• 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

L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
GodisgraciousR325 said:
Trintian Bible Society have some other articles about why to not use the New King James Bible, and its not a King James Bible.
Click to expand...
The articles to which you appeal are misleading, biased, and inaccurate.

The NKJV is a genuine revision of the KJV in the same sense (univocally) as the KJV is a genuine revision of the Bishops' Bible. The first rule for the making of the KJV stated: “The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishops’ Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.” The KJV translators were given unbound copies of the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible as their starting point in English. Even though the KJV was officially a revision of the Bishops' Bible, it could also borrow renderings from other pre-1611 English Bibles and still be a revision of the Bishops'. It even borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Rheims NT.

When all the relevant evidence is justly acknowledged and evaluated, the NKJV can properly and accurately be considered a revision of the KJV in the same sense (univocally) or after the same fashion that the KJV was a revision of the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible or the Bishops’ Bible. Just as the KJV is considered a revision of Tyndale, the NKJV could also be. Many actual verifiable facts would clearly demonstrate that the KJV translators made the same-type changes or revisions to the pre-1611 English Bibles that NKJV translators made to the KJV. All the many changes that the KJV translators made to the pre-1611 English Bibles are not entirely different than the changes that the NKJV translators made to the KJV. The KJV was not merely a slight or minor revision of the pre-1611 English Bibles as verifiable facts from those Bibles would demonstrate. The KJV translators even made some textual changes or revisions to the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision. The KJV could be considered as much an extensive revision of the trusted Geneva Bible and of the Bishops’ Bible as the NKJV is of the KJV. Hundreds and even thousands of differences could be noted between the Geneva Bible and the KJV, and yet KJV-only authors have claimed that they are “basically the same” Bibles. The makers of the KJV were Bible revisers of the pre-1611 English Bible just as the makers of the NKJV were Bible revisers of the 1611 KJV. The KJV and the NKJV can soundly and justly be considered to be as much “basically the same” Bibles as the Geneva Bible and the KJV are considered to be. If the Geneva Bible and the KJV can properly be considered “practically identical,” the KJV and the NKJV could also be considered the same. The NKJV can soundly and accurately be regarded as a genuine revision of the KJV in the same sense as the KJV is a genuine revision of the Geneva Bible or the Bishops’ Bible. In many places where the NKJV differs a little from the KJV, it is in agreement with the 1560 Geneva Bible or another pre-1611 English Bible.
 
L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
GodisgraciousR325 said:
No, the NKJV is not a KJB
Click to expand...
You try to divert as you attack a strawman since I did not claim that the NKJV is the KJV. Knocking down a strawman proves nothing.

I did not claim that the NKJV is the KJV or is a KJV. What I correctly stated is the truth that "The NKJV is a revision of the KJV in the same sense (univocally) as the KJV is a revision of the Bishops' Bible."
 
GodisgraciousR325

GodisgraciousR325

Member
Logos1560 said:
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).
Click to expand...
Interesting, though what if they got that same text from other sources, do note that the King James Bible translators also compared foreign language Bibles.

I did find a Spanish Version of the Bible before the Douay and it also had humility.
 
J

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Logos1560 said:
The articles to which you appeal are misleading, biased, and inaccurate.

The NKJV is a genuine revision of the KJV in the same sense (univocally) as the KJV is a genuine revision of the Bishops' Bible. The first rule for the making of the KJV stated: “The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishops’ Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.” The KJV translators were given unbound copies of the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible as their starting point in English. Even though the KJV was officially a revision of the Bishops' Bible, it could also borrow renderings from other pre-1611 English Bibles and still be a revision of the Bishops'. It even borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Rheims NT.

When all the relevant evidence is justly acknowledged and evaluated, the NKJV can properly and accurately be considered a revision of the KJV in the same sense (univocally) or after the same fashion that the KJV was a revision of the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible or the Bishops’ Bible. Just as the KJV is considered a revision of Tyndale, the NKJV could also be. Many actual verifiable facts would clearly demonstrate that the KJV translators made the same-type changes or revisions to the pre-1611 English Bibles that NKJV translators made to the KJV. All the many changes that the KJV translators made to the pre-1611 English Bibles are not entirely different than the changes that the NKJV translators made to the KJV. The KJV was not merely a slight or minor revision of the pre-1611 English Bibles as verifiable facts from those Bibles would demonstrate. The KJV translators even made some textual changes or revisions to the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision. The KJV could be considered as much an extensive revision of the trusted Geneva Bible and of the Bishops’ Bible as the NKJV is of the KJV. Hundreds and even thousands of differences could be noted between the Geneva Bible and the KJV, and yet KJV-only authors have claimed that they are “basically the same” Bibles. The makers of the KJV were Bible revisers of the pre-1611 English Bible just as the makers of the NKJV were Bible revisers of the 1611 KJV. The KJV and the NKJV can soundly and justly be considered to be as much “basically the same” Bibles as the Geneva Bible and the KJV are considered to be. If the Geneva Bible and the KJV can properly be considered “practically identical,” the KJV and the NKJV could also be considered the same. The NKJV can soundly and accurately be regarded as a genuine revision of the KJV in the same sense as the KJV is a genuine revision of the Geneva Bible or the Bishops’ Bible. In many places where the NKJV differs a little from the KJV, it is in agreement with the 1560 Geneva Bible or another pre-1611 English Bible.
Click to expand...
The extreme bias of KJVO is on display all of the time, for they always reject versions that use same textual source as their beloved Kjv, and refuse to accept that the 1611 translators were not inspired, and did not have the Holy Spirit guiding them to make a perfect English translation.

The best thing the KJVO group could do would be to support the Trinitarian bible society to support and do a modern elglich vobabluary update of the Kjv, but wait, that was already done as the Nkjv!
 
J

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
GodisgraciousR325 said:
Trintian Bible Society have some other articles about why to not use the New King James Bible, and its not a King James Bible.
Click to expand...
Their arguments basically come back to the Holy Spirit inspired the 1611 translators to create a perfect English translation very circular reasoning
 
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
GodisgraciousR325 said:
1 John 3:16.
Click to expand...
Yes, but here "life" should be translated "soul." See Isaiah 53:12.
I prefer the KJV. I am not a KJB onlyist. It is my primary Bible translation. I became a preferred KJVer in 1968.

KJV onlyism has never made good sense to me.
If you are willing to discuss this, I would love to.
 
GodisgraciousR325

GodisgraciousR325

Member
37818 said:
Yes, but here "life" should be translated "soul." See Isaiah 53:12.
I prefer the KJV. I am not a KJB onlyist. It is my primary Bible translation. I became a preferred KJVer in 1968.

KJV onlyism has never made good sense to me.
If you are willing to discuss this, I would love to.
Click to expand...
Not every word should be translated the same. I believe every version use life, he gave his life for us so we could have everlasting life.

May I ask why a KJB peferred?

Also, the NKJB removed 'of God' in that verse
 
GodisgraciousR325

GodisgraciousR325

Member
37818 said:
Yes, but here "life" should be translated "soul." See Isaiah 53:12.
I prefer the KJV. I am not a KJB onlyist. It is my primary Bible translation. I became a preferred KJVer in 1968.

KJV onlyism has never made good sense to me.
If you are willing to discuss this, I would love to.
Click to expand...
Yes, I would love to discss, do have Skype?
 
GodisgraciousR325

GodisgraciousR325

Member
Logos1560 said:
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).
Click to expand...
Dear reader,

Thanks for sharing, I emailed some people and by the grace of God, I am no more confused with this issue.

The King James Bible is still the word of God, its probably the same either way in the translation process, there is a lot of things in the other versions that are close.

A lot of older Catholic bibles are quite close to the King James Bible, a lot of the wording is the same, just so subtle.

What is not told is the many things the Douay did omit and its very close to the NIV.

Take care and I will pray that thou wilt find the truth.
 
J

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
GodisgraciousR325 said:
Not every word should be translated the same. I believe every version use life, he gave his life for us so we could have everlasting life.

May I ask why a KJB peferred?

Also, the NKJB removed 'of God' in that verse
Click to expand...
One by the basis of textual sources and textual criticism beKjv preferred, but have NO basis at all to be a KJVO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top