I am shocked. Absolutely shocked.Nah, just messin’ with JoJ
-
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 Update Project
- Thread starter Baptizo
- Start date
I see a problem. You say you are an independent fundamental Baptist and I don’t think there is such a thing unless they are at least KJV preferred. That would leave everyone except you and me and maybe one other out. Correct me if I am wrong but haven't you pasted verses from the KJV in the rare events of your posting scriptures, every time?
No other Bible version teaches a believer to be independent fundamental Baptist. None of the posters here are KJV only or preferred and their primary Bible choice will be some modern version.
Your opinion is incorrect. You seem to imagine a problem that does not exist.
The pre-1611 English Bibles were more favorable to congregational church government while the KJV changed some renderings in them to make it more favorable to episcopal church government. All the translators of the KJV were members of the Church of England, and the KJV was the third authorized version of the Church of England. The KJV would be more an Anglican version than a Baptist version.
There are other English Bible versions that teach Baptist doctrine just as much as the KJV. In 1842, Bible believers mostly Baptists made a revision of the KJV. One of its later editions had the name "Baptist Bible" on its binding. Matthew 3:13 is translated as following in this 1842 English Bible: "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be immersed by him."
I know of independent fundamental Baptist pastors who preach from another English version instead of the KJV.
Dr. James D. Price, executive editor of the NKJV's Old Testament, was an independent fundamental Baptist professor at Temple Baptist Theological Seminary in Chattanooga, TN. He worked under Dr. Lee Roberson, pastor of Highland Park Baptist Church.
I don't know these guys but they no doubt became independent fundamentalist Baptists before they adopted modern Bibles. My point was that new Bibles do not teach their readers to be independent fundamentalist Baptists. I don't really care what Bible they use, it is nothing to me, but my point stands. Oftentimes Baptists will remove the name Baptist from their identification because we believe in the authority of the scriptures.. If I am not mistaken the high profile preacher John MacArthur was one of those.
There is an apostasy going on in full force. Much of the blame must be laid on the new translations and paraphrases philosophy, IMO. I am going to make a wild guess that whatever church you attend do their ministry from the KJV.
Your point is not true, and it does not stand. You do not at all prove your point to be true. Because you say so is not proof that your claim is true. You jump to wrong conclusions. You have not demonstrated that the KJV teaches 'independent fundamentalist Baptist" doctrine.
Usually human teachers taught people independent fundamentalist Baptist doctrine.
The verses more favorable to episcopal church government and apostolic succession in the KJV have to be interpreted in a different way than the Church of England makers of the KJV interpreted them to get Baptist doctrine. Some independent fundamentalist Baptists may have abandoned the typical Baptist view of congregational church government to adopt a form of episcopal church government, acting as lords over God's heritage, from influence of the KJV.
My point that there are other English Bible versions that teach Baptist doctrine just as much as the KJV still stands.
And Dr Price was an Old Testament editor for both the NKJV and the HCSB. He wrote two books on Bible translation, neither one espousing anything close to a KJVO position: Complete Equivalence in Bible Translation (1987), and A Theory for Bible Translation: An Optimal Equivalence Model (2007).
And I had several supporting churches that were not KJVO. '
Then there was non-KJV John R. Rice and many others of his generation, which was the one that invented fundamentalism.
Dave G
Well-Known Member
While I'm not "KJVO" in what many would define it as *, I would like to reply to this.
Yes, it would be acceptable to me...
As long as those who perform the update do so with an eye towards leaving the grammar alone, and focus strictly on bringing words such as "crisping pins", "conversation" ( defined as "manner of life" ) "governor", "listeth", " husbandman" ( defined as "farmer" / "rancher", someone who takes care of animals and the land ) etc. into their more modern-day equivalents, I would probably be disposed to at least reading it.
My everyday use of it would depend upon its strict faithfulness to both the Textus Receptus and the Authorized.
To clarify,
If the update changed phrases such as ".....the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God..." as found in Galatians 2:20 to instead read, " by faith in the Son of God", then I would reject it...
Because to me, that sort of treatment would ( very subtly ) stop following the Greek, as the NKJV does in many places, and instead introduce a degree of " what some men think the text means" into the already properly translated text.
In other words, it would cease to be an update, and instead become another translation with "interpretive" elements.
* I am " KJVO" in the sense that I believe it to be the best English translation currently available from the properly preserved and translated Greek and Hebrew texts.
Last edited:
Dave G
Well-Known Member
For example ( and as already mentioned in my post above ), an "interpretive" element:
" I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." ( Galatians 2:20, AV ).
" I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the [life] which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. " ( Galatians 2:20, NKJV ).
In the above I very clearly see the NKJV departing from a strict translation of its ( advertised ) Textus Receptus Greek, and instead superimposing what someone thought the passage should mean...
From "the faith of" to "faith in".
On a separate note, to bring the KJV here up to more modern standards, I would change "liveth" to "lives" and leave the rest alone.
To me, whoever does it would have to very carefully substitute only those outdated words whose meaning no one today knows.
I.E. " listeth" would be carried over to its present day equivalent ( "listeth" = "wills" / "wants to" ) while leaving the remainder of the words in the passage unchanged.
This new edition ( in essence and to me, that is what it should be, an edition ) would, all the while, seek to preserve the distinctions between the singular " thee" and "thou" and the plural "ye" and "you".
So, if it could be done correctly, then I would consider it...
If not, it becomes yet another corrupted translation that I would refuse to accept because of its choice of collated Greek and Hebrew texts, as well as its departure from more Formal Equivalency methods into lesser Dynamic Equivalency ones.
Last of all, it would have to be made available publicly and for free, at least digitally.
In printed form? At cost with no focus on making any sort of profit from its sale.
" I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." ( Galatians 2:20, AV ).
" I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the [life] which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. " ( Galatians 2:20, NKJV ).
In the above I very clearly see the NKJV departing from a strict translation of its ( advertised ) Textus Receptus Greek, and instead superimposing what someone thought the passage should mean...
From "the faith of" to "faith in".
On a separate note, to bring the KJV here up to more modern standards, I would change "liveth" to "lives" and leave the rest alone.
To me, whoever does it would have to very carefully substitute only those outdated words whose meaning no one today knows.
I.E. " listeth" would be carried over to its present day equivalent ( "listeth" = "wills" / "wants to" ) while leaving the remainder of the words in the passage unchanged.
This new edition ( in essence and to me, that is what it should be, an edition ) would, all the while, seek to preserve the distinctions between the singular " thee" and "thou" and the plural "ye" and "you".
So, if it could be done correctly, then I would consider it...
If not, it becomes yet another corrupted translation that I would refuse to accept because of its choice of collated Greek and Hebrew texts, as well as its departure from more Formal Equivalency methods into lesser Dynamic Equivalency ones.
Last of all, it would have to be made available publicly and for free, at least digitally.
In printed form? At cost with no focus on making any sort of profit from its sale.
Last edited:
You can sincerely believe your statement, but belief alone does not demonstrate your statement to be true or scriptural.
People, including believers, can deceive themselves by believing opinions or statements that are not true.
In at least some places, another English Bible translation rather than the KJV has the better, clearer, or more accurate rendering of the properly preserved Hebrew and Greek texts. Sometimes one of the pre-1611 English Bibles has accurate renderings than the KJV.
Perhaps you incorrectly assume the KJV to be the standard for whether another English Bible is correctly translated.
37818
Well-Known Member
The 1962 Modern King James Version, Galatians 2:20, I have been crucified with Christ, and I live; [yet] no longer I, but Christ lives in me. And [that] life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith toward the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself on my behalf.
Last edited:
GodisgraciousR325
Member
There
Its by the faith of the Son of God that I can have grace through faith in him. Amen, alleuia!
There is a difference in faith of Son of God and faith in Son of God, also Faith of Jesus, and Faith in Jesus.
Its by the faith of the Son of God that I can have grace through faith in him. Amen, alleuia!
You may be blindly trusting unreliable, misleading KJV-only articles that misinform you.
The Church of England makers of the KJV borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament translated from an edition of Jerome's Latin Vulgate so do you suggest that it departed from the Textus Receptus when it borrowed those 1582 Rheims renderings?
GodisgraciousR325
Member
Thanks for replying,
I would like to have a list of these supposed "copied verses from the 1582 Douay N.T.".
There is a lot of verses in the Catholic bible, and Protestant are the same, most of the N.T. is the same, such as John 3:16, John 1:1.
I do not believe the King James Bible is based on any Catholic readings. Its highly unthinkable, they did not believe in the Catholic Church and were highly against popism.
I would like to have a list of these supposed "copied verses from the 1582 Douay N.T.".
There is a lot of verses in the Catholic bible, and Protestant are the same, most of the N.T. is the same, such as John 3:16, John 1:1.
I do not believe the King James Bible is based on any Catholic readings. Its highly unthinkable, they did not believe in the Catholic Church and were highly against popism.
I stated renderings, not readings. The makers of the KJV borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Rheims. You can choose not to believe actual verifiable and verified facts, but they remain the truth.
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" (Bois, 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).
The NKJV used same source texts as the Kjv translators, and they only added MT/CT notes to alternate renderings in the footnotes
GodisgraciousR325
Member
New King James Version Exposed | biblechristiansofgod
www.biblechristiansofgod.com
Article: When the NKJV departs from the TR by Will Kinney - Textus Receptus
GodisgraciousR325
Member
Trintian Bible Society have some other articles about why to not use the New King James Bible, and its not a King James Bible.New King James Version Exposed | biblechristiansofgod
Article: When the NKJV departs from the TR by Will Kinney - Textus Receptus
textus-receptus.com