KJV-only double standards concerning NKJV

In another thread, one poster presented links to a series of articles by a KJV-only advocate Will Kinney. Those articles are not actually reliable, and they misrepresent the NKJV.

The differences seen between the KJV and the NKJV could all be considered translational when the same standards are applied to both as would be applied to the differences between the KJV and the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision.

It seems that KJV-only authors and advocates forget all they say or write about the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV when it comes to comparing the KJV and the NKJV. If they applied the same principles or standards that they would have to use in dealing with the differences between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV to the differences between the KJV and the NKJV, they would have to reach far different conclusions than their typical misrepresentations of the NKJV.

William Bradley, a KJV-only author, wrote: “The translators changed virtually nothing from William Tyndale’s New Testament in the New Testament of the Geneva Bible” (Purified Seven Times, p. 87). Mickey Carter noted that the Geneva “differs from the King James Version only in differing English renderings of the same Greek texts” (Things That Are Different, p. 48). Carter acknowledged that "the Geneva Bible was hated by the Catholic Church" (Ibid.). Carter maintained that the Geneva Bible “came from the same source” as the KJV and that it is “trustworthy” (p. 121). Carter indicated that “there were no doctrinal differences” between the Geneva and the KJV (p. 125). Carter asserted that the Geneva Bible “is from the same manuscripts as the King James” (Revival Fires, Sept., 1996, p. 17). Chester Murray, another KJV-only advocate, claimed: "There is not one difference suggested in the Geneva and the KJ Bible" (Authorized KJB Defended, p. 160). Gail Riplinger maintained that the earlier English Bibles such as Tyndale's and the Geneva are "practically identical to the KJV" (Language of the KJB, p. 5). Riplinger also wrote: “The Geneva text is almost identical to the KJV” (In Awe of thy Word, p. 566). Riplinger asserted that “generally speaking, the early English Bibles are the same” (p. 130). Riplinger indicated that those previous early English Bibles “were no less perfect, pure, and true than the KJB” (Hidden History of the English Scriptures, p. 59). Riplinger stated that the Geneva “follows the traditional text that underlies the King James Version” (Which Bible, p. 51). Riplinger described the English translation in the 1599 Nuremberg Polyglot which was the Geneva Bible as “pure” and as “the Bible before the KJV of 1611” (In Awe of Thy Word, pp. 41, 1048, 1052-1108). H. D. Williams identified the Geneva Bible as being “based on the Received Texts of the original languages of the Bible” (Word-for-Word Translating, p. 238). D. A. Waite maintained that “the Geneva Bible (1557-60) used the Received Text” (Defending the KJB, p. 48). David Cloud suggested that the earlier English versions such as the Geneva Bible “differed only slightly from the King James Bible” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 92). Cloud stated that the predecessors of the KJV were "the same basic Bibles." He wrote: "They were based upon the same Greek text and employed the same type of translation methodology" (For Love of the Bible, p. 48). David Loughran, a KJV-only author, wrote: “The Geneva Bible is a true ‘version’ having been translated from the original Hebrew and Greek throughout” (Bible Versions, p. 11). In his book edited by D. A. Waite, H. D. Williams listed the Geneva Bible as a “literal, verbal plenary translation” (Word-for-Word, p. 121). Robert Sargent referred to it as “a very good translation” (English Bible, p. 197). Peter Ruckman included the Geneva Bible on his good tree that is described at the bottom of the page as “the one, true, infallible, God-breathed Bible” (Bible Babel, p. 82). Ruckman wrote: “I recommend … the Geneva Bible” (Scholarship Only Controversy, p. 1). Ruckman asserted that “we will not condemn them” [referring to pre-1611 English Bibles including the Geneva Bible] (Bible Babel, p. 2). Ruckman described the Geneva Bible as “a revision of Tyndale” and “the most anti-Catholic translation to date” (Biblical Scholarship, pp. 158, 157). David Cloud referred to the Geneva Bible as "an edition of the Tyndale" and the KJV as "another edition of Tyndale" (Rome and the Bible, p. 106; Faith, p. 510; Glorious History of the KJB, p. 102). Cloud also referred to the KJV as “a revision of the Tyndale Bible” (Faith, p. 577). He also noted: "Our Authorized English Bible is a direct descendant of Tyndale's faithful Version" (O Timothy, Vol. 14, Issue 5, 1997, p. 10). Robert Sargent referred to the Geneva Bible as the "third revision of Tyndale's Bible" and to the Bishops' Bible as the "fourth revision of Tyndale's Bible" (English Bible, pp. 197, 198).

 

Yes, I am.

As I do additional study and research, I may add new information or quotations that I find and may make other changes to my previous writing. I will make corrections when needed, will attempt to make improvements or make points clearer or stronger, etc.

 

In another thread, franklinmonroe stated

"We find the NKJV being accused of departing from the TR when in fact the KJV has engaged the same translational practices."

That is basically the same type point that I made in the opening post of this thread.

The differences seen between the KJV and the NKJV could all be considered translational when the same standards are applied to both as would be applied to the differences between the KJV and the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision.

I do not find that KJV-only advocates who make accusations against the NKJV clearly state any consistent principles or standards concerning the original language texts and concerning translating them that they apply consistently both to the KJV and the NKJV.

If they claim that the NKJV does not have a literal word-for-word rendering of the original language words in a verse, they will not apply that same principle or standard to all renderings in the KJV. If by any stretch of the imagination they can claim that a KJV rendering is somehow possible even though it is not a literal rendering, they will claim that it cannot be considered an error, but they apply a different standard to the NKJV.

They will accuse the NKJV of being based on a different text because it uses some renderings that were also used in English translations of the Critical Text, but they skip over the fact that the KJV actually borrowed some renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament based on the Latin Vulgate. They would not accuse the KJV's NT of not being based on editions of the Textus Receptus because it borrowed Latin Vulgate-based renderings from the 1582 Rheims. Such inconsistencies would suggest the use of double standards.

 

There are a very few actual textual differences between the 1560 Geneva Bible and the KJV, and those would be far greater than any supposed textual differences that KJV-only advocates imagine or assume that they see between the KJV and the NKJV.

For one big example, the 1560 Geneva Bible did not have a whole verse that is found in the KJV [Luke 17:36].

The actual differences between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV could be properly considered greater than those between the KJV and the NKJV.

 

The actual differences between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV could be properly considered greater than those between the KJV and the NKJV.

Yes, KJV-only advocates include the pre-1611 English Bibles on their good tree of Bibles or good or pure stream of Bibles, but they inconsistently attempt to exclude the NKJV.

Some KJV-only advocates will even include the textually different old Wycliffe's Bible from the Latin Vulgate on their good tree of Bible or good stream of Bibles as they exclude the NKJV.