• 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!

Was the Nkjv translated from same sorce texts as used by the 1611 translators for Kjv then?

David Lamb

Well-Known Member
This is Untrue:


The words "of God" ARE found in the Greek texts that underlie the King James Bible.

The entire Greek phrase "the love OF GOD" is found in Beza's Greek texts of 1589 and 1598, the Complutensian polyglot version of 1514, the ancient Armenian bible, the Latin Clementine Vulgate - "In hoc cognovimus caritatem Dei"., Greek manuscript 52, as well as the Greek text of the Trinitarian Bible Society put out in 1894.
In that case, why are the words in italics in the KJV? Italics are used when English words have been inserted by the translators which do not translate any word(s) in the original language. Don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that the verse isn't referring to God's love. The context shows that it is. You say that the words "of God" ARE found in the Greek texts that underlie the King James Bible, but then in the next post you quote John Gill saying: "The phrase "of God" is not in the Oriental versions, nor in the Greek copies, but is in the Complutensian edition, and in the Vulgate Latin version, and is favoured by the Syriac version." So are you saying that the KJV is based on the Complutensian, the Vulgate and the Syriac?
 
Last edited:

KJB1611reader

Active Member
In that case, why are the words in italics in the KJV? Italics are used when English words have been inserted by the translators which do not translate any word(s) in the original language. Don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that the verse isn't referring to God's love. The context shows that it is. You say that the words "of God" ARE found in the Greek texts that underlie the King James Bible, but then in the next post you quote John Gill saying: "The phrase "of God" is not in the Oriental versions, nor in the Greek copies, but is in the Complutensian edition, and in the Vulgate Latin version, and is favoured by the Syriac version." So are you saying that the KJV is based on the Complutensian, the Vulgate and the Syriac?
Well, did read the link? Anyway, why is 1 John 2:23 end in italics?


Exodus 19:12
“And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death:”

Not is in italics...
 

David Lamb

Well-Known Member
Well, did read the link? Anyway, why is 1 John 2:23 end in italics?


Exodus 19:12
“And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death:”

Not is in italics...
I did read the link.

As to why the end of 1 John 2:23 is in italics, John Gill explains:

[but he that acknowledgeth the Son, hath the Father also]: this clause is left out in many copies, and stands as a supplement in our version; but is in the Alexandrian copy, in four of Beza's manuscripts, and in some others; and in the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions; and confirms and illustrates what is before said; for as he that denies the sonship of Christ cannot hold the paternity of God, so he that owns the sonship of Christ, the second Person, maintains the paternity of the first; for these two are correlates, and mutually put, or take away each other: no mention is made of the Spirit, because, as yet, no controversy had risen concerning him.
 

KJB1611reader

Active Member
παϲ ο αρνουμενοϲ τον υν ουδε τον πατερα εχει ο ομολογων τον υν και τον πατερα εχει

 

KJB1611reader

Active Member
Because of homoeoteleuton (to.n pate,ra e;cei … to.n pate,ra e;cei), K L and most minuscules, followed by the Textus Receptus, have accidentally omitted the second part of the verse (o` o`mologw/n … e;cei). The words, however, belong to the original text, being strongly supported by a A B C P many minuscules vg syrp, h copsa, bo arm eth al. - bibliplus
 

KJB1611reader

Active Member
[but he that acknowledgeth the Son, hath the Father also]: this clause is left out in many copies, and stands as a supplement in our version; but is in the Alexandrian copy, in four of Beza's manuscripts, and in some others; and in the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions; and confirms and illustrates what is before said; for as he that denies the sonship of Christ cannot hold the paternity of God, so he that owns the sonship of Christ, the second Person, maintains the paternity of the first; for these two are correlates, and mutually put, or take away each other: no mention is made of the Spirit, because, as yet, no controversy had risen concerning him. - Gill
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Well, did read the link? Anyway, why is 1 John 2:23 end in italics?


Exodus 19:12
“And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death:”

Not is in italics...
Do you hold that either the Holy Spirit guided and showed to the 1611 team what would be always the correct rendering into English, or that they received secondary inspiration off the already inspired TR text?
 

Alan Dale Gross

Active Member
The need for use of the same exact measures and standards in evaluating translation decisions is not a non-issue.

The Scriptures clearly condemn the use of divers measures [double standards] as an abomination to the LORD (Proverbs 20:10).

Proverbs 20:10 Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the LORD.

I have really studied it out, perhaps more carefully and thoroughly than any KJV-only author has.


the truth that the NKJV was based on the same multiple original-language texts of Scripture as the KJV is.
I have often wondered why you don't know anything about what you try to claim.

Stop saying, "the NKJV was based on the same multiple original-language texts of Scripture as the KJV is".

That is an incredibly uneducated thing to say.

The New King James Version is not a true King James Bible. It mixes some true King James accuracy with a lot of Alexandrian and "new version" errors. We know this because the NKJV tells us which ancient texts they used when they made up their Bible. Don't be fooled by the clever names and symbols. Here is what they say they really used:

  • The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, or BHS. This is not the preserved Hebrew Old Testament. This one is approved by the Vatican (Roman Catholic religion) and printed jointly by the Vatican and Protestant Bible societies. In 1937 the "scholars" rejected the preserved Ben Chayyim it for an "older" (but not more accurate) text: the Leningrad Ms B 19a (also called the "Ben Ashertext"). The BHS states:

    "...it is a welcome sign of the times that it was published jointly in 1971 by the Wurttemburg Bible Society, Stuttgart, and the Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome...."
    --Prolegomena, p. XII

  • The Septuagint, or LXX. As you have seen1, the so-called "Septuagint" is a fable. It was really written after Jesus was born, not before. There are many Septuagints, since each Alexandrian Old Testament is different from every other. Know what they are? Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus - the same exact codices (big books) where the modern perverted New Testaments come from!

  • The Latin Vulgate. This is not the preserved Vaudois Christian, Old Latin Vulgate. The NKJV "scholars" consulted the perverted, Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate.

  • The Dead Sea Scrolls, or DSS. It is clear through Scripture that God preserved His words through the tribe of Levi (Deuteronomy 17:18, 31:9-13, 25-26, Nehemiah 8 and Malachi 2:7). The Qumran community that produced the DSS are never said to be Levites. But though God says "the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth" (Malachi 2:7), the NKJV committee instead consulted the DSS as well.

  • The Majority Text, or MT. With a name like Majority Text it should be a compilation of the majority of Greek New Testament manuscripts. But it is not. The "Majority Text" is actually a hand-picked set of manuscripts grouped together by "pro-Alexandrian" liberal Hermann von Soden2. Less than 8%of the over 5,000 Greek manuscripts were compared to each other by von Soden's team of collators! But the NKJV people give the MT great prominence, writing this inaccurate information in the footnotes.

    So people think that the King James is wrong, since it disagrees with "the Majority Text." Who cares? The "Majority Text" is not the majority of texts! The "Majority Text" is a big fake. Don't believe it. And don't trust any Bible that does.

1 See "What is the Septuagint?"
 

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Stop saying, "the NKJV was based on the same multiple original-language texts of Scripture as the KJV is".

That is an incredibly uneducated thing to say.

The New King James Version is not a true King James Bible. It mixes some true King James accuracy with a lot of Alexandrian and "new version" errors. We know this because the NKJV tells us which ancient texts they used when they made up their Bible. Don't be fooled by the clever names and symbols. Here is what they say they really used:

  • The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, or BHS. This is not the preserved Hebrew Old Testament. This one is approved by the Vatican (Roman Catholic religion) and printed jointly by the Vatican and Protestant Bible societies. In 1937 the "scholars" rejected the preserved Ben Chayyim it for an "older" (but not more accurate) text: the Leningrad Ms B 19a (also called the "Ben Ashertext"). The BHS states:

  • The Latin Vulgate. This is not the preserved Vaudois Christian, Old Latin Vulgate. The NKJV "scholars" consulted the perverted, Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate.
The KJV translators consulted "the perverted Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate," and they even borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament translated from an edition of Jerome's Latin Vulgate. The KJV translators also consulted a printed edition of the Greek Septuagint. KJV defender Edward F. Hills acknowledged that “sometimes also the influence of the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate is discernible in the King James Old Testament” (KJV Defended, p. 223). Some of the book titles of OT books in the KJV are transliterations of the book titles in the Greek Septuagint, and the KJV adopted the order of OT books used in the Septuagint and Jerome's Latin Vulgate instead of the order in the Hebrew Masoretic Text.

Concerning the NKJV, James D. Price observed: “Constant reference was made to the printed edition of the Hebrew Bible used by the translators of 1611, the second Bomberg edition edited by Jacob ben Chayyim. In those few places where the Bomberg text differed from the Stuttgart edition, the Bomberg reading was followed” (King James Onlyism, p. 307). James D. Price listed “nine differences that affect translation” and demonstrated that the NKJV followed the Bomberg edition in those nine places (pp. 222-223). The preface to the NKJV clearly pointed out concerning its Hebrew Old Testament text the fact of “frequent comparisons being made with the Bomberg edition of 1524-25” (p. xxiii). While the NKJV translators made use of a different printed edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text, they actually followed the same Hebrew text as was used in the making of the KJV. In the very small number of places (only eight or nine have been identified) where their printed edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text differed from the Bomberg edition of Chayyim, the NKJV translators followed the same Hebrew text that underlies the KJV.

Stating the truth that the NKJV is based on the same multiple original-language texts of Scripture as the KJV and pre-1611 English Bibles are is not at all "an incredibly uneducated thing to say". Why would I stop stating the truth? The NKJV is a true revision of the KJV in the same way that the KJV is a true revision of the Bishops' Bible and other pre-1611 English Bibles.
 

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
At Deuteronomy 14:5, the KJV has a rendering based on either the Greek Septuagint or Jerome's Latin Vulgate. [Hebrew, dishon; Greek LXX, pygargos; Latin Vulgate, pygargus]

pygarg (KJV)

Did the KJV’s rendering “pygarg” (Deut. 14:5) come from a Hebrew-Latin lexicon which had the rendering of the Latin Vulgate “pygargus” as its Latin definition of a Hebrew noun or did it come directly from the Latin Vulgate or from the Greek LXX? Did the KJV’s rendering “unicorn” come directly from the Latin Vulgate or indirectly from the Latin Vulgate by means of a Hebrew-Latin lexicon or by means of a pre-1611 English Bible which took it from the Latin Vulgate or a Hebrew-Latin lexicon?

Would a consistent, just application of some stated KJV-only reasoning suggest that any rendering in the KJV whether indirectly from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome through means of a Hebrew-Latin lexicon or directly from the Latin Vulgate would contaminate the KJV?
 

Alan Dale Gross

Active Member
Stating the truth that the NKJV is based on the same multiple original-language texts of Scripture as the KJV and pre-1611 English Bibles are is not at all "an incredibly uneducated thing to say". Why would I stop stating the truth?
Because your version of the truth can't be substantiated, and no one aware of the texts the NKJV people claimed to use would ever try.

The KJV translators consulted "the perverted Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate," and they even borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament translated from an edition of Jerome's Latin Vulgate.
'Consulted', 'borrowed many renderings'. The King James translators had a very exalted view of any manuscripts related to being associated with the origins of 'God's Word', even though they knew them to be generally spurious. As with all your deathblows, you swipe at the KJV, "The Exception Proves the Rule". They knew what they were doing and were part of the publication of a Work of Art, Literary Masterpiece, which could never be accused of being an effort of human origination, in its entirety. It's too comprehensive in its SEEMINGLY ENDLESS inner workings that all fit together like a hand in a glove.

The KJV translators also consulted a printed edition of the Greek Septuagint. KJV defender Edward F. Hills acknowledged that “sometimes also the influence of the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate is discernible in the King James Old Testament” (KJV Defended, p. 223).
'Consulted', 'sometimes'. You 'Throw the Baby Out with the Bathwater' and dismiss the KJV, as if it were The Reader's Digest version, but I don't.
And I despise each tenet of the untenable AND silly Ruckmanite silliness.

Some of the book titles of OT books in the KJV
Yeah?

the KJV adopted the order of OT books used in the Septuagint and Jerome's Latin Vulgate
Wow. Maybe you do know a lot of useful information.


While the NKJV translators made use of a different printed edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text, they actually followed the same Hebrew text as was used in the making of the KJV.
The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, or BHS. This is not the preserved Hebrew Old Testament. This one is approved by the Vatican (Roman Catholic religion) and printed jointly by the Vatican and Protestant Bible societies. In 1937 the "scholars" rejected the preserved Ben Chayyim it for an "older" (but not more accurate) text: the Leningrad Ms B 19a (also called the "Ben Ashertext"). The BHS states:

"...it is a welcome sign of the times that it was published jointly in 1971 by the Wurttemburg Bible Society, Stuttgart, and the Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome...."
--Prolegomena, p. XII

The Septuagint, or LXX. As you have seen1, the so-called "Septuagint" is a fable. It was really written after Jesus was born, not before. There are many Septuagints, since each Alexandrian Old Testament is different from every other. Know what they are? Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus - the same exact codices (big books) where the modern perverted New Testaments come from!

The Dead Sea Scrolls, or DSS. It is clear through Scripture that God preserved His words through the tribe of Levi (Deuteronomy 17:18, 31:9-13, 25-26, Nehemiah 8 and Malachi 2:7). The Qumran community that produced the DSS are never said to be Levites. But though God says "the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth" (Malachi 2:7), the NKJV committee instead consulted the DSS as well.

The Majority Text, or MT. With a name like Majority Text it should be a compilation of the majority of Greek New Testament manuscripts. But it is not. The "Majority Text" is actually a hand-picked set of manuscripts grouped together by "pro-Alexandrian" liberal Hermann von Soden2. Less than 8%of the over 5,000 Greek manuscripts were compared to each other by von Soden's team of collators! But the NKJV people give the MT great prominence, writing this inaccurate information in the footnotes.

So people think that the King James is wrong, since it disagrees with "the Majority Text." Who cares? The "Majority Text" is not the majority of texts! The "Majority Text" is a big fake. Don't believe it. And don't trust any Bible that does.
These explain how the NKJV could butcher the Old Testament so prolifically.
They used 100%, or so, of the worst original language manuscripts known to mankind.
And must not have invoked Divine Leadership any more than so many others brag about, since the 'bible' we have should be treated in translation no different than any other book, according to them, I believe.

In the very small number of places (only eight or nine have been identified) where their printed edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text differed from the Bomberg edition of Chayyim, the NKJV translators followed the same Hebrew text that underlies the KJV.
Says whatever.

While the NKJV translators made use of a different printed edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text, they actually followed the same Hebrew text as was used in the making of the KJV. In the very small number of places (only eight or nine have been identified) where their printed edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text differed from the Bomberg edition of Chayyim, the NKJV translators followed the same Hebrew text that underlies the KJV.
Whatever you say. I can't argue against your 'high and mighty' god-complex' that thinks things are significant and fully accurate.
 
Last edited:

Alan Dale Gross

Active Member
The NKJV is a true revision of the KJV in the same way that the KJV is a true revision of the Bishops' Bible and other pre-1611 English Bibles.
Try "The Newest King James New World Translation", since they agree with The New World Translation in places where you'd never know The King James ever existed, as was the NKJV's partially undisclosed ulterior motive, i.e., to be a 'Transition Translation', between the KJV and The New World Order 'bible' versions, like whatever you would call the New World Order version (an 'Occult Manual', maybe). You know that.


"A Bridge Translation to Westcott and Hort".​

"Pastor Kirk DiVietro of Franklin Massachusetts, sent an email to David Cloud of Way of Life Ministries in January of 2005 that reveals the hidden agenda behind the publication of the New King James Version. David Cloud prefaced Kirk DiVietro's letter with the following statement:

"Kirk DiVietro, Pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Franklin, Massachusetts, attended one of the Thomas Nelson planning meetings that prepared the way for the publication of the New King James. He testified to me that the Thomas Nelson representative plainly stated that their goal with the NKJV was to create a bridge to the modern versions, to break down the resistance of those who still revere the KJV. Following is Bro. DiVietro’s testimony as he gave it to me by e-mail on January 9, 2005:

“Over 20 years ago I attended a pre-publication meeting of the NKJV held by the Thomas Nelson People and hosted by the Hackman’s Bible Bookstore in Allentown, PA. I am personal friends with the owners who took great delight in seating me next to the brother of the main translator of the NIV. The meeting was attended by over 300 college professors and pastors.

"At the meeting we were treated to a slide presentation of the history of the English bible and in particular the King James Bible and its several revisions. During the presentation of the NKJV the Thomas Nelson representative made a statement which to the best of my memory was,

‘We are all educated people here. We would never say this to our people, but we all know that the King James Version
is a poor translation based on poor texts. But every attempt to give your people a better Bible has failed.

"They just won’t accept them. So we have gone back and done a revision of the King James Version, a fifth revision.


"Hopefully it will serve as a transitional bridge to eventually get your people to accept a more accurate Bible.’"

"Because of the years, and because I did not write it down, I cannot give you the speaker’s name and I cannot promise you that this is word for word correct, but the meeting so seared my spirit that I have never picked up and opened a NKJV. I can tell you that this is absolutely the substance and nearly the exact words of what was said.”

"The accuracy of Pastor Kirk DiVietro's recollection regarding the Thomas Nelson representative's statement, "We would never say this to our people, but we all know that the King James Version is a poor translation based on poor texts" is confirmed by the New King James Version editors: It was the editors' conviction that the use of footnotes would encourage further inquiry by readers. They also recognized that it was easier for the average reader to delete something he or she felt was not properly a part of the text than to insert a word or phrase which had been left out by the revisers."

"Since these manuscripts, most of which - for the New Testament - reflect an Alexandrian text-type, are argued by most of today's biblical scholars to be more reliable, the NKJV's adherence to the Majority Text (which has ties to the Textus Receptus) is accused of violating the spirit of open scholarship and open inquiry, and to ascribe a level of perfection to the documents available to the 17th century scholars that they would not have claimed for them.

"However, not all textual critics agree that the earliest manuscripts are the most accurate. Alternative readings based on other texts do appear as footnotes in the New King James Version, and unlike other translations (such as the New International Version), the NKJV does not contain value comments like "the best manuscripts add, etc." Instead, the footnotes simply state which manuscript sets do not contain the passage (similar to the approach previously taken by the New World Translation) of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

"
However, this is unlikely to placate those who feel that the "Johannine Comma" (at 1 John 5:7), for example, is not a legitimate portion of scripture and should not be treated as such.

"The NKJV holds to a loose stance for the Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text, but incorporates other c-----t manuscripts in its footnotes and follows c-----t definitions from other versions, which in doing so, reveals their belief that the KJV is in error in 1000’s of places.


"The Hebrew Text that the NKJV is translated from is slightly different from the Masoretic text used by the KJV. The KJV is primarily translated from the Bomberg edition (1524-25) of the Masoretic text prepared by Jacob ben Chayyim. The NKJV uses the 1967/77 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica, with frequent comparisons made with the Bomberg edition of 1525. In addition the NKJV consulted, the LXX or Septuagint Greek Old Testament, the Latin Vulgate a variety of ancient versions of the Hebrew Scriptures, as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls (NKJV preface, p.vi).
...

From:

"Which Bible is the Word of God?"

©2000 by James M. Frye;​


"Of all the "Bibles" that are readily available today, there is only one that comes from the Textus Receptus
and is translated according to the Formal Equivalency method - the Authorized Version (KJV).

"The New King James Version (NKJV), although it claims to be a "Formal Equivalent" translation, contains many (over 2000) instances of "Dynamic Equivalency". In the preface, (the NKJV) claims to be essentially the same as The Authorized King James Version (KJV) except that the language has been updated. Instead, it has thousands of changes that have nothing to do with updating the language at all. Where the language is updated, it is often updated incorrectly or in ways that change the entire meaning of a passage."
 
Last edited:
Top