksands (KJV) Syrtis Sands (NKJV)
Acts 22:20 clothes (Geneva, NKJV) raiment (KJV)
Acts 22:21 Then he (Geneva) And he (KJV) Then He (NKJV)
Acts 22:27 to him (Geneva, NKJV) unto him (KJV)
Acts 22:30 On the next day (Geneva) On the morrow (KJV) The next day (NKJV)
Acts 23:3 to him (Geneva, NKJV) unto him (KJV)
Acts 23:9 Then there (Geneva, NKJV) And there (KJV)
Acts 23:14 oath (Geneva, NKJV) curse (KJV)
Acts 23:32 And the next day (Geneva) On the morrow (KJV) The next day (NKJV)
Acts 23:34 read it (Geneva, NKJV) read the letter (KJV)
Acts 24:1 came down (Geneva, NKJV) descended (KJV)
Acts 24:4 courtesy (Geneva, NKJV) clemency (KJV)
Acts 24:11 to worship (Geneva, NKJV) for to worship (KJV)
Acts 25:30 commanded his accusers (Geneva, NKJV) gave commandment to his accusers (KJV)
Acts 25:34 had read it (Geneva) had read the letter (KJV) had read it (NKJV)
Acts 26:1 So Paul (Geneva, NKJV) Then Paul (KJV)
Acts 26:4 from the beginning (Geneva, NKJV) at the first (KJV)
Acts 26:18 eyes, that (Geneva) eyes, and (KJV) eyes in order (NKJV)
Acts 26:28 to become (Geneva, NKJV) to be (KJV)
Acts 28:21 Then they (Geneva, NKJV) And they (KJV)
Acts 28:21 any evil (Geneva, NKJV) any harm (KJV)
Acts 28:24 some were persuaded (Geneva, NKJV) some believed (KJV)

 

[JesusFan]

Because you assume and claim that you demonstrated it does not prove that you actually did. What KJV-only advocates may claim to be "facts" sometimes does not measure up to being actual facts.

Biased KJV-only advocates tend to assume and claim way too much from too little information or too few examples.

As already soundly noted, the same exact measures/standards are not applied to the process of the making of the KJV or to the translation decisions in the KJV that are inconsistently and thus unjustly applied to the process of the making of the NKJV or its translation decisions.

Agreed. as they do seem to be good at applying double standards!

 

[alexander284]

I like both. I was saved when reading a NKJV that I bought at Walmart in college.

I'm glad you weren't reading The Message.

 

[Logos1560]

At times KJV-only advocates seem to overemphasize only one half of a scriptural truth. That scriptural truth teaches that it is wrong to add to the word of God and to omit from the word of God. Each is equally wrong.

KJV-only advocates ignore or avoid the possibility of the KJV having additions as they throw out their inconsistent allegation of omissions [one half of a scriptural truth].

At times it is a fact that the KJV added some words, phrases, clauses, and verses that were not found in one of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision while at other times it omitted some words, phrases, clauses, and verses that were found in one of the pre-1611 English Bibles.

KJV-only advocates/posters do not deal with all the facts as they selectively make unrighteous judgments based on use of different measures/standards [double standards].

The 1539 Great Bible may not be overall purer in all its renderings than the 1537 Matthew’s Bible in the KJV-only pure stream of Bibles. Sometimes the next Bible in the KJV-only view's pure stream made some changes by adding words likely from the Latin Vulgate as in the case of the Great Bible.

In several likely additions from the Latin Vulgate including three whole verses in Psalm 14 (between verses 4 and 5), an edition of the Great Bible in 1540 has over one hundred eighty words in the book of Psalms that are not found in the KJV (check and compare Ps. 13:6, 14:1, 17:9, 18:6, 19:14, 20:9, 29:1, 33:10, 38:16, 48:4, 55:23, 65:1, 73:13, 73:28, 85:8, 92:13, 95:7, 108:1, 111:10, 115:9, 118:2, 120:7, 132:4, 134:2, 136:26, 147:8, 148:5). An edition of the Great Bible has over one hundred fifty words in the book of Proverbs that are not found in the KJV (check and compare Prov. 4:27, 6:12, 12:11, 13:13, 15:5, 15:27, 16:6, 18:22). Because of possible additions from the Latin Vulgate, an edition of the Great Bible also has over one hundred words in one New Testament book (Acts) which are not found in the KJV (check and compare Acts 4:25, 4:27, 5:15, 13:30, 14:7, 15:34c, 15:41c, 18:4, 23:24c, 24:17). These textual differences (pertinent facts), involving over 400 words, were found in a reprint of one of the 1540 editions of the Great Bible so they may not be in every one of the varying editions of the Great Bible. Thus, the Great Bible, the first authorized Bible in English, would likely have hundreds of more words than the 1611 KJV.

Were several people involved with the English Bibles on the KJV-only view’s good line adding to or subtracting from the word of God?

If the Latin manuscripts have signification in determining the text of Scripture as some KJV-only advocates such as Edward Hills and David Cloud have asserted, why would these readings based on the Latin be removed or omitted in the KJV?

 

[Logos1560]

Only I demonstrated it in the video. .

Give facts.

But that's not the full story. .

Your video does not present the full story and does not deal with all the facts. Just as the KJV is a revision of the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, and other pre-1611 English Bibles, the NKJV is a revision of the KJV, and it leans toward the KJV.

There are more and greater textual differences in the pre-1611 English Bibles between the KJV-only view's pure stream and the KJV than any that KJV-only advocates claim between the KJV and the NKJV. KJV-only advocates do not give and deal with all the facts.
Here are facts from the book of Luke.

Luke 1:28

thou that art freely beloved [1560 Geneva Bible] [Beza] (see Backus, Reformed Roots, pp. 79, 91)
thou that art highly favoured [1611 KJV] [Erasmus]

Luke 6:16

Judas [1560 Geneva Bible] [Stephanus]
And Judas [1611 KJV]

Luke 7:28

then John [1560 Geneva Bible]
than John the Baptist [1611 KJV]

Luke 8:14

bring forth no fruit [1560 Geneva Bible] [Erasmus] (see Backus, pp. 83-84)
bring no fruit to perfection [1611 KJV] [Beza]

Luke 8:29

was carried [1560 Geneva Bible] [Erasmus & Latin Vulgate] (see Backus, p. 84)
was driven [1611 KJV] [Beza]

Luke 9:22

and the third day rise again [1560 Geneva Bible] [Vulgate]
and be raised the third day [1611 KJV] [Beza]

Luke 10:19

nothing shall hurt you [1560 Geneva Bible]
nothing shall by any means hurt you [1611 KJV]

Luke 10:22 "Then he turned to his disciples" [these words in 1560 Geneva Bible from an edition of Stephanus are not in 1611 KJV's text] [see 1611 marginal note] (see also Backus, pp. 85-86)

Did the makers of the KJV remove words from the text of a pre-1611 English Bible and put them in a marginal note?

Luke 11:3

for the day [1560 Geneva Bible] [Beza] (see Backus, p. 86)
day by day [1611 KJV] [Erasmus] [see 1611 marginal note]

Luke 12:56

the face of the earth, and of the sky [1560 Geneva Bible] [Stephanus]
the face of the sky and of the earth [1611 KJV] [Complutensian]

Luke 15:13

So not long after [1560 Geneva Bible]
And not many days after [1611 KJV] [Latin—non post multos dies]

[Daniell maintained that the “KJV followed the Latin” (Bible in English, p. 363)]

Luke 15:26

one of his servants [1560 Geneva Bible] [Stephanus]
one of the servants [1611 KJV] [Beza]

Luke 17:36 [this verse in the KJV is not in the 1560 Geneva Bible and some other pre-1611 English Bibles]
The 1560 Geneva Bible has a verse 36 but it is what is verse 37 in the KJV. [see 1611 marginal note] (see also Backus, p. 88)

Luke 20:32

And last of all, the woman died also [1560 Geneva Bible]
Last of all the woman died also [1611 KJV]

 

[alexander284]

Yeah. You look at the KJV of that passage and wow. Try to understand that..

Yes, so I'm all for the idea of a man using the KJV as his primary Bible translation, and using the NKJV for comparison, when encountering difficult passages.

 

[Logos1560]

Give facts. For example:

ISBE: "A few [emphasis mine] Latinisms were even adopted by the translators of the King James Version from the Catholic Douai-Rheims version, such as upbraideth not, bridleth his tongue, at his own charges, and others."

It is not a fact that the Church of England makers of the KJV borrowed only "a few" renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament. How many do you consider to be "a few"--three, six, twelve? Would fifty or one hundred or perhaps more renderings from the 1582 Rheims be enough to consider "many"?

It is a verifiable fact that the Church of England makers of the KJV borrowed several or even many renderings from the Roman Catholic 1582 Rheims New Testament, which is on the KJV-only view’s corrupt tree of Bibles.

First-hand testimony and evidence from one of the KJV translators would acknowledge or affirm the use of the 1582 Rheims NT in the making of the KJV. Ward Allen observed: "At Col. 2:18, he [KJV translator John Bois] explains that the [KJV] translators were relying up on the example of the Rheims Bible" (Translating for King James, pp. 10, 62-63). The note of John Bois cited a rendering from the 1582 Rheims [“willing in humility”] and then cited the margin of the Rheims [“willfull, or selfwilled in voluntary religion”] ( p. 63). Was the KJV’s rendering “voluntary” borrowed from the margin of the 1582 Rheims?

W. F. Moulton stated: "The Rhemish Testament was not even named in the instructions furnished to the translators, but it has left its mark on every page of their work" (History of the English Bible, p. 207). Ward Allen maintained that "the Rheims New Testament furnished to the Synoptic Gospels and Epistles in the A. V. as many revised readings as any other version" (Translating the N. T. Epistles, p. xxv). Ward Allen and Edward Jacobs claimed that the KJV translators "in revising the text of the synoptic Gospels in the Bishops' Bible, owe about one-fourth of their revisions, each, to the Genevan and Rheims New Testaments" (Coming of the King James Gospels, p. 29). About 1 Peter 1:20, Ward Allen noted: “The A. V. shows most markedly here the influence of the Rheims Bible, from which it adopts the verb in composition, the reference of the adverbial modifier to the predicate, the verb manifest, and the prepositional phrase for you” (Translating for King James, p. 18). Concerning 1 Peter 4:9, Allen suggested that “this translation in the A. V. joins the first part of the sentence from the Rheims Bible to the final phrase of the Protestant translations” (p. 30). KJV defender Laurence Vance admitted that the 1582 “Rheims supplies the first half of the reading” in the KJV at Galatians 3:1 and that the “Rheims supplies the last half of the reading” at Galatians 3:16 (Making of the KJV NT, p. 263). J. R. Dore wrote: "A very considerable number of the Rhemish renderings, which they introduced for the first time, were adopted by the revisers of King James's Bible of 1611" (Old Bibles, p. 303). Charles Butterworth observed that the Rheims version "recalled the thought of the [KJV] translators to the Latin structure of the sentences, which they sometimes preferred to the Greek for clarity's sake, thus reverting to the pattern of Wycliffe or the Coverdale Latin-English Testaments, and forsaking the foundation laid by Tyndale" (Literary Lineage of the KJV, p. 237). James Carleton noted: "One cannot but be struck by the large number of words which have come into the Authorized Version from the Vulgate through the medium of the Rhemish New Testament" (Part of Rheims in the Making of the English Bible, p. 32). Glenn Conjurske wrote: “At the end of Revelation 18:13, the King James Version follows the Rheims New Testament in saying ‘slaves’ instead of the correct translation ‘bodies’ (relegating ‘bodies’ to the margin). The Rheims version was translated from the Latin Vulgate, and the reading ‘slaves’ comes from mancipiorum of the Vulgate” (Olde Paths, April, 1993, p. 87).

 

[JesusFan]

Yes, so I'm all for the idea of a man using the KJV as his primary Bible translation, and using the NKJV for comparison, when encountering difficult passages.

Get a parallel bible with those 2 translations if wedded to the Kjv tradition!

 

[JesusFan]

It is not a fact that the Church of England makers of the KJV borrowed only "a few" renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament. How many do you consider to be "a few"--three, six, twelve? Would fifty or one hundred or perhaps more renderings from the 1582 Rheims be enough to consider "many"?

It is a verifiable fact that the Church of England makers of the KJV borrowed several or even many renderings from the Roman Catholic 1582 Rheims New Testament, which is on the KJV-only view’s corrupt tree of Bibles.

First-hand testimony and evidence from one of the KJV translators would acknowledge or affirm the use of the 1582 Rheims NT in the making of the KJV. Ward Allen observed: "At Col. 2:18, he [KJV translator John Bois] explains that the [KJV] translators were relying up on the example of the Rheims Bible" (Translating for King James, pp. 10, 62-63). The note of John Bois cited a rendering from the 1582 Rheims [“willing in humility”] and then cited the margin of the Rheims [“willfull, or selfwilled in voluntary religion”] ( p. 63). Was the KJV’s rendering “voluntary” borrowed from the margin of the 1582 Rheims?

W. F. Moulton stated: "The Rhemish Testament was not even named in the instructions furnished to the translators, but it has left its mark on every page of their work" (History of the English Bible, p. 207). Ward Allen maintained that "the Rheims New Testament furnished to the Synoptic Gospels and Epistles in the A. V. as many revised readings as any other version" (Translating the N. T. Epistles, p. xxv). Ward Allen and Edward Jacobs claimed that the KJV translators "in revising the text of the synoptic Gospels in the Bishops' Bible, owe about one-fourth of their revisions, each, to the Genevan and Rheims New Testaments" (Coming of the King James Gospels, p. 29). About 1 Peter 1:20, Ward Allen noted: “The A. V. shows most markedly here the influence of the Rheims Bible, from which it adopts the verb in composition, the reference of the adverbial modifier to the predicate, the verb manifest, and the prepositional phrase for you” (Translating for King James, p. 18). Concerning 1 Peter 4:9, Allen suggested that “this translation in the A. V. joins the first part of the sentence from the Rheims Bible to the final phrase of the Protestant translations” (p. 30). KJV defender Laurence Vance admitted that the 1582 “Rheims supplies the first half of the reading” in the KJV at Galatians 3:1 and that the “Rheims supplies the last half of the reading” at Galatians 3:16 (Making of the KJV NT, p. 263). J. R. Dore wrote: "A very considerable number of the Rhemish renderings, which they introduced for the first time, were adopted by the revisers of King James's Bible of 1611" (Old Bibles, p. 303). Charles Butterworth observed that the Rheims version "recalled the thought of the [KJV] translators to the Latin structure of the sentences, which they sometimes preferred to the Greek for clarity's sake, thus reverting to the pattern of Wycliffe or the Coverdale Latin-English Testaments, and forsaking the foundation laid by Tyndale" (Literary Lineage of the KJV, p. 237). James Carleton noted: "One cannot but be struck by the large number of words which have come into the Authorized Version from the Vulgate through the medium of the Rhemish New Testament" (Part of Rheims in the Making of the English Bible, p. 32). Glenn Conjurske wrote: “At the end of Revelation 18:13, the King James Version follows the Rheims New Testament in saying ‘slaves’ instead of the correct translation ‘bodies’ (relegating ‘bodies’ to the margin). The Rheims version was translated from the Latin Vulgate, and the reading ‘slaves’ comes from mancipiorum of the Vulgate” (Olde Paths, April, 1993, p. 87).

The Kjv translators used Eramus Greek NT, and he stayed a faithful Catholic scholar all of his life, and consulted Vulgate and used Rheims, all Vatican based, and yet dare accuse all MV as being corrupted by the Vatican?