Why isn't the NKJV seen as being another update on KJV?

[Yeshua1]

There are several and too hard to bother trying to link them all, but several time the translators put 'or _______' in the margin to suggest a different translation for a word or words. I didn't have a lot of time today (my 'baby' sister (almost 50) is visiting from the US) but here is one page from 1 John that shows a couple of alternate choices.

On the topic of the OP, the NKJV is not a simple update. Though translated from the same textual body and using the philosophy of formal equivalence like the KJV it was a new translation.

I was looking at it being similiar to when the 1901 ASV became the 1977 NASB!

 

[Logos1560]

,in effect, call into question the AUTHORITY of significant word(s) and portions of the Word of God. The KJV NEVER does that. As far as I can tell....it is a complete text and it OMITS or QUESTIONS nothing.

It is just as wrong to add to the Scriptures as to take from it. The underlying text of the KJV had some portions added from the Latin Vulgate and translated into the Greek by Erasmus that are not supported by a majority of the original language manuscripts.

If what was added by Erasmus from the Latin Vulgate should and must be kept, why the inconsistency in accepting the removing of other readings found in the pre-1611 English Bibles that were also from the Latin Vulgate?

Some examples of additions in the 1538 Coverdale’s Duoglott from the Latin Vulgate include the following: "in this city" (Acts 4:27), "and that they might all be delivered from their infirmities" (Acts 5:15), "the third day" (Acts 13:30c), "and all the multitude was moved at their doctrine" (Acts 14:7), "but Judas went alone to Jerusalem" (Acts 15:34c), "commanding to keep the precepts of the Apostles and elders" (Acts 15:41c), "setting forth in the mean while the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 18:4), "For he did fear lest happly the Jews should take him away and kill him, and he afterward should be blamed, as though he should take money" (Acts 23:24c), and "And they took me and cried, saying: away with our enemy" (Acts 24:17 or 18). These readings also found in the Great Bible, one of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision.

An edition of the Great Bible had many of the same additions found in Coverdale's Duoglott (check Acts 4:25, 4:27, 5:15, 13:30, 14:7, 15:34c, 15:41c, 18:4, 23:24c, 24:17; Rom. 4:5c, 4:18c, 8:23, 12:17). Thus, the first authorized Bible (the Great Bible) has over one hundred words in just one New Testament book (Acts) which are not found in the third authorized Bible (the KJV). How many more words would the Great Bible have than the KJV if all the books of the Bible were compared? Some other examples include Matthew 24:41 where the Great Bible added: "Two in a bed, the one shall be received, and the other refused." "He shall enter into the kingdom of heaven" is added to the end of Matthew 7:21. Near the beginning of Matthew 26:15, the words “unto them” are added from the Latin Vulgate. Another addition is found at Luke 16:21 [“and no man gave unto him”]. At the end of Luke 24:36, the 1540 edition added: “It is I, scare not.” At the end of 1 Corinthians 4:16, the Great Bible added: "as I follow Christ." The words "with whom also I am lodged" are added to the end of 1 Corinthians 16:19. The Great Bible added the following at 2 John 11: "Behold, I have told you before that ye should not be ashamed in the day of the Lord." After the word “fire” in Jude 1:23, there is also an addition [“and have compassion on the other”]. At the end of Jude 1:24, another addition is found [“at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ”]. After the words “the third part” and before the phrase “of trees” at Revelation 8:7, the 1540 edition has added words [“of the earth was set on fire, and the third part”].

In his introduction to a reprint of Coverdale's Bible, S. L. Greenslade observed that at Psalm 29:1, "Great 1540 adds to 1535 the Vulgate 'Bring young rams unto the Lord,' which has Septuagint but not Hebrew authority" (p. 24). In Psalm 14, the Great Bible (also Coverdale's Bible) has three additional verses which are not in the KJV. These three verses from the Latin Vulgate are also in the Douay-Rheims Bible [numbered Psalm 13 in Douay-Rheims]. The 1540 Great Bible added words found in the Septuagint at Psalm 17:9 [“to take away my soul”]. At the end of Psalm 33:10, the 1540 edition included this extra phrase: “and casteth out the counsels of princes.“ The 1540 Great Bible added at the end of Psalm 111 the following: “Praise the Lord for the returning again of Aggeus and Zachary the prophets.“ At the end of Psalm 136, the 1540 Great Bible has the following addition or verse not in the KJV: “O gave thanks to the Lord of Lords, for his mercy endureth for ever.“ An addition is also found in the 1540 Great Bible at the end of Psalm 134:1 [“even in the courts of the house of our God”]. Another addition is found at the end of Psalm 132:4 [“neither the temples of my head to take any rest”]. In just these few examples out of the seventy claimed additions, the Great Bible already has over one hundred words in Psalms that are not in the KJV.

If the words added by Erasmus from the Latin Vulgate to his Greek text must be kept, what about the many words added from the Vulgate in the Great Bible? On what authority did the KJV translators remove so many words that are found in the Great Bible? When we take a sample of the KJV-only view's stream or river as seen in the Great Bible, is it the same identical text as the KJV in every word of every verse? When the water from this stream was poured into the KJV, was it 100% pure water? According to a consistent application of KJV-only claims, were there any additions or mixture of any foreign matter, dross, or impurities in the stream from which the KJV was taken? Was the KJV associated with anything impure in the earlier English Bibles of which it was a revision?

 

[Logos1560]

On the topic of the OP, the NKJV is not a simple update. Though translated from the same textual body and using the philosophy of formal equivalence like the KJV it was a new translation.

In the preface to the 1611 KJV, the KJV was presented as being a revision of the pre-1611 English Bibles, not a new translation. The KJV was more of a revision than it was an original, new translation.

There are the same type differences between the KJV and the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision as between the KJV and the NKJV.

Both the KJV and the NKJV were both revisions and translations.

In one sense, one should expect much more need for updating and changing in the NKJV since there was a much longer period of time with more changes in English between 1611 and 1982 than there was between the 1611 KJV and the 1526 Tyndale's to 1602 edition of the Bishops.

 

[saturneptune]

I use the NKJV at church and study out of the NIV. The NKJV is easier to follow a reader of the KJV. Since you all probably know the history very well, there is nothing really to say there, except about the notes of any version. One night when we were studying Acts, on the subject of Simon, the man who wanted to purchase the power of the Holy Spirit, my wife's note said he was saved and my note said he was not. One always has to remember notes are just like posts here, an opinion.

 

[OldRegular]

One always has to remember notes are just like posts here, an opinion.

There you go S/N bursting bubbles again!

 

[Logos1560]

A bible without textual notes is certainly less distracting but textual decisions were made by the translators of your translation whether you know it or not.

Rob

Good point. Some seem to want to avoid thinking that the KJV translators in effect practiced textual criticism as other translators do.

 

[Logos1560]

In my opinion, the accusations concerning the NKJV because of its footnotes is inconsistent and invalid. It would seem to be a form of guilt by association argument that could also be used against the KJV if valid.

The fact remains that the 1611 edition of the KJV had at least a few textual notes [examples have been given in this thread].

If having textual notes is a proper argument for accusing or condemning a translation, the same would have to apply to the KJV. The presence of one such note in the 1611 KJV or in any other editions of the KJV would seem to suggest that those who try to make an issue about such notes are being inconsistent and perhaps a little hypocritical.

A hardback edition of the NKJV [perhaps a Pew Bible edition] could be obtained without the textual notes.

I have an edition of the KJV's New Testament printed in 1869 that has many textual notes. The textual notes in this KJV NT are from three Greek manuscripts: Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Alexandrinus.

I have a copy of an edition of the KJV printed "with explanatory notes and cross references to the standard works of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints."

I have a copy of an edition of the KJV printed by Oxford that included "special helps for the student of Masonry."

 

[Yeshua1]

In the preface to the 1611 KJV, the KJV was presented as being a revision of the pre-1611 English Bibles, not a new translation. The KJV was more of a revision than it was an original, new translation.

There are the same type differences between the KJV and the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision as between the KJV and the NKJV.

Both the KJV and the NKJV were both revisions and translations.

In one sense, one should expect much more need for updating and changing in the NKJV since there was a much longer period of time with more changes in English between 1611 and 1982 than there was between the 1611 KJV and the 1526 Tyndale's to 1602 edition of the Bishops.

Would the Nasb/Esv both be seen as essential revisions/updates to the KJV/RSV, while versions such as Niv/Hcsb would really be new translations?

 

[Logos1560]

A bible without textual notes is certainly less distracting but textual decisions were made by the translators of your translation whether you know it or not.


IMO, a decision to ignore where textual problems occur gives a false sense of security based on ignorance.

Rob

Some do seem to want to pretend that their preferred translators did not make any textual criticism decisions.

 

[Logos1560]

Is this a good rendering in the NKJV and the Geneva Bible or is the KJV's rendering better?

Acts 7:38 congregation (Geneva, NKJV) church (KJV)

Does the KJV's rendering at Acts 7:38 give possible support to replacement theology?

Some chapter or content headings in the 1611 edition and in those later KJV editions that included them may relate to the KJV's rendering at Acts 7:38.

The heading before Psalm 48 was “the ornaments and privileges of the Church.“ “David professeth his joy for the Church” began the heading for Psalm 122. For verse 27 the chapter heading at Jeremiah 31 stated: “His care over the church.” “The Church“ is also mentioned in the chapter heading for Micah 7. The heading before Isaiah 41 asserted: “God expostulateth with his people, about his mercies to the Church.” “God calleth Cyrus for his Churches sake” was the heading before Isaiah 45. Before Isaiah 54, the 1611 KJV stated: “The Prophet for the comfort of the Gentiles, prophesieth the amplitude of their Church.”

Donald Brake wrote: “The King James Version heading used in Isaiah 52:53, ‘The deliverance of the Church,‘ suggests replacement theology--a position that teaches that the New Testament church replaces Israel as God’s chosen people” (Visual History of the KJB, p. 190).

 

[Revmitchell]

As being like the 1789 was to the 1611?

Brother you will start a thread about almost anything.

 

[Yeshua1]

Good point. Some seem to want to avoid thinking that the KJV translators in effect practiced textual criticism as other translators do.

maybe because they see the Lord inspire them in same fashion he did the Apsotles when the originally wrote the sacred text, so what need to amke decisions, as God did it?

 

[Yeshua1]

Is this a good rendering in the NKJV and the Geneva Bible or is the KJV's rendering better?

Acts 7:38 congregation (Geneva, NKJV) church (KJV)

Does the KJV's rendering at Acts 7:38 give possible support to replacement theology?

Some chapter or content headings in the 1611 edition and in those later KJV editions that included them may relate to the KJV's rendering at Acts 7:38.

The heading before Psalm 48 was “the ornaments and privileges of the Church.“ “David professeth his joy for the Church” began the heading for Psalm 122. For verse 27 the chapter heading at Jeremiah 31 stated: “His care over the church.” “The Church“ is also mentioned in the chapter heading for Micah 7. The heading before Isaiah 41 asserted: “God expostulateth with his people, about his mercies to the Church.” “God calleth Cyrus for his Churches sake” was the heading before Isaiah 45. Before Isaiah 54, the 1611 KJV stated: “The Prophet for the comfort of the Gentiles, prophesieth the amplitude of their Church.”

Donald Brake wrote: “The King James Version heading used in Isaiah 52:53, ‘The deliverance of the Church,‘ suggests replacement theology--a position that teaches that the New Testament church replaces Israel as God’s chosen people” (Visual History of the KJB, p. 190).

Didn't the King want to have footnotes/ that were not against what he held to theology wise though?

 

[Rippon]

Didn't the King want to have footnotes/ that were not against what he held to theology wise though?

He didn't want any marginal readings that went against his notion of kingship. BTW,I don't believe footnotes were used then,it came along much later I think. L1560,do you know about that?

 

[Yeshua1]

He didn't want any marginal readings that went against his notion of kingship. BTW,I don't believe footnotes were used then,it came along much later I think. L1560,do you know about that?

wasn't it that the Bishop bible or geneva was too "calvinistic" and did not support to him the monarchy?

 

[Logos1560]

He didn't want any marginal readings that went against his notion of kingship.

In the introduction to his Condensed Commentary, Ingram Cobbin wrote: “King James bore it [Geneva Bible] an inveterate hatred on account of the notes” (p. ix). KJV defender Steven Houck also observed that James "greatly disliked the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible because he thought they encouraged disobedience to kings and therefore wanted a new translation to replace it" (KJV of the Bible, p. 3). Ronald Cammenga asserted that “the king objected to certain notes that he interpreted to deny the divine right of kings, notes that justified disobedience to the king under certain circumstances” (Protestant Reformed Theological Journal, Nov., 2011, p. 56). The Local Preachers’ Magazine maintained that “King James disliked the notes of the Geneva Bible, because they were unfriendly to the despotic policy on which he acted after ascending the throne of England” (March, 1853, p. 112). Alister McGrath wrote: "The king, according to the Geneva Bible, was accountable for his actions. It was not a view that James I cared for" (In the Beginning, p. 147).

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

(snip) The Local Preachers’ Magazine maintained that “King James disliked the notes of the Geneva Bible, because they were unfriendly to the despotic policy on which he acted after ascending the throne of England” (March, 1853, p. 112). Alister McGrath wrote: "The king, according to the Geneva Bible, was accountable for his actions. It was not a view that James I cared for" (In the Beginning, p. 147).

I don't guess it should come as any big surprize that James I wouldn't have cared for anything that appeared to undercut his authority as King....I'll wager our current President would feel the same way.....but alas.....God used King James to accomplish something that has proved to be a BLESSING to every generation since...the authorization and publication of the "King James Bible"....IN SPITE of the King's human imperfections,prejudices and fleshly ambitions! In the same way I believe He (God) is using our current King...er....President as an instrument of JUDGEMENT to accomplish His purposes at this point in the end-times of the USA and the world at-large. I suppose I could be wrong but I don't think so. Amen?

Bro.Gregraying:

 

[Oldtimer]

wasn't it that the Bishop bible or geneva was too "calvinistic" and did not support to him the monarchy?

Voice from the Past:

12-22-2003, 01:35 PM Dr. Bob - Administrator said:

If you want YOUR version of the Bible to be the one everyone uses, then outlaw the printing or importation of the rivals.

Remember, the MAIN objection James & the Anglican crowd had to the Geneva Bible were the copious marginal notes AGAINST MONARCHY and AGAINST A HIERARCHIAL CHURCH.

They had to get a new Bible out. So require every church to use the AV to get the "poison" of the marginal notes of the Geneva out of the system.

And remember, the AV was NOT a "new" translation. 9 out of every 10 words in a given verse were IDENTICAL to the previous English like Tyndale and Geneva bibles. It just "tweaked" them a little (10%) and eliminated those "damnable calvinistic notes"! http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=25306

Emphasis added.....

The Geneva Bible also contained footnotes, and supposedly it were these footnotes that especially irritated King James. On page 67 Mr. Drake claims: http://www.berenddeboer.net/article/a_kings_bible.html#removal-of-marginal-notes

From: “A King's Bible”: a critical review"
This is a very long article, with many points that some would like to debate. For the purpose of this post, I have a question, please.

Does anyone have a listing of the marginal notes from the Geneva Bible that "especially irritated King James from the standpoint of his monarchy? I've seen this debate point over and over again. Yet, as with so many other opinions, documentation is lacking. In this instance, I would like to see the applicable marginal notes, if someone has a link to them. The article has a link to the notes of 1599 Geneva. However I don't have the knowledge/skill needed to reference those that attack the monarchy. Thanks in advance for your assistance.

Uhmmm, I may have found the answer. Is this correct?

King James disapproved of the Geneva Bible because of its Calvinistic leanings. He also frowned on what he considered to be seditious marginal notes on key political texts. A marginal note for Exodus 1:9 indicated that the Hebrew midwives were correct in disobeying the Egyptian king's orders, and a note for 2 Chronicles 15:16 said that King Asa should have had his mother executed and not merely deposed for the crime of worshipping an idol. The King James Version of the Bible grew out of the king's distaste for these brief but potent doctrinal commentaries. He considered the marginal notes to be a political threat to his kingdom.
http://reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://reformed.org/documents/geneva/Geneva.html - Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics

Thanks for following along as I study. Looking for insights.

One more question, if you don't mind.

Is part of the issue by some anti-KJB John Calvin? Seems that many threads here are debates on Calvanism? From time to time I see references to the Geneva Bible being preferred over the KJB. So, on the one hand there are folks who use any number of reasons to condem the KJB as the basis for support of modern version. On the other hand, others go back in history prior to the KJB. What role does Calvanism play in this debate?

John Calvin is the author of the most famous theological book ever published, Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion. He is considered, along with Martin Luther, to be among the most significant of figures in the Protestant Reformation. His doctrines of the sovereignty of God in predestining the fate of all believers, referred to today as “Calvinism”, are among the most hotly debated in Christianity. He is also the primary person behind the printing of the famous Geneva Bible. http://www.john-calvin.net/history.html

2 Tim 2: KJB
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

[Logos1560]

Does anyone have a listing of the marginal notes from the Geneva Bible that "especially irritated King James from the standpoint of his monarchy?

Uhmmm, I may have found the answer. Is this correct?

Quote:
King James disapproved of the Geneva Bible because of its Calvinistic leanings. He also frowned on what he considered to be seditious marginal notes on key political texts. A marginal note for Exodus 1:9 indicated that the Hebrew midwives were correct in disobeying the Egyptian king's orders, and a note for 2 Chronicles 15:16 said that King Asa should have had his mother executed and not merely deposed for the crime of worshipping an idol. The King James Version of the Bible grew out of the king's distaste for these brief but potent doctrinal commentaries. He considered the marginal notes to be a political threat to his kingdom.
http://reformed.org/documents/index....va/Geneva.html - Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics

Yes, those marginal notes in the Geneva Bible that you refer to are examples of those that upset King James and his divine right of kings view.

What did those marginal notes say that upset King James I? At Daniel 6:22, the 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible has this marginal note: "For he did disobey the king's wicked commandment to obey God, and so did no injury to the king, who ought to command nothing whereby God should be dishonoured." At Exodus 1:19, it has this note: "Their disobedience herein was lawful, but their dissembling evil." The note at Exodus 1:22 is as follows: "When tyrants can not prevail by craft, they burst forth into open rage."
In his article in a modern-spelling edition of the 1599 Geneva Bible, Marshall Foster observed: “The marginal note in the Geneva Bible at Exodus 1:19 indicated that the Hebrew midwives were correct to disobey the Egyptian rulers. King James called such interpretations ‘seditious.‘ The tyrant knew that if the people could hold him accountable to God’s Word, his days as a king ruling by ‘Divine Right’ were numbered” (p. xxv).

At Matthew 2:19, the marginal note has the word tyrant [“Christ is brought up in Nazareth, after the death of the tyrant, by God’s providence”]. Its note at Matthew 10:28 stated: “Though tyrants be never so raging and cruel, yet we may not fear them.“ At Acts 12:2, its note again referred to tyrants [“It is an old fashion of tyrants to procure the favour of the wicked with the blood of the godly”].

McGrath maintained that "the Geneva notes regularly use the word 'tyrant' to refer to kings; the King James Bible never uses this word" (In the Beginning, p. 143).
At the top of the page that has Isaiah 14, the 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible has this heading: “The fall of the tyrant.“ At the top of the page that has Ezekiel 32, the 1560 Geneva Bible has this heading: “The end of tyrants.“

Perhaps it was not only the marginal notes that caused King James to dislike the Geneva Bible. If it was only the notes that bothered the king, King James could have had the text of the Geneva Bible printed without those notes.

Many people may be unaware of the fact that the earlier English Bibles sometimes had the word "tyrant" or the word “tyranny” in the text. At Isaiah 13:11b, the 1599 Geneva Bible read: "I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease and will cast down the pride of tyrants." The Geneva Bible at Job 6:23 stated: "And deliver me from the enemies' hand, or ransom me out of the hand of tyrants?" Again at Isaiah 49:25, it noted: "the prey of the tyrant shall be delivered." At Job 27:13, the Geneva Bible read: "This is the portion of a wicked man with God, and the heritage of tyrants, which they shall receive of the Almighty." Its rendering at the beginning of Job 3:17 stated: "The wicked have there ceased from their tyranny." The Geneva Bible also has the word "tyrant" or "tyrants" in other verses such as Job 15:20 and Psalm 54:3. The 1535 Coverdale's Bible and the 1540 edition of the Great Bible also used these same renderings in several verses. The Bishops’ Bible has “tyrants“ at Job 6:23, Job 15:20, Job 27:13, and Psalm 54:3 and “tyrant” at Isaiah 13:11 and 16:4. At 1 Timothy 1:13, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Great Bibles all had the word "tyrant." At James 2:6, Whittingham’s, the Geneva, and Bishops’ Bibles had “oppress you by tyranny” while the Great Bible has “execute tyranny upon you.”

 

[Logos1560]

Bishops' Bible marginal notes

It is interesting that those Bishops that heard King James complain about the marginal notes in the Geneva Bible did not mention that the Bishops’ Bible had some similar marginal notes.

The Bishops’ Bible had some marginal notes that condemned tyrants or tyranny.

The marginal note at Exodus 1:15 in the 1595 edition of the Bishops’ was the following: “Tyrants try divers ways to oppress the Church.“ At Exodus 1:17, the Bishops’ note stated: “It was better to obey God than man.”