-
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Which english version "most faithful" To tr between Geneva/KJV/NKJV?
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
Hebrews 10:23 in Geneva, KJV, and NKJV
At Hebrews 10:23, both the Geneva Bible and the NKJV have "hope" while the KJV has "faith."
In Hebrews 10:23, James D. Price noted that the Textus Receptus, the Majority Text, and all Greek manuscripts have the Greek word for "hope" while the KJV has "faith." Scrivener thought that "faith" for "hope" at Hebrews 10:23 was a "mere oversight of our [KJV] translators" (The Authorized Edition, p. 247). Henry Craik referred to it as “a manifest oversight” (Hints, p. 49). Ezra Abbot suggested that “as a misprint, which would easily escape correction, it may have originated in the expression, ’assurance of faith’ in the preceding verse, putting the thought of ’faith’ into the mind of the type-setter, and making it natural for him to substitute the common expression, ’profession of faith,’ for the unusual one, ’profession of hope.’ This may also have been facilitated by the occurrence of the word ’faithful’ in the following clause” (Authorship, p. 226). Thomas Horne as edited by Samuel Tregelles maintained that the rendering in our version at Hebrews 10:23 is “simply a mistake” (Introduction, Vol. 4, p. 227). This is stated in a note concerning that comment: “’Faith’ in this passage of our English Bibles, seems to have been merely an erratum of the first edition, formed by the eye of the compositor resting on ’faithful’ immediately after” (Ibid.). C. E. Hammond proposed that “the compositor’s eye in the first edition perhaps rested upon the word ‘faithful’ in the line immediately below; so it [faith] crept in accidentally, and has never been corrected” (Outlines, p. 55). David Norton also asserted that “faith” “could be a printer’s error because of ‘faithful’ later in the verse” (Textual History, p. 351). In 1871 in a note concerning Hebrews 10:23, Thomas Abbott commented that “faith may, perhaps, be a typographical error” (English Bible, p. 40). Alan Macgregor, a defender of the KJV, acknowledged that “faith” “appears, however, to be an uncorrected printing error” (400 Years On, p. 205).
Was it impossible for the KJV translators to have overlooked a questionable rendering? Tyndale's New Testament, Coverdale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, Coverdale's Duoglott, the Great Bible, Jugge’s New Testament, Whittingham's New Testament, the Geneva Bible, Thomson’s New Testament, and the Bishops' Bible all translated this Greek word accurately as "hope" as do Jay Green's Interlinear and Berry's Interlinear. According to the first rule given the translators, what “truth of the original” demanded that this rendering in the Bishops’ and other earlier English Bibles be altered? Luther’s 1534 German Bible rendered this word as “hoffnung” [hope]. According to a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning noted earlier, Luther’s German Bible and the KJV would be equal in authority. The 1657 English translation of the authorized Dutch Bible also has “hope.“ This same Greek word was translated "hope" by the KJV translators every other time it is found in the TR (53 times).
Young's Analytical Concordance defined elpis at Hebrews 10:23 as "hope" (p. 324). The Ryrie Study Bible has this note for this verse: “Lit. the confession of our hope” (p. 1865). The Companion Bible has this note: “our faith=the hope, Gr. elpis” (p. 1838). In his commentary on Hebrews, Oliver B. Greene noted about this verse that "The Greek reads, 'Let us hold fast the confession of our hope'" (p. 406). Concerning this verse, Ralph Earle observed: "The Greek word is not pistis, ' faith,' but elpis, 'hope'" (Word Meanings, p. 427). Bullinger defined the Greek word elpis at this verse as “hope” (Lexicon, p. 272). C. E. Hammond maintained that “the true reading is ‘hope’” (Outlines, p. 55). In his Expository Discourses on 1 Peter, John Brown asserted that “hope, not faith, is the genuine reading” at Hebrews 10:23 (p. 445). In the 1824 New Family Bible edited by Benjamin Boothroyd, “confession of our hope” is in the text at Hebrews 10:23. In his book A Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine under the heading “the nature of hope,” KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes would quote “hold fast” with the reference (Heb. 10:23) (p. 95). This would indicate that Andrewes considered this verse to be referring to hope. It may be possible that his comments were based on the text of the Geneva Bible.
Some have noted a parallel or comparison between the three of 1 Corinthians 13:13 [faith, hope, and love] to the same three in Hebrews 10:22-24 [faith, v. 22; hope, v. 23; love, v. 24]. At 1 Corinthians 13:13, they are clearly identified as “these three,“ not as these two with “faith” and “hope” referring to the same thing or being synonyms. While clearly present in the Greek, this parallel is missing in the KJV. In 1659, Robert Gell wrote: "And let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, (the [KJV] translators turn it [faith] which should be turn'd [hope,] according to all Greek copies, I have yet seen. Beside, the apostle in verses 22, 23, 24 hath the three theological graces, in their order)" (Essay, p. 525). Alfred Dewes wrote: “In the three consecutive verses the three graces of faith, hope, and love are introduced; but the translation fails to represent them” (Plea, p. 13). In 1866, Henry Alford (1810-1871) asserted: “We have here an extraordinary example of the persistence of a blunder through centuries. The word ’faith,’ given here by the A. V., instead of hope--breaking up the beautiful triad of vv. 22, 23, 24,--faith, hope, love,--was a mere mistake, hope being the original, without any variety of reading, and hope, being accordingly the rendering of all the English versions previously to 1611” (New Testament for English Readers, Vol. 2, p. 706). In his commentary on Hebrews, Donald Guthrie maintained that “10:22 mentions faith, 10:23 refers to hope, and 10:24 to love” (p. 56). The same three graces [faith, love, hope] are also found in Colossians 1:4-5 and 1 Thessalonians 1:3.
Did Tyndale, Coverdale, the Geneva Bible translators, and other early translators supposedly corrupt the Bible by translating this word as "hope" or were perhaps the KJV translators mistaken in translating this word as "faith?" By changing a noun in all the earlier English Bibles, were the KJV translators guilty of unfaithfulness in translation, inaccuracy in translation, or unreliability in translation according a consistent application of the claims of a KJV defender? Did the KJV translators receive new revelation which makes their choice of words infallible so that we should read their interpretations back into the Greek? Considering the meaning of this Greek word and the way the KJV translators consistently rendered it fifty-three times, can KJV-only advocates honestly condemn present-day translators for rendering it as "hope?" Did the KJV translators improve on the Greek by translating this word "faith?" D. A. Waite indicated that “reverse translation” [translating the English back into the Hebrew or Greek] could show the accuracy or inaccuracy of a version and that the KJV “will be the one that will come out ahead every time” (Defending the KJB, p. 252). If this test of reverse translation was used at Hebrews 10:23, does the KJV come out ahead with its rendering “faith?“ Does Waite accept the preserved Greek word at Hebrews 10:23 as the final authority for its meaning or does he accept the English word in the KJV as his standard? The evidence of the earlier English Bibles, Luther’s German Bible, the Dutch authorized Bible, and the way that even the KJV translators translated this word in all other places make a strong case for suggesting that these finite, fallible, and uninspired translators could possibly be incorrect in this rendering.
At Hebrews 10:23, both the Geneva Bible and the NKJV have "hope" while the KJV has "faith."
In Hebrews 10:23, James D. Price noted that the Textus Receptus, the Majority Text, and all Greek manuscripts have the Greek word for "hope" while the KJV has "faith." Scrivener thought that "faith" for "hope" at Hebrews 10:23 was a "mere oversight of our [KJV] translators" (The Authorized Edition, p. 247). Henry Craik referred to it as “a manifest oversight” (Hints, p. 49). Ezra Abbot suggested that “as a misprint, which would easily escape correction, it may have originated in the expression, ’assurance of faith’ in the preceding verse, putting the thought of ’faith’ into the mind of the type-setter, and making it natural for him to substitute the common expression, ’profession of faith,’ for the unusual one, ’profession of hope.’ This may also have been facilitated by the occurrence of the word ’faithful’ in the following clause” (Authorship, p. 226). Thomas Horne as edited by Samuel Tregelles maintained that the rendering in our version at Hebrews 10:23 is “simply a mistake” (Introduction, Vol. 4, p. 227). This is stated in a note concerning that comment: “’Faith’ in this passage of our English Bibles, seems to have been merely an erratum of the first edition, formed by the eye of the compositor resting on ’faithful’ immediately after” (Ibid.). C. E. Hammond proposed that “the compositor’s eye in the first edition perhaps rested upon the word ‘faithful’ in the line immediately below; so it [faith] crept in accidentally, and has never been corrected” (Outlines, p. 55). David Norton also asserted that “faith” “could be a printer’s error because of ‘faithful’ later in the verse” (Textual History, p. 351). In 1871 in a note concerning Hebrews 10:23, Thomas Abbott commented that “faith may, perhaps, be a typographical error” (English Bible, p. 40). Alan Macgregor, a defender of the KJV, acknowledged that “faith” “appears, however, to be an uncorrected printing error” (400 Years On, p. 205).
Was it impossible for the KJV translators to have overlooked a questionable rendering? Tyndale's New Testament, Coverdale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, Coverdale's Duoglott, the Great Bible, Jugge’s New Testament, Whittingham's New Testament, the Geneva Bible, Thomson’s New Testament, and the Bishops' Bible all translated this Greek word accurately as "hope" as do Jay Green's Interlinear and Berry's Interlinear. According to the first rule given the translators, what “truth of the original” demanded that this rendering in the Bishops’ and other earlier English Bibles be altered? Luther’s 1534 German Bible rendered this word as “hoffnung” [hope]. According to a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning noted earlier, Luther’s German Bible and the KJV would be equal in authority. The 1657 English translation of the authorized Dutch Bible also has “hope.“ This same Greek word was translated "hope" by the KJV translators every other time it is found in the TR (53 times).
Young's Analytical Concordance defined elpis at Hebrews 10:23 as "hope" (p. 324). The Ryrie Study Bible has this note for this verse: “Lit. the confession of our hope” (p. 1865). The Companion Bible has this note: “our faith=the hope, Gr. elpis” (p. 1838). In his commentary on Hebrews, Oliver B. Greene noted about this verse that "The Greek reads, 'Let us hold fast the confession of our hope'" (p. 406). Concerning this verse, Ralph Earle observed: "The Greek word is not pistis, ' faith,' but elpis, 'hope'" (Word Meanings, p. 427). Bullinger defined the Greek word elpis at this verse as “hope” (Lexicon, p. 272). C. E. Hammond maintained that “the true reading is ‘hope’” (Outlines, p. 55). In his Expository Discourses on 1 Peter, John Brown asserted that “hope, not faith, is the genuine reading” at Hebrews 10:23 (p. 445). In the 1824 New Family Bible edited by Benjamin Boothroyd, “confession of our hope” is in the text at Hebrews 10:23. In his book A Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine under the heading “the nature of hope,” KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes would quote “hold fast” with the reference (Heb. 10:23) (p. 95). This would indicate that Andrewes considered this verse to be referring to hope. It may be possible that his comments were based on the text of the Geneva Bible.
Some have noted a parallel or comparison between the three of 1 Corinthians 13:13 [faith, hope, and love] to the same three in Hebrews 10:22-24 [faith, v. 22; hope, v. 23; love, v. 24]. At 1 Corinthians 13:13, they are clearly identified as “these three,“ not as these two with “faith” and “hope” referring to the same thing or being synonyms. While clearly present in the Greek, this parallel is missing in the KJV. In 1659, Robert Gell wrote: "And let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, (the [KJV] translators turn it [faith] which should be turn'd [hope,] according to all Greek copies, I have yet seen. Beside, the apostle in verses 22, 23, 24 hath the three theological graces, in their order)" (Essay, p. 525). Alfred Dewes wrote: “In the three consecutive verses the three graces of faith, hope, and love are introduced; but the translation fails to represent them” (Plea, p. 13). In 1866, Henry Alford (1810-1871) asserted: “We have here an extraordinary example of the persistence of a blunder through centuries. The word ’faith,’ given here by the A. V., instead of hope--breaking up the beautiful triad of vv. 22, 23, 24,--faith, hope, love,--was a mere mistake, hope being the original, without any variety of reading, and hope, being accordingly the rendering of all the English versions previously to 1611” (New Testament for English Readers, Vol. 2, p. 706). In his commentary on Hebrews, Donald Guthrie maintained that “10:22 mentions faith, 10:23 refers to hope, and 10:24 to love” (p. 56). The same three graces [faith, love, hope] are also found in Colossians 1:4-5 and 1 Thessalonians 1:3.
Did Tyndale, Coverdale, the Geneva Bible translators, and other early translators supposedly corrupt the Bible by translating this word as "hope" or were perhaps the KJV translators mistaken in translating this word as "faith?" By changing a noun in all the earlier English Bibles, were the KJV translators guilty of unfaithfulness in translation, inaccuracy in translation, or unreliability in translation according a consistent application of the claims of a KJV defender? Did the KJV translators receive new revelation which makes their choice of words infallible so that we should read their interpretations back into the Greek? Considering the meaning of this Greek word and the way the KJV translators consistently rendered it fifty-three times, can KJV-only advocates honestly condemn present-day translators for rendering it as "hope?" Did the KJV translators improve on the Greek by translating this word "faith?" D. A. Waite indicated that “reverse translation” [translating the English back into the Hebrew or Greek] could show the accuracy or inaccuracy of a version and that the KJV “will be the one that will come out ahead every time” (Defending the KJB, p. 252). If this test of reverse translation was used at Hebrews 10:23, does the KJV come out ahead with its rendering “faith?“ Does Waite accept the preserved Greek word at Hebrews 10:23 as the final authority for its meaning or does he accept the English word in the KJV as his standard? The evidence of the earlier English Bibles, Luther’s German Bible, the Dutch authorized Bible, and the way that even the KJV translators translated this word in all other places make a strong case for suggesting that these finite, fallible, and uninspired translators could possibly be incorrect in this rendering.
Mark 3:21
Variation can be seen at Mark 3:21 in the translations on the KJV-only line of good Bibles. Some of the variations include the following: “his kinsmen“ (1395 Wycliffe‘s), “they that longed unto him“ (Tyndale‘s, Matthew‘s), “they that were about him” (1535 Coverdale’s); “they that belonged unto him” (1538 Coverdale’s N. T., Great, Bishops’), “his kinsfolks” (Whittingham’s, Geneva) and “his friends” (KJV). The 1611 edition has this marginal note: “Or, kinsmen.” Which of these renderings agree better with the Textus Receptus Greek text? The 1851 English translation of the Peshitta (a Syriac translation on the KJV-only good line) has “kinsmen” at Mark 3:21. The 1657 English translation of the 1637 Dutch Bible has “they that were of kin to him” with the following note: “Greek, those of his, or; that were of his.“ Are all these variations acceptable? Is any one of these variations more accurate than some of the others?
Kenneth Wuest observed that “the word for ‘friend” (phile) is not in the Greek text” (Word Studies, Vol. 1, p. 74). Likewise, The Complete Biblical Library confirmed that “there is no word for ’friends” in this verse” (p. 81). This source noted that “the phrase hoi par’ autou is used in the Septuagint and elsewhere to mean ’family.’ Thus, these people are Jesus’ mother and brothers” (Ibid.). A. T. Robertson maintained that this Greek phrase “means literally ’those from the side of him (Jesus)’” (Word Pictures, I, p. 281). Robertson suggested that “the idiom most likely means the kinspeople or family of Jesus as is common in the LXX.” He added: “The fact that in verse 31 ’his mother and his brethren’ are expressly mentioned would indicate that they are the ’friends’ alluded to in verse 21” (Ibid.). Barnes’ Notes maintained that the Greek means “they who were of him,” and that it referred “not the apostles, but his relatives, his friends, who were in the place of his nativity” (p. 153). In his commentary on Mark, Joseph Alexander (1809-1860) wrote: “The common version of the first clause, his friends (margin, or kinsmen) is a conjectural but probably correct interpretation of a phrase (hoi par’ autou) which literally means those from him (or from with him)” (p. 71). Alexander affirmed that “it might be readily transferred to kindred or relationship in general, thus confirming the correctness of the marginal translation in the English Bible.” He added: “The phrase would then be nearly equivalent to his brethren, as used in John 7:3, 5” (Ibid.). In his exposition on Mark, William Kelly commented: “His kinsmen felt the reproach of the world, and went out, at the singular tidings, to lay hold on Him as if He were out of His mind” (p. 61).
Variation can be seen at Mark 3:21 in the translations on the KJV-only line of good Bibles. Some of the variations include the following: “his kinsmen“ (1395 Wycliffe‘s), “they that longed unto him“ (Tyndale‘s, Matthew‘s), “they that were about him” (1535 Coverdale’s); “they that belonged unto him” (1538 Coverdale’s N. T., Great, Bishops’), “his kinsfolks” (Whittingham’s, Geneva) and “his friends” (KJV). The 1611 edition has this marginal note: “Or, kinsmen.” Which of these renderings agree better with the Textus Receptus Greek text? The 1851 English translation of the Peshitta (a Syriac translation on the KJV-only good line) has “kinsmen” at Mark 3:21. The 1657 English translation of the 1637 Dutch Bible has “they that were of kin to him” with the following note: “Greek, those of his, or; that were of his.“ Are all these variations acceptable? Is any one of these variations more accurate than some of the others?
Kenneth Wuest observed that “the word for ‘friend” (phile) is not in the Greek text” (Word Studies, Vol. 1, p. 74). Likewise, The Complete Biblical Library confirmed that “there is no word for ’friends” in this verse” (p. 81). This source noted that “the phrase hoi par’ autou is used in the Septuagint and elsewhere to mean ’family.’ Thus, these people are Jesus’ mother and brothers” (Ibid.). A. T. Robertson maintained that this Greek phrase “means literally ’those from the side of him (Jesus)’” (Word Pictures, I, p. 281). Robertson suggested that “the idiom most likely means the kinspeople or family of Jesus as is common in the LXX.” He added: “The fact that in verse 31 ’his mother and his brethren’ are expressly mentioned would indicate that they are the ’friends’ alluded to in verse 21” (Ibid.). Barnes’ Notes maintained that the Greek means “they who were of him,” and that it referred “not the apostles, but his relatives, his friends, who were in the place of his nativity” (p. 153). In his commentary on Mark, Joseph Alexander (1809-1860) wrote: “The common version of the first clause, his friends (margin, or kinsmen) is a conjectural but probably correct interpretation of a phrase (hoi par’ autou) which literally means those from him (or from with him)” (p. 71). Alexander affirmed that “it might be readily transferred to kindred or relationship in general, thus confirming the correctness of the marginal translation in the English Bible.” He added: “The phrase would then be nearly equivalent to his brethren, as used in John 7:3, 5” (Ibid.). In his exposition on Mark, William Kelly commented: “His kinsmen felt the reproach of the world, and went out, at the singular tidings, to lay hold on Him as if He were out of His mind” (p. 61).
Variation can be seen at Mark 3:21 in the translations on the KJV-only line of good Bibles. Some of the variations include the following: “his kinsmen“ (1395 Wycliffe‘s), “they that longed unto him“ (Tyndale‘s, Matthew‘s), “they that were about him” (1535 Coverdale’s); “they that belonged unto him” (1538 Coverdale’s N. T., Great, Bishops’), “his kinsfolks” (Whittingham’s, Geneva) and “his friends” (KJV). The 1611 edition has this marginal note: “Or, kinsmen.” Which of these renderings agree better with the Textus Receptus Greek text? The 1851 English translation of the Peshitta (a Syriac translation on the KJV-only good line) has “kinsmen” at Mark 3:21. The 1657 English translation of the 1637 Dutch Bible has “they that were of kin to him” with the following note: “Greek, those of his, or; that were of his.“ Are all these variations acceptable? Is any one of these variations more accurate than some of the others?
Kenneth Wuest observed that “the word for ‘friend” (phile) is not in the Greek text” (Word Studies, Vol. 1, p. 74). Likewise, The Complete Biblical Library confirmed that “there is no word for ’friends” in this verse” (p. 81). This source noted that “the phrase hoi par’ autou is used in the Septuagint and elsewhere to mean ’family.’ Thus, these people are Jesus’ mother and brothers” (Ibid.). A. T. Robertson maintained that this Greek phrase “means literally ’those from the side of him (Jesus)’” (Word Pictures, I, p. 281). Robertson suggested that “the idiom most likely means the kinspeople or family of Jesus as is common in the LXX.” He added: “The fact that in verse 31 ’his mother and his brethren’ are expressly mentioned would indicate that they are the ’friends’ alluded to in verse 21” (Ibid.). Barnes’ Notes maintained that the Greek means “they who were of him,” and that it referred “not the apostles, but his relatives, his friends, who were in the place of his nativity” (p. 153). In his commentary on Mark, Joseph Alexander (1809-1860) wrote: “The common version of the first clause, his friends (margin, or kinsmen) is a conjectural but probably correct interpretation of a phrase (hoi par’ autou) which literally means those from him (or from with him)” (p. 71). Alexander affirmed that “it might be readily transferred to kindred or relationship in general, thus confirming the correctness of the marginal translation in the English Bible.” He added: “The phrase would then be nearly equivalent to his brethren, as used in John 7:3, 5” (Ibid.). In his exposition on Mark, William Kelly commented: “His kinsmen felt the reproach of the world, and went out, at the singular tidings, to lay hold on Him as if He were out of His mind” (p. 61).
it seems that you are saying that the KJV was NOT even the truest version to the TR greek text!
Why wouldn't the Geneva Bible be considered superior to the KJV by KJVO?
Logos, without wading through all that info........which one did you choose?
Geneva, KJV, or NKJV?
Geneva, KJV, or NKJV?
without wading through all that info........which one did you choose?
Geneva, KJV, or NKJV?
I make no exclusive only claims for any one translation. I have not decided which of the three translations [Geneva Bible, KJV, or NKJV] is the best one overall. I am open to the possibility that the KJV could be the best overall, but I have not seen evidence that proves that to be the case. I grew up reading the KJV and hearing the KJV taught and preached so I tend to read and favor it the most. Just from the KJV itself, I find that the modern KJV-only theory is not scriptural. The pre-1611 English Bibles are additional evidence against the KJV-only view. I attempt to apply KJV-only claims and reasoning consistently to test whether are not they are true so I will apply KJV-only claims to the KJV itself.
I have found that there are a good number of places where the Geneva Bible or the NKJV is clearer, more precise, more faithful, or more accurate to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.
If you avoid the evidence, how can you determine if your KJV-only view is correct or not?
I make no exclusive only claims for any one translation. I have not decided which of the three translations [Geneva Bible, KJV, or NKJV] is the best one overall. I am open to the possibility that the KJV could be the best overall, but I have not seen evidence that proves that to be the case. I grew up reading the KJV and hearing the KJV taught and preached so I tend to read and favor it the most. Just from the KJV itself, I find that the modern KJV-only theory is not scriptural. The pre-1611 English Bibles are additional evidence against the KJV-only view. I attempt to apply KJV-only claims and reasoning consistently to test whether are not they are true so I will apply KJV-only claims to the KJV itself.
I have found that there are a good number of places where the Geneva Bible or the NKJV is clearer, more precise, more faithful, or more accurate to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.
If you avoid the evidence, how can you determine if your KJV-only view is correct or not?
Are you saying I am KJVO? I can assure you I am not. I AM KJV preferred, mainly because I've used it for almost 60 years, and I love its "language". Nothing else "sounds" like Scripture to me, although I know it is. I'm very much a creature of habit who doesn't like change, so I would guess that has a lot to do with my continued use of the KJV. I own and have tried to use other translations. Right now on my computer desk are an NIV, a HCSB, a NKJV, and an ESV. I just don't care for them, not saying they aren't the Word of God, I just don't care for them.
I make no exclusive only claims for any one translation. I have not decided which of the three translations [Geneva Bible, KJV, or NKJV] is the best one overall. I am open to the possibility that the KJV could be the best overall, but I have not seen evidence that proves that to be the case. I grew up reading the KJV and hearing the KJV taught and preached so I tend to read and favor it the most. Just from the KJV itself, I find that the modern KJV-only theory is not scriptural. The pre-1611 English Bibles are additional evidence against the KJV-only view. I attempt to apply KJV-only claims and reasoning consistently to test whether are not they are true so I will apply KJV-only claims to the KJV itself.
I have found that there are a good number of places where the Geneva Bible or the NKJV is clearer, more precise, more faithful, or more accurate to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.
If you avoid the evidence, how can you determine if your KJV-only view is correct or not?
Think question would be better as 'Which of those was the best at translating the TR into English renderings" as I am one that holds the NASB superior to any of them for English version ...
franklinmonroe
Active Member
I can respect those reasons.... I can assure you I am not. I AM KJV preferred, mainly because I've used it for almost 60 years, and I love its "language". Nothing else "sounds" like Scripture to me, although I know it is. I'm very much a creature of habit who doesn't like change, so I would guess that has a lot to do with my continued use of the KJV. I own and have tried to use other translations. Right now on my computer desk are an NIV, a HCSB, a NKJV, and an ESV. I just don't care for them, not saying they aren't the Word of God, I just don't care for them.
glazer1972
Member
I have several KJV but I prefer the NKJV. If I quote scripture on internet forums I will quote the KJV or the Geneva due to the lack of copyright.
Main reason is that my brother gave me one on my becoming a Christian. It was the NKJV Believer's Study Bible. I used it so much that I had to duct tape it together. I have since had it rebound and some other work done at Leonard's Book Restoration.
If I could get a high quality reasonably priced non-facimile non-updated spelling modern type face 1560 Geneva I would want one of those too. Would probably love it.
I have E-sword on my computer and have many different translations on it. The Geneva is one of those.
Main reason is that my brother gave me one on my becoming a Christian. It was the NKJV Believer's Study Bible. I used it so much that I had to duct tape it together. I have since had it rebound and some other work done at Leonard's Book Restoration.
If I could get a high quality reasonably priced non-facimile non-updated spelling modern type face 1560 Geneva I would want one of those too. Would probably love it.
I have E-sword on my computer and have many different translations on it. The Geneva is one of those.
If I could get a high quality reasonably priced non-facimile non-updated spelling modern type face 1560 Geneva I would want one of those too. Would probably love it.
Why wouldn't you want updated spelling?