I’ve noticed critical/eclectic text guys wondering, if the text is really the issue, why the King James Version supporters don’t support the New King James Version. It’s supposed to be one of those gotcha moments. We’re bumbling and fumbling, exposed as the English inspirationists or preservationists that we must be. I’m sitting here at my keyboard looking at absolutely nothing to give me a basis for my answer. So this answer is for sure what I’m thinking on this. To start, it isn’t because of the text that I don’t use or support the New King James Version. I don’t like the New King James Version as a translation. When I think about certain aspects as to why I don’t like it, I feel angry. Here’s why.
1. The translators attack the King James Version.
How can you call the translation the New King James Version and attack the King James Version? Call it something else. Please. You shouldn’t be the ones doing the translation if you don’t like the King James Version yourselves. And don’t tell me that, “yes, you do like it very much,” when you don’t like the translation you’re doing as much as you like other versions.
2. The translators attack the text behind the King James Version.
What comes out on the footnotes is that the translators didn’t even like the text behind the King James Version. Since the NKJV was done, James Price, a big man on the translation committee on the OT, has authored a huge volume attacking the King James Version. They never loved the text anyway. It is rank hypocrisy to translate from a text that you don’t even believe in.
As opposed to stressing the importance of the text behind the KJV, the translators attack it. They say it is inferior and they attempt to make it look inferior. They weren’t attempting to keep people connected with the KJV. They were trying to get people disconnected from it. That strategy could work in an incremental way. You start with no longer using the KJV and then you are ready to move to some other version that comes from a different text.
3. The translators do not take the historic and biblical position on the preservation of scripture.
I don’t get that the preservation of scripture had anything to do with the project for the NKJ. These were not men that were seeing the text behind the KJV as authoritative, preserved apographa of God. It wasn’t a belief in these particular Words that motivated these men to translate from them. They knew that others loved the Words of the King James Version. They knew that people would find an interest in something called the New King James Version.
4. How can I support the NKJV when its footnotes cast doubt on its very Words?
The footnotes take away certainty concerning the text. It’s a way to get King James Version users to take a look and what they get are men telling them that they don’t even have the best text of scripture. That’s not what I want people thinking or supporting. I don’t believe it is a scriptural position either.
5. I don’t want to pad Thomas Nelson and its mainly new-evangelical and compromising translators’ bank accounts.
6. The NKJV plays KJV supporters for fools.
We’re supposed to think that we’ve got an easier addition of the KJV. And who are the men giving it to us? People who want to change the KJV. They want more than a change in the translation. They want a change in the text. And yet if we don’t support it, we’re some sort of double inspirationists or English preservationists. Wrong.
Next.
ADDENDUM
IF SOMEONE SAYS THAT, IT’S NOT TRUE
This is an announcement as far as my blog is concerned. I’m now convinced that despite saying that they used the same text as was used for the KJV, they didn’t. That is a lie. They used a different text and this was pointed out very clearly by someone who commented on the blog (read comments below).
He wrote (and this is his list not mine):
Jude 1:19, the LV/C text omits eautou (“themselves”), as does the NKJV.
Acts 19:39, the the NKJV follows the LV/C text in “peraiterw” instead of “peri eterwn”, subtle but different.
Acts 19:9, the NKJV follows the LV/C text in omitting “tinos”
Acts 17:14, the NKJV omits “as it were” (“ws” in the Greek) and thus once again follows the LV/C text.
Acts 15:23, the NKJV follows the LV/C text in omitting “tade”, or “after this manner”.
Acts 10:7 the NKJV follows the LV/C text in omitting “unto Cornelius” in the first clause. (I wouldn’t use this one. I think it is a translation issue, not a textual one.)
As far as I’m concerned, that lie has now been exposed. Some may say it out of ignorance, but some are flat out lying about this. The NKJV does not come from the same text as the KJV. It does not represent God’s preserved Words.
so why have you guys done a non-17th century English translation of the TR?
Fill the gap!
In the Preface or Foreword to the NKJV, they state that they also used/consulted other texts to translate from – in addition to the KJV, so it is not just an "update" or revision of the KJV. One of the other problems with the NKJV is that they were supposedly getting rid of the hard words of the NKJV – instead, they just put them in other places in the NKJV! (For example, look up the word "matrix" in both versions. They didn't get rid of it.)
Mike,
I haven't found the KJV to be as tough as you. Neither have our people. And it's already done. When I go out evangelizing every week, I find that people understand the gospel when I preach it. They don't say, "wow, you said, 'believeth!'" And there is a Bible, the Defined King James Version, that gives the meaning of the more archaic words down below in the footnotes. I think there are many advantages to going that direction. And it really does accomplish what the CT/eclectic critics say is such the big problem. They should be applauding that effort, but the silence says that they never cared in the first place.
Jerry,
I don't think that you think that I take a strong enough position on this. I take the position that I believe comes out of scriptural bibliology. I say that just to cover that base. We want to take the position that will pull down strongholds, spiritual weaponry.
Regarding the text behind the NKJV. I haven't been proven by anyone that it doesn't come from the exact text as the KJV did. They did use a different Hebrew text, but where there were differences between that text and the text behind the KJV, the 1524-25 Heb Mas, they went with the appropriate text. If someone would show me a specific example where they actually translated from a different text. However, in consulting with men on the translation committee, they say that they come from the same words. Until we can prove otherwise, I don't think we should use that as a criticism. Now, why did they not just go ahead and start with the same text in the OT? I don't know.
I appreciate your coming over.
Brother Kent, I don't have a problem with your position (as far as I know it), but I just wanted to point out something that I had read and that bothered me from the NKJV Preface. You do make a good point – whereas, I have a problem with them consulting wrong/corrupt texts, I do not know if they actually made any textual changes based on those texts (ie. within the Bible passages themselves – yes, many of their notes are based on the critical texts).
On a side note regarding "helpful modern translations," I am personally seeing the "mixed multitude" of English translations to be a hindrance rather than a help.
1. The lost see it as a problem. When sharing the Gospel, I am hearing more and more people say, "Which Bible?" or "How do know your Bible translation is right?" The lost are not blinded by the confusion that currently exists. That which is to convict hearts has become a stumbling block to them.
2. Scripture memorization has waned into the past. Memorization requires a standard. We didn't argue over which Preamble of the Constitution to memorize in school. There is only one. For many believers and churches, the multiplicity of English Bibles has removed any such standard to memorize Scripture.
3. Believers are confused over which Bible to recommend to new believers and over which to study themselves. Almost every time I am in a Christian bookstore, I hear a customer ask the bookstore employee which Bible they would recommend. Without exception, it is something other than the KJV and is often just the newest Bible out.
Just some observations and thoughts on this issue. I know this is a little off topic from your article, but these points came to mind. Thanks for the articles.
Let me see if I understand your reasoned argument against the NKJV as a translation:
1. Attack the translators
2. Attack the translators
3. Attack the translators
4. Attack the footnotes
5. Attack the publisher
6. Attack the translators
Is this argument complete or is there a part 2 with substantive arguments against the translation itself?
I’ve read this blog intermittently and can appreciate the strong stance on preserving God’s words. What I haven’t seen discussed is how you deal with the millions of believers who use other versions each day around the world and still maintain a strong personal relationship with the Lord Jesus. What is your opinion of them? How do you engage in fellowship? Do you consider them apostate?
Thanks David.
Anvil,
No, you reversed it. Translators attack. Translators attack. Not attack the translators.
I don't assume that the translators that did this, who know Hebrew and Greek and English, can't get the translation itself right. And there were plenty to check on one another. It would mainly be a philosophical criticism of the translation—a less formal translation. But you'd want specific details and that's already been done by many. Just google for that.
Here's a translation that criticizes it's namesake, meanwhile using it's namesake as a marketing device. I can't endorse it.
Well, in addition to the fact that the NKJV follows the Latin Vulgate/Critical text in numerous places, and in addition to the fact that the NKJV does away with the distinction of singular and plural in personal pronouns, and in addition to the fact that the NKJV mistranslates numerous passages, and in addition to the fact… ad nauseam…
I have had a number of conversations with Jim Price, the head boy on the NKJV committee, and I can tell you point blank that he adheres to the Latin Vulgate/Critical text, as did most or all of the other translators, and that he and they consider the Textus Receptus to be an inferior text, just like all the other unbelieving Latin Vulgate/Critical text scholars do.
Kent: When I go out evangelizing every week, I find that people understand the gospel when I preach it. They don't say, "wow, you said, 'believeth!'"
Classic.
It is a "marketing device." So sad. The same can be said about Zondervan's up-coming NIV revision in 2011. When the TNIV hit the market it was frowned upon by conservative evangelicals and scholars alike (btw, good for many). Joel Belz of WORLD Magazine interviewed Moe Girkins (2008 CEO of Zondervan Pub.) and she did indicate that it wasn't "just the sales" – but also the resolution of "12-year-old issues." Can you say gender-inclusive? [WORLD MAG. 09/26/09]
Micah's comment seems to have slipped under the radar:
"What I haven’t seen discussed is how you deal with the millions of believers who use other versions each day around the world and still maintain a strong personal relationship with the Lord Jesus. What is your opinion of them? How do you engage in fellowship? Do you consider them apostate?"
I can't speak for Kent, but I do know my approach to this. There are millions of believers who claim to have a strong relationship with Christ who baptise babies. There are similiar numbers who claim to be able to heal, speak in tongues and perform miracles. There are plenty of sincere evangelicals who think that evolution is true and Genesis is an allegory. There are even more who use any old Bible version.
At the end of the day, the popular vote of what folks who seem sincere think means nothing, and is a dreadful way of determining spiritual truth. On top of this, you will become hopelessly confused as you meet sincere charismatics, cessationalists, prebyterians, Baptists etc.
Scripture says that a man is not crown unless he strives lawfully. Who knows how many of these sincere believers are just being decieved out of their crowns, and how many are actually apostate? The day of judgement will declare it. I'm content to wait until then, but until such time all such false teachings should be vehemently opposed, no matter how many Godly grandmothers hold them.
How do we fellowship with them? Exactly as the Apostle Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit commanded us:
And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.
In response to Micah's question about how do we fellowship with those who use other versions, perhaps Pastor Brandenburg will want to respond to that. But, in response to Joshua's comments, I think he has missed some important distinctions, maybe not.
I view the command given in II Thessalonians 3:14 (as well as Romans 16:17, etc.) as primarily to be considered in a local church context. A church (not individuals, fellowships, or schools) is to determine the lines of separation, & the primary application of the practice of separation is WITHIN the local church. Our church would have to mark & separate from any person who is within its membership who is not obeying the commands or who is "causing divisions contrary to the doctrine". Of course, that means we would not have visiting preachers who would violate those commands. I don't see any personal application to "Godly grandmothers" who use the wrong version … UNLESS it is becoming a stumbling block to our church people. Maybe a "Godly grandmother" is having a Bible study in her home & influencing other people in our church. But, if my grandmother uses a wrong version, or likes Billy Graham, etc., that doesn't mean that I quit fellowshipping with her as my grandmother. I would refuse to accompany her to see Billy Graham, etc., but I believe that these commands have more application to the context of a local church.
Yes, if our church people are actually having spiritual or religious fellowship with those outside our church who hold false doctrines, that would be a problem. However, in the context of most NT letters, the churches & people involved [probably] did not have 4 churches down the street who held to other doctrines.
Other considerations in how we deal with those holding to other doctrines who ARE NOT IN OUR CHURCH would have to do with what they have been taught & how aggressive they are in promoting their doctrines. If my neighbor is a fairly new or untaught Christian who also goes to a charismatic church or the local SBC or BJU church that uses the ESV or NASV, I would at least be a friend to him & probably have him over for hamburgers on the 4th of July. In fact, I would love to have ONE Christian in my neighborhood! However, if after discussing some of these doctrines, he is adamant in his position, etc., then our friendship would probably change.
Micah & Joshua ought to attend the conference at Brandenburg's church in November in which we will be preaching on these very subjects.
Dr John Cereghin of Grace Baptist Church responds to Young Fundamentalists at SI and Dave Doran:
I realize that the majority of genuine, old-time fundamentalists and Bible believers won’t care that Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary has excommunicated them to outer darkness for holding to the Old Black Book. It certainly doesn’t ruin my day that Doran probably wouldn’t fellowship us at Grace Baptist. But I just post this to demonstrate the spirit of modern neo-fundamentalism and it’s growing animosity toward the King James Bible and those who would hold to it in the face of contemporary neo-evangelical and neo-fundamenatlist “scholarship”.
Doran is supposedly only targeting Mickey Carter, Gail Riplinger and probably Peter Ruckman, but make no mistake- they would lump you in with them unless you advocate the ESV or if you condemn all modern versions or if you declare the superiority of the KJV over all modern versions. Carter and Riplinger are simply straw men to attack the rest of us who won’t go along with neo-fundamemtalism’s developing love affair with modern versions, Calvinism and neo-evangelical personalities like John Piper and John MacArthur. If you doubt me, read From The Mind of God to the Mind of Man, especially the first chapter by J. B. Williams, and you will see this mind-set in action.
http://remnantpilgrim.wordpress.com/
It isn't possible to hold to sound doctrine and at the same time hold to modern "bibles" based on the Latin Vulgate/Critical text.
That's one reason why the Reformers and Puritans rejected the Latin Vulgate/Critical text and instead adhered to the Textus Receptus.
Those who base their theology on modern "bibles" based on the Latin Vulgate/Critical text INVARIABLY hold to false doctrine. Here are just two examples out of a plethora of examples…
http://lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/doctrinal_gems_1.htm
http://lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/indictment_of_ignorance.htm
That doesn't mean that those who hold to the KJV all adhere to sound doctrine.
What it does mean is that the KJV presents sound doctrine habitually throughout; modern "bibles" based on the Latin Vulgate/Critical text present false doctrine throughout.
To speak in tongues or not to speak in tongues, God still heals today or not, KJV or NIV, these are not things that should cause separation. I am suprised at how much of the christian population that you are refusing to have fellowship with (Joshua and Gary).
I can see separation if the person's doctrine is against the Trinity, deity of Christ, the atoning work of Christ on the cross, and salvation by grace through faith for these are core Christian doctrine. I can expand a little on the separation part as I do think that the charasmatics are sound on their doctrine(Holy Spirit laughter and being drunk in the spirit)
If a person is correct on the core issues then why should we not have fellowship on the minor issues, which I do not believe that your church is infalliable.
Do you honestly think that you have the only absolute understanding? Are the Independent Baptist the only ones that will be in Heaven?
I do not think that you need to have perfect doctrine on the minor issues to have fellowship or salvation.
Well, I don't find the KJV's language tough – entertaining and somewhat humorous at times, but not tough.
As for the rest, well, I'll take your word for it.
Kent,
I love you man, but that is about the worst argumentation that I have seen you give on a subject. Surely, you were having a bad day.
The most powerful argument for me is the loss of information we have in removing the thee's and thou's (mentioned by Lamblion above). What the intent/motive of the translators was is a bit of guess work. Our disagreement with a translator (or all of them) is awful weak in the absence of substantive criticism of the product. Does anyone remember what all the KJV translators believed?
I know one of your arguments is regarding views of preservation, but frankly I have yet to be convinced that your view (as you develop it in all its detail) is exactly what even the KJV translators had. Snippets of similarity just do not seem to make the case (that they were in full agreement with your position) for me.
For His glory,
Christian Markle
1 Thessalonians 5:21
Oops I goofed. I meant that the charasmatics are not sound in their doctrine of Holy Spirit Laughter and drunk in the Spirit. You can't find this in scripture
thanks for the thoughts on my question.
Gary Webb:
First let me say that I would dearly love to attend said conference, but am separated by several thousand kilometers of water. I'm hoping Pastor B will put the sermons up on the web, but we shall see. Secondly let me say that I do wholeheartedly agree with the immediate context of II Thess being a local church matter.
Micah was asking how we fellowship with people that disagree with us on matters of doctrine, and I was pointing out that Paul didn't want us to, so we don't. We don't in the context of the local church, and our churches don't fellowship with other churches holding these deviances in the same manner.
The "godly Grandmother" quote was a reference to the commonly used defence of "How can Jazz be wrong when my Grandma loved Jazz and she was the Godliest lady I ever knew". I wasn't actually suggesting cutting Grandma off the Christmas card list because she's using the TNIV.
To summarise, I do agree with your approach to separation, I just didn't articulate that clearly in my post. Thanks for taking the time to explore it though.
I like getting comments, but this is one that seems to be tell-tale that there are so many. This issue actually stands as some kind of proof to critical text guys. Because we won't "accept" the NKJV, it means that we think there is some kind of "inspirational status" to the KJV.
Christian,
I think somewhere in my blogging past I've written about "thee" and "thou" and "thy" and "thine," etc. as a formal equivalent argument. However, that isn't what gets me personally. This was no extensive dealing. This was me sitting with no notes and writing what hits me off the top of my head about the NKJV. It isn't the textual issue. Lamblion says there are textual issues, but I have never been shown one. I'd like a sheet with all of them on it and would like Lamblion to point me to that.
You mentioned the KJ translators in their preface, etc. They said there could be an update sometime in the future. They said nothing about an update of the text, however. Something that the CT/eclectic side is silent about. I don't know what else you're talking about there besides that you think that I should be as unaccepting of them as I am of the NKJ translators. I don't make a point of the translators themselves in any of my 6 points. I make a point of what they think about the KJ in their own footnotes.
Pastor Brandenburg,
I understand what you are saying the translators of the NKJV are doing. The fact remains that you are attacking the NKJV because of problems with the translators, the footnotes and the publisher, not because of problems with the text itself. Consider something like this:
Reasons the KJV is an untrustworthy translation:
1. King James himself, the man who wanted this translation, was not considered a man above reproach. In fact, he was called the "great dissembler," and was known for breaking his promises. Scottish ministers knew that King James was ready to "change his faith, the moment he should find it expedient."
2. The translators of the KJV, including their head, Archbishop Bancroft, were all men of the Church of England. Andrew Melville described Bancroft as the "capital enemy of all the reformed churches in Europe." He was also described as an "enemy of the religious and civil liberties of his country." It was he who approved the rules for translation and insisted on keeping the ecclesiastical terms in use by the state church rather than rendering them more literally (e.g baptism and church, rather than immersion and assembly).
3. Lancelot Andrewes, often described as one of 3 "superior translators" of the KJV was also doctrinally in line with the Church of England. He "sought to reconcile Catholic ceremonies with Protestant beliefs." In one of his sermons, he preached absolution and confession, and believed that in the sacraments were power for "the remission of sins." He was also not a strict believer in the received text, using a Vulgate alongside his English translation.
4. The printing of the KJV was very poor and done with little care. The typeface was printed in a crooked fashion, there were numerous mistakes and typos (eventually include the "thou shalt commit adultery" mistake). Could something done with so little care be the work of someone concerned with preserving God's Word?
Given that the men behind the KJV had some of the above listed problems (not an exhaustive list), can they really be trusted to do an accurate translation of God's Word? We certainly don't have any idea what they actually thought of the text *or what it actually is saying, except in abstract*, so it's hard to trust them.
Now removing tongue from cheek, since I still use the KJV as my main Bible. If my argument above against the KJV sounds ridiculous, maybe you should compare it with what you are saying about the NKJV. It is God who preserves his Word, not men. Unless you can find substantive problems with the NKJV rather than argue against the men behind it, then you have not shown that the NKJV is an untrustworthy translation.
Anvil,
Bingo. You're right. I'm not making a big deal about the translation. I'm explaining my problem. Mine. I think that there are other issues to changing translations than the ones I gave, but they would be the same whether it was NKJV or any other new translation from the same text.
Regarding what you've said about the KJV, there are a few big problems, I believe, with what you are saying.
1. All these people still believed in the same text. No one was a critical text person, essentially a minority text person. They rejected that text as corrupt.
2. I don't think I'm dealing with trustworthiness of translation here. I'm dealing with an attack on the King James Version and an attack on the text. I wouldn't use it because of that. I haven't said anything about this affecting the translation—I've said the opposite of that. I think they can translate.
3. I don't have to use it because I have the King James Version and the Defined King James Version if I want something like that. They could have used Tyndale, but they wanted something that had a little more effort than the one man job of Tyndale. I'm sure there were other reasons for the displacing of the Geneva Bible that I would rather not get into here for time and space.
4. Acceptance by the church of the KJV is acceptance of the KJV text as well. I don't think it means that we can't explain some Greek Word differently. I could give numerous examples of those.
Anvil:
You have expressed similar concerns to my own with the way Kent argued his point.
Kent:
This sort of reasoning is quite common and can be quite convincing, but it is logically fallacious. See the following links:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
To all:
I am seriously interested in valid concerns people have with the NKJV. (I would welcome lamblion to post a list or a link). However, most (but not all) of the arguments against the NKJV that I have heard do not pan out under close scrutiny. It is this reality that makes some believe that those of us who are committed to the KJV are driven by other motives than we would like to admit. Therefore, it is incumbent on us to to formulate our arguments scripturally, thoughtfully, cogently and logically — or abandon them all together. If we are simply searching for a plausible reason to resist change, then we should admit it. This is not to say that we are, but it may appear that way to those "on the other side." when we are not careful with our information and argumentation.
For His Glory,
Christian Markle
1 Thessalonians 5:21
Sorry Kent, I must have been formulating my thoughts and missed your reply to Anvil.
Your comment leaves me with a question:
If the translation is a good translation from a good text, is one "wrong" for using it—even if you won't? Would you separate from a church that moves to the NKJV?
For His glory,
Christian Markle
Hi Christian,
I don't see how have I used ad hominem, but perhaps that's why you put the link. So that they could explain why.
Separation and the NKJV is a more complicated issue. I separate over the doctrine of preservation, not the use of the NKJV. I don't believe I would separate over the NKJV solely as an issue. However, there stand the footnotes in attack on the text behind KJV. Do they support those footnotes? There is much more to this than just the translation. I'm around very few NKJV using churches. The ones that use it have other beliefs that I separate over. I couldn't recommend that aspect of their ministry because I know what the footnotes say. Do you see what the NKJV guys have done with the footnotes?
So Christian, does that seem ad hominem? Or do you take that back?
Christian, one more thing on ad hominem. First, a credential. I've taught logic three different times and took it in college. I don't see my 6 above as ad hominem. I need a better explanation from you. I take that seriously. I'm not saying I couldn't use ad hominem. It is effective. And at times it might even be scriptural (see Jesus).
Pastor Brandenburg,
First, I obviously misunderstood what you wrote early in your post. I understood "I don't like the New King James Version AS A TRANSLATION," where it seems you meant "I DON'T LIKE the New King James Version as a translation." I misread what you wrote as being against the actual translation vs. being a criticism of the NKJV project, and everything that goes with that.
Given you were talking about why you don't like and won't use the NKJV, I don't believe your arguments to be ad hominem either, though I would still believe that they were ad hominem if you were using them to attempt to discredit the actual translation.
As far as ad hominem being effective, pragmatism is not a reason for using it. Also, Jesus did many things because of his authority as the Son of God that we cannot do (i.e. raise the dead). It would be correct for Jesus to use that form of argumentation as He knows what is in the hearts of men, and how their motivation would directly affect something. We do not know that, and as a result, unless we have proof that something in the NKJV translation is incorrect AND a direct result of anti-KJV bias, we can't claim that anti-KJV bias means the translation itself is unreliable. Hence, I believe ad hominem to be ineffective for that purpose, even if it is enough for you to personally reject the NKJV.
Regarding your point about the text, what I have read says that at least one of the men involved also personally used a Vulgate. We don't really know what all of them thought about the reliability of the texts — we only know what they used, which may have been mostly what they had available to them. The preface makes it clear what they thought of the "meanest" version of God's word. It's even possible that any different readings from the Vulgate weren't used because they wanted to annoy the RC church, even though in most beliefs they weren't that much different from the RC anyway, and the RC certainly accepted the Vulgate.
Finally, acceptance by the church is a two-edged sword. If a majority of biblical churches today accept a newer version than the KJV, wouldn't that now be the "received text?" Given England's official antipathy toward the Geneva, it would have been pretty much a no-brainer to accept the KJV as the closest thing to having God's perfect words in lieu of having nothing at all. Many Christians of the time did NOT accept the KJV over the Geneva, only doing so a number of years later when it had proved itself. The same may happen with the NKJV, original footnotes notwithstanding.
At this point I think I will let my comments stand…I may be convinced otherwise, but at this point I remain unconvinced. Your arguments do appear to me to be ad hominem; it is possible however, that I have not understood your argument (as Anvil assumes above). I am willing to explore that possibility with the following questions:
Are you arguing that the NKJV translation is tainted (ie corrupted and unusable) because the translators did not like/believe the text they were translating?
What specifically in the footnotes causes you concern?
What evidence do you have for the following statements:
"You shouldn't be the ones doing the translation if you don't like the King James Version yourselves…the translators didn't even like the text behind the King James Version"
"They say it is inferior and they attempt to make it look inferior."
"They weren't attempting to keep people connected with the KJV. They were trying to get people disconnected from it. That strategy could work in an incremental way. You start with no longer using the KJV and then you are ready to move to some other version that comes from a different text."
"People who want to change the KJV. They want more than a change in the translation. They want a change in the text."
For His glory
Christian Markle
1 Thessalonians
First Anvil,
Yes, I said "as a translation" to differentiate it from the text, only as a translation, not the text behind it. I didn't say "project" because they included their footnotes with their translation.
Second Christian,
I'm going to try to put your statements in bold and then answer them.
Are you arguing that the NKJV translation is tainted (ie corrupted and unusable) because the translators did not like/believe the text they were translating?
I can't judge why it is that there may be bias against the KJV translation in the NKJV translation in certain instances. The footnotes; however, communicate a bias.
What specifically in the footnotes causes you concern?
You see this in Mark 16 as an example:
1. Mark 16:8 NU-Text and M-Text omit quickly.
2. Mark 16:18 NU-Text reads and in their hands they will.
3. Mark 16:20 Verses 9–20 are bracketed in NU-Text as not original. They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other manuscripts of Mark contain them.
See the "as not original"—does that seem like a bias against the text? How do they "know" it is "not" original, Christian?
"You shouldn't be the ones doing the translation if you don't like the King James Version yourselves…the translators didn't even like the text behind the King James Version"
You ask for evidence of this. This is my opinion. If you are asking for evidence whether they don't like the text, you can see that in their writings, which I mentioned, and in the footnotes. I guess it does matter what you mean by "like." But correcting the text, in my opinion, means "don't like."
"They say it is inferior and they attempt to make it look inferior."
In the footnotes, they make it look inferior.
"They weren't attempting to keep people connected with the KJV. They were trying to get people disconnected from it. That strategy could work in an incremental way. You start with no longer using the KJV and then you are ready to move to some other version that comes from a different text."
The footnotes and then some translational issues that aren't updating words but changing them. You can find these in many places.
"People who want to change the KJV. They want more than a change in the translation. They want a change in the text."
Footnotes.
There have been reams of examples where the NKJV departs from the TR. Here's only a partial list, including the gross error of Hebrews 3:6 —
KJV Gen 10:11
KJV Gen 36:24
KJV Mat 27:34
KJV Luk 1:35
KJV Luk 5:7
KJV Luk 6:9
KJV Joh 18:24
KJV Act 10:7
KJV Act 15:23
KJV Act 17:14
KJV Act 19:9
KJV Act 19:39
KJV 1Co 6:4
KJV Gal 5:4
KJV Heb 3:16
KJV Jud 1:3
KJV Jud 1:19
KJV Rev 16:16
There's also this link, among many other links —
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/nkjvsm.html
Brother Kent,
I believe things are becoming much more clear for me now. It appears that your concern does not lie with the translation or even with the translators per se, but instead primarly with the footnotes. It is your perspective that the footnotes give weight to and or primacy to the CT (Critical text).
You may be correct in some places, but certainly not in the one that you suggest. If you go back and re-read what you quoted, the footnote simply communicates what the CT does with this section (that these verses "are bracketed in the NU-text as not in the original." [emphasis mine]) This format neither affirms or denies that this was a correct assessment by CT, instead it simply communicates what the CT claims. I have less problem with this sort of thing than I do with most reference Bibles that say things like: "the best texts" or "the oldest mss." These "weight" the change with value terms like "best" and "oldest" giving the impression that the footnote version is better than what is in the main body. I am not sure that you can say that about the footnote you quote above.
Now if you do not want any variants footnotes in your Bible to reduce confusion, I understand; but that is not consistent with the original KJV (1611) for it had many variant readings in the margins (although they are not communicated by categorizations like CT (Critical text)and M (Majority Text).
Frankly, these things do not bother me as much as the loss of information in doing away with the the Thee/Thou (singular second person pronoun) and You/Ye (clear plural second person pronoun). Biblical truth is lost in this shift–"you" (plural) is indistinguishable from "you" (singular) in the NKJV. I understand the reasoning (outdated language), but I do not like it!
For His glory,
Christian Markle
P.S. At this point with your concern being centered on the actual information in the footnotes, I will retract my ad homenim accusation. However, I do believe that some of your arguments above assume motives that are not as clear as you make them out to be.
Christian,
I recognize that you want to be as fair as possible to the other side and that is very big of you. But then there is the whole doctrine of preservation. Which is more important? We want to be fair, but I think it is obvious that they don't believe in the text behind the KJV. Some might think the text type is superior and since there is no true majority text, they prefer the KJV, but that's the extent of it. Many of them attack the KJV. I believe my point stands.
Lamblion,
I believe in the preservation of the Hebrew text, where lie jots and tittles. I haven't still received from you a list of changes in the Hebrew or Greek text. Do you have those? I would be glad to find out for sure what is going on in this without having to go Word by Word to compare.
For example, your Genesis 36:24, just as an example.
KJV Genesis 36:24 And these are the children of Zibeon; both Ajah, and Anah: this was that Anah that found the mules in the wilderness, as he fed the asses of Zibeon his father.
NKJ Genesis 36:24 These were the sons of Zibeon: both Ajah and Anah. This was the Anah who found the water in the wilderness as he pastured the donkeys of his father Zibeon.
The change of that one word is a concern to me. It is translated differently. I understand that. But was the text changed in the change from "mules" to "water." Answer: "no." It does change the meaning of the KJV and someone will have to determine whether that contradicts what he believes. Know this though, the meaning changes in the KJV between 1611 and 1769 through some of the changes that took place. The edition of the KJV that we use today has changed some words, more than the spelling. And you have to decide whether you believe that preservation is found in the English translation. If so, then you would want to keep the English letters the same between editions.
But regarding "mules" (KJV) and "water" (NKJV), they both come from the same Hebrew word. That might be hard for some to grasp, but it is true. It is a Hebrew word that occurs only one time in the Old Testament, and lexicons say that the meaning is "dubious." Some say that it is "hot springs" and others "mules." I recognize that the picture changes in the passage, but the Hebrew word doesn't change. Is that a big deal? I think it is important. But you have to ask this. When you study the text behind the KJV, do you get your interp from the Hebrew and Greek text or from the translation? What would we have a biblical basis for?
So Lamblion, I hate to put a burden of proof on you, but where do we have a list of the changes in the actual text behind the NKJ. I'm not saying we don't have that take place. I've been told we don't and no one has shown me one place where it changes.
For instance, in Hebrew 3:16, the CT and the TR are exactly the same. That was one of the examples you gave as well.
Hebrews 3:16 is a notable example. The Latin Vulgate/Critical text has the semicolon, which means a question mark, and thus corrupts the text and the truth. Jim Price tried to defend this, and in doing so admitted that they followed the Latin Vulgate/Critical text here.
Jude 1:19, the LV/C text omits eautou ("themselves"), as does the NKJV.
Acts 19:39, the the NKJV follows the LV/C text in "peraiterw" instead of "peri eterwn", subtle but different.
Acts 19:9, the NKJV follows the LV/C text in omitting "tinos"
Acts 17:14, the NKJV omits "as it were" ("ws" in the Greek) and thus once again follows the LV/C text.
Acts 15:23, the NKJV follows the LV/C text in omitting "tade", or "after this manner".
Acts 10:7 the NKJV follows the LV/C text in omitting "unto Cornelius" in the first clause.
Those are just a few examples out of a plethora of examples, all taken only from the book of Acts, with the exception in Hebrew 3:16 noted.
There are others who have compiled more extensive lists. A simple Google search should turn up a number of them.
However, the gross blunder in Hebrews 3:16 is enough to ruin the entire endeavor for anyone who considers God's written Word to be inerrant.
The NKJV translators, just like modern "bible" translators, were so ignorant that they didn't even know that Joshua and Caleb made it into the Promised Land.
Ad nauseam.
Lamblion,
I appreciate this work. I do. Is there someplace where every one of these differences are listed?
I looked at just one, Jude 1:19, and for now that's good enough for me. They did leave out that one word in the NKJV.
Christian, you should take this into consideration. Lamblion is correct. He's the first person that I've talked to that has shown me this work.
Lamblion, Could you do me a favor? Could you direct me to someplace that lists all of these, the changes in the text behind the NKJV?
I've had men tell me that they used the same text and it is OBVIOUS that they didn't. I had not taken the time to search it out myself, but I had men tell me that it was the same text. I couldn't prove them otherwise. I hadn't really tried. I knew I wasn't going to use the NKJV, but this settles it as far as I'm concerned.
Quote by Christian:
"You may be correct in some places, but certainly not in the one that you suggest. If you go back and re-read what you quoted, the footnote simply communicates what the CT does with this section (that these verses "are bracketed in the NU-text as not in the original." [emphasis mine]) This format neither affirms or denies that this was a correct assessment by CT, instead it simply communicates what the CT claims. I have less problem with this sort of thing than I do with most reference Bibles that say things like: "the best texts" or "the oldest mss." These "weight" the change with value terms like "best" and "oldest" giving the impression that the footnote version is better than what is in the main body. I am not sure that you can say that about the footnote you quote above."
Actually, the Preface to the NKJV clearly teaches that these notes are accurate and present the readings of the underlying texts. I am not at home so do not have my copy handy – but the impression the reader is left with (and by design) is that they need to consider the readings in the margins.
Quote from Kent:
"Christian, you should take this into consideration. Lamblion is correct. He's the first person that I've talked to that has shown me this work."
I am looking closely at this starting with Jude 1:19. I think we have something similar to what you said about Genesis 36:24. I believe you are referring to the difference between "they who separate themselves" (KJV) and "who cause divisions" (NKJV). Is this phrase you are concerned with? If so this is not a indicative of a textual difference it is (TR and WH are identical–my TR does not have eautou. The Strongs number next to the word apparently is not a reliable means of determining a difference.); this is a translation difference. I have given it a cursory look in the Greek and there does not seem to be any obvious mishandling (both seem to be valid translations).
Quote from Jerry Bouey
"Actually, the Preface to the NKJV clearly teaches that these notes are accurate and present the readings of the underlying texts. I am not at home so do not have my copy handy – but the impression the reader is left with (and by design) is that they need to consider the readings in the margins."
I would be interested in a precise quote when you are able to get your hands on a copy. I have a copy myself and have recently skimmed it…I will look closer, but my "charitable" impression was that they gave a summary of the 3 views so one would understand what the differences in the footnotes meant.
I would expect that the footnotes would be accurate communication of what the CT says where CT is indicated along with an accurate communication of what M says where M is indicated. Otherwise they would be being dishonest — I would be interested in any evidence of this sort of deceit. This would be very disturbing! However, at this point I am content that they are being honest when they communicate what the CT does with a certain passage as well as what M does. This is what is happening in Mark 16.
lamblion: Thank you for the lists I will look one by one through them seeking to determine if there is any deviance from any Received Text.
For His glory,
Christian Markle
Christian,
I'm guessing that you are looking at Greene's interlinear, which is based on Stephanus. I'm looking at Scrivener's/Beza, which has eautou. Do you have Scrivener's/Beza. If you have Scrivener's Annotated, you will have Beza. Stephanus does not included eautou either, so the NKJV follows Stephanus, or it is following the Robinson/Pierpoint "Majority" text.
It is NOT a "new" King James Version.
All of the examples I gave are TEXTUAL examples. It helps, of course, if one knows Greek, otherwise he won't understand this simple truth, which is easily observed by anyone who knows Greek.
For example, the semicolon at the end of Hebrews 3:16 is ABSOLUTELY SIGNIFICANT in that it rerpresents a QUESTION MARK, which is the difference between it and the Textus Receptus, and which corrupts the Latin Vulgate/Critical text, and making it's translators a laughing-stock to the world.
I don't have a comprehensive list, as many of us have noted these examples over the years. I wish I had saved each and every one into a database.
This all began when James Price, the head of the NKJ Committee, asserted that the NKJ followed the Textus Receptus completely and he chanllenged me to refute that, which I quickly did in short order.
It is because of ME that he quit making this absurd claim.
I could find scores of examples if pressed. Take, for example, Matthew 27:34.
The NKJV follows the LV/C text in adhering to "oinon" instead of the TR "oxoj", i.e., "wine" instead of "vinegar"
And "sour wine" is not the same as "vinegar", by the way.
In Luke 1:35 the NKJ makes another great blunder by following the LV/C text by omitting "ek sou", i.e., "of thee" in the phrase — "which shall be born OF THEE shall be called the Son of God"
As I said, the numbers are legion. In addition to the textual errors, there are GROSS translational blunders, such as Philippians 2:6.
For a discussion this passage, see my article "Indictment Of Ignorance" which can be found here —
http://lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/indictment_of_ignorance.htm
In short, the translators behind the NKJ were deceitful in their Preface, dishonest in their presentation of the evidence, and incompetent in their work.
"And there is a Bible, the Defined King James Version, that gives the meaning of the more archaic words down below in the footnotes."
If this doesn't tell you it's time for a modern language TR (if you insist) translation, I don't know what will.
And I do know of a witnessing situation (it was relayed to me by the witnesser) in which, when the unsaved individual was read "thou shalt be saved" he wanted to know who shouted.
We don't need the layer (however thick or thin) of comprehension problems created by archaic language.
Quote from Kent:
"I'm guessing that you are looking at Greene's interlinear, which is based on Stephanus. I'm looking at Scrivener's/Beza, which has eautou. Do you have Scrivener's/Beza. If you have Scrivener's Annotated, you will have Beza."
Brother Brandenburg,
You are partially correct. I was using Stephanus (1550) Now, I am sure you know the history of these different "versions" of the TR. Are you really pitting the work of Scrivener (1894) against Stephanus (1550). After reviewing the history and purpose of these two works, I am left unconcerned about the choices of the NKJV translators. What I am surprised at is that one would accuse the translators of adhering to the CT in this passage when the TR of 1550 (note this is before the dubious discoveries of the 1800's) actually is in agreement with their translation.
It seems that you have admitted that the NKJV did in fact follow the TR, but that there are different readings in the TR. And they (NKJV translators) did not follow the same TR that you wish them to have followed. That really begs for some explanation or retraction, doesn't it? Again, the nature of Scrivener's work really makes the whole accusation dubious (and circular).
Now, I have seen some disturbing things in the translation of the NKJV in the passages in Acts that lamblion offered, but I am still working on these. If they are as they seem (ie. evidence of a failure to follow the TR) then I will be much more inclined to add these to my concern about the removal of the second person plural pronouns (thee's and thou's).
For His Glory,
Christian Markle
1 Thessalonians 5:21
RE: Brother Bouey's claims about the Preface of the NKJV
I found a word-for-word quote of the preface on line here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/nkjv.html (it starts about 1/3 of the way down the page)
The following is I believe the appropriate quote: "In light of these facts, and also because the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the footnotes. Although these variations are duly indicated in the footnotes of the present edition, it is most important to emphasize that fully eighty-five percent of the New Testament text is the same in the Textus Receptus, the Alexandrian Text, and the Majority Text.
New King James Footnotes
Significant explanatory notes, alternate translations, and cross-references, as well as New Testament citations of Old Testament passages, are supplied in the footnotes.
Important textual variants in the Old Testament are identified in a standard form.
The textual notes in the present edition of the New Testament make no evaluation of readings, but do clearly indicate the manuscript sources of readings. They objectively present the facts without such tendentious remarks as "the best manuscripts omit" or "the most reliable manuscripts read." Such notes are value judgments that differ according to varying viewpoints on the text. By giving a clearly defined set of variants the New King James Version benefits readers of all textual persuasions.
Where significant variations occur in the New Testament Greek manuscripts, textual notes are classified as follows:
1. NU-Text. These variations from the traditional text generally represent the Alexandrian or Egyptian type of text described previously in "The New Testament Text." They are found in the Critical Text published in the twenty-sixth edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (N) and in the United Bible Societies’ third edition (U), hence the acronym, "NU-Text."
2. M-Text. This symbol indicates points of variation in the Majority Text from the traditional text, as also previously discussed in "The New Testament Text." It should be noted that M stands for whatever reading is printed in the published Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, whether supported by overwhelming, strong, or only a divided majority textual tradition.
The textual notes reflect the scholarship of the past 150 years and will assist the reader to observe the variations between the different manuscript traditions of the New Testament. Such information is generally not available in English translations of the New Testament."
Note of interest: My NKJV Open Bible does not include the section titled "New King James Footnotes". The preface stops after the first paragraph quoted above.
For His glory,
Christian Markle
Also, the way I understood the introductory notes in my copy of the NKJV, the translation is from the largely faithful to the TR, but diverges at times based on comparisons to other manuscripts.
I didn't think this was a secret.
D4V34X said:
"If this doesn't tell you it's time for a modern language TR (if you insist) translation, I don't know what will."
Where is that modern translation you have in mind? Even the NKJV (plus various other modern translations) has words in it that need to be explained because they are not in common use.
how is this in anyway bringing honor and glory to the Holy God of the universe?
1 Tim. 1:3&4; 2 Tim. 2:14&15
"Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author."
how interesting… i wonder why that is?
What's interesting, anonymous, and is that you don't have the courage to identify yourself. See, we included your comment. I don't think you understand edification or what the whole point of endless genealogies is in the references you cited. People are edified by the truth and this is the truth about the KJV.
Anonimity is what you make of it on the Internet. For all I know your name could be hank or bob. Anyway, for all you "Christians" that want to stay in your holy huddle and debate the finer points of the retarded kjv issue or any of a number of issues that are either preference issues or they can not be answered with the information that we have available or can not be answered because God does not want them answered. Yet "we" debate those very issues and cause division among ourselves. All the while we put the shroud of "edification" on it. But to what end? Who gets the glory?
Any way, i told myself that I was not going to respond to he arguments that I read on here, let's just say it does not edify me at all.
My thought on this is, hey let's quit arguing about which bible you should read and start living the life Christ intended us to live. "by this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."
Don't worry, Timothy, your post wasn't edifying either. Seems to me the one causing division here is the one with no specific Bible to stand on. All the KJVonly guys here are all in agreement with each other.
P.S. How do you know how Christ wants us all to live when all our Bibles don't agree with each other? Perhaps what you think we should do differs with what we think we should do – because our Bibles are not saying the same things…
I asked the question in the Elisabethan English section earlier, and received a fairly good answer, about the text underlying Jude 1 in the NKJ — I believe that here is the proper place to expand upon the answer given.
The brother who answered said that the footnotes of Jude 1 state that the word "Sanctification" has a variant to "beloved" in the 500 + versions which the Gnostic texts underlie (Including the JW "Bible"). It would seem then that the NKJ is desirous of promoting the existentialist philosophy that God has not truly preserved His Word. The Existentialist maintains that there are no absolutes, but we must live for the present – hence we see sin: a direct result of existentialism, for the one who commits a sin does it for the pleasure of it for a season, not realising that sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. If it states that there are variants, it assumes that a variant is also true. However, the text which underlies any translation is an absolute matter. To change even a letter of what God says casts doubt upon the whole. In the rule of English law, sentence is passed only if there is no reasonable doubt.
I concur with Jerry in his postscript. Satan's first plan of attack with regards to getting men away from God's Word was to destroy the copies – hence emperors and popes ordered the burning of all Bibles wherever they may be found. When that proved ineffective, he changed tactics to "confusion." The idea being that if we do not know which is the "real Bible" we will not follow any of them. How well this worked we can see just by looking at the state of the church. According to the law of non-contradiction, two opposite beliefs cannot both be right: If I told you that I was born in the UK, and my brother said I was born in the US, one of us would be wrong.
Continued in next post
Continued from above:
The belief of seeking after multiple versions of the Bible is that men need a Bible in their culture-dictated vernacular: in our time, a slob-culture dictated one. If this were truth, our Bibles would (by today's slob-culture standard) be filled with off-colour statements and fluent cursing. The question I ask of those who say the NKJ is necessary is, "Why debase your Bible, when we ought to live up to its standard, even in our speech?" Also, with 500+ versions in English already in circulation, how many more must we have ere we achieve one that is truly in the modern language? What we ought to do, instead of debasing the Bible to our post-modern low culture is to raise ourselves to the level of the Bible. Unless English-speaking Fundamentalism concurs as to which is truly the Word of God, we can have no true agreement on any matter, for there is doubt as to the very source of every one of our beliefs.
If and since the NKJ diverges into a Gnostic text from time-to-time, it should be dismissed, since according to law, one false statement in a sworn testimony nullifies the rest (if there is one error in the TR, why not two, or two thousand?). How would we know that it is not altogether useless?
The KJV, like the Bishop's, Geneva, Coverdale, and Tyndale translations are all based upon a text that was not corrupted by heretics. As a "for-instance" Polycarp (a disciple of John) and Clement of Rome (a disciple of Paul) quote the Scriptures frequently, and in every place where the TR and the CT (produced by the Gnostic Clement of Alexandria) disagree: Polycarp and Clement favour the TR, while heretics such as Cerinthus, Marcion (whom Polycarp called the firstborn of Satan), and Arius all used the CT. In conclusion, ultimately, attacking the Word of God is attacking our Lord Jesus Christ — that is why the only people to do so were Gnostics who said He was either a visible phantom or a man upon whom the Christ came and went contrary to the words of John "Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is that spirit of antichrist." It should be noted that the CT removes this verse because it demolishes the Gnostic heresies.
The important questions are; are you born again? Are you filled with the Spirit? Are you abiding in Christ? Christ is not limited to what Bible version you use but to what extent He lives His life in and through you. Attacking Billy Graham, Charismatics, the NIV or the NKJV doesn't prove your spirituality any more than using and defending the KJV does.
I apologize if I am bumping an old discussion; I'm not familiar with blogging. But, I found this in a Google search and wanted to respond in general to some of the comments herein.
I am in the market for a new bible, and have been trying to figure out which version I'd like to buy. In the past I always used a KJV, but in recent years have been using a NKJV. I owned an ESV for a day, but took it back after reading it for a while.
I have read convincing arguments both for and against a KJV-Only point of view, and this is what I've concluded:
It is true that certain bibles, both in translation and in original text, omit/change words that are found in the KJV or TR. However, I have not yet read a version of the Bible that does not tell me that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life and that noone goeth unto the Father but by Him. I have read a Bible version that doesn't say that God so loved the world that he sent his only Son, begotten or otherwise, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Do any of the versions change where Jesus tells us "I AM"? Do any of them leave doubt as to whether Jesus is the Word that was present in the beginning, through whom all things are created? That the Word is God?
My point is simply this: No Bible is perfect, not even the KJV, but all of the Bibles I've read say that Jesus Christ is God, that He died on the cross as a sacrifice for our sins and ressurected Himself. All of these Bibles teach that Jesus is the only way to the Father, don't they? If I'm wrong, sorry, but that's what I've seen.
I even read a website last night that listed all the OT quotes Jesus used in the KJV and then showed the actual KJV verses from where the quotes were taken. Guess what? There were differences between what Jesus said and the quotes in the KJV, so we know that even Jesus is not a KJV-Only adherent… here is the link to that if any of you are interested.
http://www.kjv-only.com/jesusnotkjvonly.html
I have KJV Bibles and NKJV Bibles, and a Strongest Strong's Concordance. I have a small(really small) library of Christian literature, study aids, apologetics stuff, etc. So, even if there is a word that is incorrect in the NKJV, or in an NIV or ESV, I still have a KJV to compare with. And if a KJV word leaves me confused, I can consult other versions or the Hebrew/Greek word/definition to help clarify.
The idea that reading one version over another will leave us without the knowledge necessary for salvation, or for a relationship with Jesus Christ is absurd, especially today when there are so many different resources.
It makes me sad to see so many Christians caught up in these arguments about which version of the Bible is best, which demonination is best, which pastors are best, which doctrine is best, etc. Christians can disagree with each other on issues and still love each other. The important thing is that the core doctrines are agreed upon. Jesus' divinity, the Trinity, Christ's death for our salvation and the following resurrection, etc.
Also, I used to get turned off to a pastor or church the first time I heard something said that didn't mesh with what I believed. I figured, how can someone who has the annointing of the Holy Spirit have a different opinion from what I've learned? But now I realize that we don't all have to agree on everything to agree that Jesus Christ is LORD, and that we are saved by grace through faith in Him, and that one day we will be caught up to meet Him in the clouds and that we will be with Him forever.
Sorry for the length.
from the KJV on footnotes, try to keep up kids, cause if you do, this'll blow your mind:
Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point. For though, whatsoever things are necessary are manifest, as S. Chrysostom saith, and as S. Augustine, In those things that are plainly set down in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concern Faith, Hope, and Charity. Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from loathing of them for their every-where plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God’s spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve, to resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est dubitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis, it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain. There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. We know that Sixtus Quintus expressly forbiddeth, that any variety of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margin, (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we think he hath not all of his own side his favorers, for this conceit. They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other. If they were sure that their high Priest had all laws shut up in his breast, as Paul the Second bragged, and that he were as free from error by special privilege, as the Dictators of Rome were made by law inviolable, it were another matter; then his word were an Oracle, his opinion a decision. But the eyes of the world are now open, God be thanked, and have been a great while, they find that he is subject to the same affections and infirmities that others be, that his skin is penetrable, and therefore so much as he proveth, not as much as he claimeth, they grant and embrace.
Recently I have been discussing the KJV issue with a person who has come under the influence of David Cloud. I have noticed that rather than this topic being discussed reasonably, there is very much emotion driving this topic. My feeling is that this is much more than an underlying textual issue. There is an emotional bond to the very words that we find in our current edition of the KJV. Obviously the KJV is an English translation. Looking up the statistics will reveal that Manderin is the most spoken language in the world. Would anyone object to updating the Manderin version of the Bible, whatever it it? My point is that there seems to be a very localized set of translation rules which KJV adherents are using, that they wouldn't think of applying to other languages. Don't get me wrong, I use the KJV, but not exclusively. No English speaking person on Earth used the KJV before 1611, and since that time, the KJV language had changed so much that most of us wouldn't have an easy time reading the original KJV. Would anyone actually use that original version while out witnessing, or to preach out of, of course not! Would a good translator use archaic words, no matter what language he was translating into? I hope not. Yes the "ye and you" tell us something about the grammar, but on the other hand there are eight Hebrew words translated as "wine", and shouldn't that be addressed? My point is that every generation (and language group, even including English speakers) has the right to have the Bible translated into their own language, which in my view, ought to exclude archaic words. What's the result of all this? New translations of course. Rather than fearing a new translation, we ought to embrace it if it is faithful to the original. And please don't tell me that the KJV is the only faithful translation, because in the same breath you are saying that no one had the Bible before 1611. I'll try to answer comments as time allows.
Apparently the NKJV uses the 1550 Stephanus T.R. as opposed to the KJB predominantly using Beza's 1598 TR
How much does this account for the differences in the translation between the two?
If God had wanted us to rely on an infallible Word, then:
(1) Why did He not see fit to allow a single original manuscript to survive?
(2) Why didn't Jesus write the entire New Testament in His own hand?
I'm caught breaking the law. If the Government had truly expected me to follow the law, then:
1. Why did they not preserve the original document wherein the law was first written and arrange for me to view the original prior to me breaking it?
2. Why wasn't the law prominently displayed throughout the land on billboards, on the radio and TV such that I couldn't help but read it?
Clearly, the Commonwealth of Australia has not met the standard I demand from it before I deign to start obeying the law, therefore I am not obligated to follow it. My hearing is tomorrow. Reckon the judge will buy it?