Guess the Holy Spirit decided to not use anything after 1611!
-
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!
The KJV and The Deity of Jesus Christ
- Thread starter SavedByGrace
- Start date
Your opinion is not the truth. The KJV does not reflect every one of God's preserved words in both Greek and Hebrew by providing an English rendering for every one of them.
According the Hebrew and the Greek on which the KJV is based and according to the KJV translators themselves in the 1611 marginal notes, the KJV does not provide an English rendering for each and every original-language word in their underlying texts. In some of their marginal notes, the KJV translators provided an English word for an original-language word of Scripture, but they did not put it in their English text. Sometimes one of the pre-1611 English Bibles provides an English rendering in their text for that original-language word of Scripture where the KJV does not.
Their translators was just as good, if not better in some regards, then the 1611 team!
Dave G
Well-Known Member
I've never said that, and frankly I have to wonder why you keep repeating the same comments,
even after I've tried very hard to clarify these things to you ( which I've done repeatedly over the past two years and more ).
My position is that the best and most accurate translation of the Bible in the English ( and that is currently available ), is the AV... hands down.
Until you can recommend to me a better one that seeks to improve on it ( and to establish a single trustworthy standard among all of God's English-speaking people that is worthy of the title, "God's word" ), without mixing in corrupted manuscripts and work by men that is, at best, problematic and that is the product of "textual criticism", I will stand on what I started out with 42+ years ago...
The Authorized Version and anything in other languages that is based on the exact, same texts in the Greek and Hebrew as the "KJV".
As an example,
I also trust ( and occasionally look at ) the Louis Segond of 1874, as well as the Reina-Valera of 1909.
I hope that you find this helpful, sir.
Last edited:
There are even instances of words chosen by the translator for the Kjv where we simply do not know just from wheree they got the term chosen from, what source was being referenced and used!
Dave G
Well-Known Member
I disagree.
That said, this is my final reply in this thread.
Good afternoon to you, gentlemen.
You do think though the God somehow inspired the Kjv only, and did not do that any Modern version!
They know more of the culture and times, know and use better lexicons etc!
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
Do you practice what you preach since you in effect seem to rely on other men [an exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611] for your understanding and belief concerning His words?
You fail to prove your biased position to be true.
Charles Surrett, who is biased toward the KJV, indicated that at least “72 times” the KJV’s underlying Greek New Testament text supported the NKJV’s renderings in the book of Romans over the KJV’s renderings (Certainty of the Words, p. 123).
In his list of formal equivalent translations, William Einwechter included the NKJV along with the KJV, and he noted that the NKJV is “based on the TR” (English Bible Translations, pp. 17, 29). Kerby Fannin listed the NKJV and MKJV as being “based on the Received Text” (While Men Slept, pp. 469-470). Michael Sproul referred to “the fact that the NKJV is translated from the same Greek text as the original KJV” (God’s Word Preserved, p. 39, footnote 51). J. G. Vos as revised by M. L. Strauss noted: “The primary distinction of the NKJV is its textual basis, utilizing the Textus Receptus, the edition of the Greek NT behind the KJV” (Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 5, p. 1007). Gary Zeolla affirmed that the NKJV is “based on the same Greek text as the KJV, the TR” (Differences between Bible Versions, pp. 20, 66). Gary Zeolla suggested that “the KJV and NKJV attempt to translate the original text as word for word as possible” (p. 61). Zeolla asserted that “the NKJV is highly readable and is extremely accurate” (p. 68). Gary Zeolla maintained that the NKJV “is every bit as faithful to the original text as the KJV, even more so at times” (p. 242). Gregory Tyree listed the NKJV and the KJV as literal translations of the Majority text family (Does It Really Matter, p. 77). In the introduction to the Eastern/Greek Oxthodox Bible, Laurent Cleenewerck maintained that the NKJV is “based on the Textus Receptus and follows the formal-equivalency approach and general style of the KJV” (p. 17). Norman Geisler and William Nix observed: “The diligent efforts by the revisers of The New King James Version to produce an English Bible that retains as much of the classic King James Version as possible while at the same time bringing its English up-to-date has been achieved to a great degree” (General Introduction to the Bible, p. 599). Alec Gilmore described the NKJV as “little more than a language update” (Dictionary, p. 119). William Paul claimed that “the NKJV is virtually the King James Version, only without the 17th century archaic word forms” (English Language Bible, p. 80). William D. Mounce described the NKJV as the “American revision” of the KJV (Greek for the Rest of Us, p. 264). Jim Taylor listed the NKJV as a revision of the KJV (In Defense of the TR, p. 101). In the editor’s preface of John Maxwell’s commentary on Deuteronomy in The Communicator’s Commentary, Lloyd J. Ogilvie maintained that the NKJV “combines with integrity the beauty of language, underlying Hebrew and Greek textual basis, and thought-flow of the 1611 King James Version, while replacing obsolete verb forms and other archaisms with everyday contemporary counterparts for greater readability” (p. 10). In The Inspirational Study Bible [NKJV edition], Max Lucado asserted: “The New King James Version preserves the precise scholarship of the original King James Version while updating the literary form of the text” (p. v). Max Lucado added: “The NKJV is a dependable version of the classic text in language that makes sense for today’s readers” (Ibid.). Ron Rhodes wrote: “The New King James Version (NKJV) is a revision of the King James Version (KJV) in modern English” (Complete Guide, p. 113). Ron Rhodes added: “The NKJV significantly updates the KJV, making it a much more accurate translation” (p. 114). Estus Pirkle wrote: “In my opinion, the New King James Version is the greatest English translation that is available today to English readers. It is based on the same Hebrew and Greek texts (Textus Receptus) used by the 1611 KJV translators” (The 1611 KJB, p. 177). Wilbur Pickering asserted: “Until such a time as a good translation of the Majority Text becomes available, the best current English version of the NT is the NKJV—an excellent translation of a good Greek text” (Identity of NT Text II, p. 183). The special committee on Bible Versions for the Baptist Missionary Association Theological Seminary reported that the NKJV “seems to be as faithful to the Hebrew and Greek texts as the earlier versions” (bmats.edu/about-us/bible-versions).
Garrett20
Member
The NKJV is my personal favorite and we use it at the local church I serve. I also do daily readings from the KJV. Thanks for sharing.
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
two of the best Bible Versions!